Archive for January 19, 2018

Time to Kick Turkey Out of NATO?

January 19, 2018

Michael J. Totten January 19, 2018 World Affairs

Source: Time to Kick Turkey Out of NATO?

{That would be like a huge multi-national corporation kicking out a major subsidiary. Not going to happen. – LS}

The case for evicting Turkey from NATO got stronger this week.

First, the United States announced the backing of a Kurdish security force—the People’s Protection Units, or YPG—in Rojava, the quasi-independent Kurdish region in northeastern Syria along the Turkish border. Then Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he will “strangle” that American-backed force “before it’s even born.” Russia, Iran and Syria’s Assad regime are standing with Erdogan.

The YPG, along with the multiethnic Syrian Democratic Forces which the YPG dominates, are the only armed groups indigenous to Syria that are willing and able to take on ISIS and win, and they’re the only significant armed faction in Syria’s dizzying civil war that isn’t ideologically hostile to the West. In October of last year, they finally liberated Raqqa, the “capital” of the ISIS “caliphate,” while the Russian and Syrian militaries were busy pounding rebels instead in the west.

The Turks would rather have the Assad regime—and by extension Russia, Iran and Hezbollah—rule over the Syrian Kurds whom they consider terrorists. The United States is “building an army of terror” along the southern border, Erdogan says. “Either you take off your flags on those terrorist organisations, or we will have to hand those flags over to you, Don’t force us to bury in the ground those who are with terrorists…Our operations will continue until not a single terrorist remains along our borders, let alone 30,000 of them.”

This is not how a NATO ally behaves. It’s how an enemy state behaves. There is truly no getting around this. We can argue all we want—and I have—that keeping Turkey in NATO is better than kicking Turkey out of NATO because it’s better to deal with a troublesome country inside an ostensibly friendly framework than outside one.

There are limits, though, even if those limits aren’t clearly defined. A direct Turkish attack against the United States would clearly be over the line whether a line is defined or not, as would a direct attack against another NATO member state. Attacking a non-NATO ally is more ambiguous, especially when the non-NATO ally in question isn’t even a state. (It’s not like Turkey is threatening to attack Israel, Japan or Morocco.)

None of this could have been foreseen when NATO was founded in 1949 or when Turkey was admitted in 1952. NATO was founded as a united Western front against the Soviet Union, which occupied or indirectly controlled half of Europe, including a third of Germany. Iran’s Islamic Republic, the Syrian Baath Party regime, armed Kurdish separatist movements, ISIS—none of these even existed then, and only the Kurdish movements could even have been imagined.

The world has dramatically changed, as has NATO. In 1952, Turkey was a crucial member in good standing while Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. In 2018, Estonia is a member in good standing while Turkey is behaving as a belligerent. No one should be surprised that alliances have shifted after seven decades. Alliances always shift over time. Enemies become friends and vice versa. Not even Britain has been a constant friend of the United States, and not even Russia has been a constant enemy.

Changes like these happen slowly, and the West is having a hard time processing the fact that Turkey is increasingly hostile, though it has been for some time now. It started when Ankara denied the use of its territory, including Incirlik Air Base, during the war against Saddam Hussein, mostly because Turkey didn’t want Iraqi Kurdistan to become an economic and military powerhouse. Later, Erdogan helped Iran transfer weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and implicitly sided with ISIS in Syria because he didn’t want an independent Kurdish region to rise up in Syria as it had in Iraq. More recently, he has taken American citizens hostage and purchased a missile system from the Kremlin. And how he’s threatening to destroy the only competent Western-friendly militia in all of Syria.

Last August, as Erdogan visited his “dear friend” Vladimir Putin in Moscow, NATO issued a telling statement. “Turkey is a valued ally, making substantial contributions to NATO’s joint efforts… Turkey’s NATO membership is not in question.”

Stop right there. Of course Turkey’s NATO membership is in question. Otherwise, why bother denying it? NATO isn’t denying that the United Kingdom or Canada doesn’t belong in NATO any longer. NATO is only denying that Turkey’s membership is in question, which is another way of saying it is. Anyway, you can type “Turkey out of NATO” into Google and spend a year wading through the results.

The statement continues: “Our Alliance is committed to collective defence and founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, human rights and the rule of law.” Indeed, the alliance was founded on all of those principles, none of which increasingly authoritarian Turkey adheres to any longer.

If Turkey were not in NATO, it would not be admitted. It’s grandfathered in at this point.

It’s much easier to say no to an aspiring member that doesn’t belong than to evict a longstanding member who no longer belongs, especially when there’s no clear criteria for banishment. It’s about time, then, for NATO to have a serious discussion about what the criteria for banishment is. That alone might improve Turkey’s behavior. If it doesn’t, we’ll have other options.

Turkey declares de facto war on Syrian Kurds. Russian troops move out of Afrin

January 19, 2018

Turkey declares de facto war on Syrian Kurds. Russian troops move out of Afrin, DEBKAfile, January 19, 2018

ISIS and Syrian rebel groups may well take advantage of a major Turkish-Kurdish clash to recover territory which they lost to Kurdish fighters in northern and eastern Syria. It is hard to see the United States letting that happen.

**********************************

Turkish artillery shelling Friday, Jan. 19 kicked off a major offensive against the Kurdish Afrin enclave of N. Syria, shortly after Turkish C-of-S and intelligence chief left Moscow. No statement followed the visit as to whether Gen. Hulusi Akar had succeeded in his mission of winning Moscow’s cooperation. What happened next was word that the Russian troops positioned in Afrin were to be moved out of the targeted region for safety.

Three days earlier, on Jan. 16, Gen. Akar, who leads one of NATO’s largest armies, visited Brussels and asked the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford, not to counter the planned Turkish invasion for “clearing YPG [Kurdish militia] fighters from Afrin.” But he was cautioned by the American general against going forward with this offensive. In Ankara, President Tayyip Erdogan shot back by informing parliament in Ankara that the Turkish military operation against the Kurds of Afrin was “imminent.” For Erdogan, relations with Washington, which supports the Syrian Kurds, had reached breaking point.

Moscow’s decision to move the Russian contingent at the airport of Afrin out of the way of crossfire, 10 months after its deployment there, was a sign that the Kremlin is taking seriously Erdogan’s threat to crush the Kurds of Afrin. The Turkish ruler has stepped up his anti-Kurd rhetoric even more since US plans were revealed for creating a 30,000-strong border army, predominantly made up of Kurdish militias, in northern Syria. The Kurdish YPG has meanwhile warned the Turks and the Syrian rebel force they support: “If they dare to attack, we are ready to bury them one by one in Afrin.”

But Turkish Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli left no room for doubt that the die has been cast, when he said Friday in Ankara: “The assault has begun, the operation has actually started de facto with cross-border shelling. I don’t want it to be misunderstood. All terror networks and elements in northern Syria will be eliminated.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the Turkish army must overcome four obstacles before its tanks and troops can roll across the border into Afrin.

  1. The US forces based in northern Syria. The Trump administration did not immediately respond to the Turkish shelling and threats, but the American outpost in Manbij is no more than 120km from Afrin. Erdogan has included Manbij in his threat to capture Afrin. On Jan. 16, our sources reported that the US had supplied the YPG for the first time with portable anti-air missiles to defend themselves in the event of potential Turkish air strikes. But at this early stage, the Kurds are believed capable of standing up to the Turkish offensive.
  2. Syria has warned Turkey against an incursion of its territory would be deemed an act of aggression and threatened its air defenses would shoot down Turkish jets overflying Syria. Our military sources note that, in any case, Russia controls the airspace over Afrin, a fact that may well deter Ankara from using its air force.
  3. An ingathering of all the Kurdish forces from their northern Syrian bastions in the defense of the YPG, would confront the Turkish army with between 20,000 and 30,000 trained Kurdish fighters well-armed with American weapons, whose motivation for defending their land would be more powerful than any invading force. In past engagements with the Islamic State, the Turkish army’s performance was middling.
  4. ISIS and Syrian rebel groups may well take advantage of a major Turkish-Kurdish clash to recover territory which they lost to Kurdish fighters in northern and eastern Syria. It is hard to see the United States letting that happen.

Inside Judicial Watch: The Truth Behind Fusion GPS & The Trump Dossier

January 19, 2018

Inside Judicial Watch: The Truth Behind Fusion GPS & The Trump Dossier via YouTube,  January 18, 2018

According to the blurb beneath the video,

In this compelling episode of “Inside Judicial Watch,” host Jerry Dunleavy joins JW Senior Investigator Bill Marshall to discuss Fusion GPS, how the infamous Trump dossier was produced, who paid for it, and how it may have led to the surveillance of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his inner-circle. Prior to joining Judicial Watch, Bill Marshall worked in the private sector conducting corporate investigations and opposition research for various entities, similar to the kind of work carried out by Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS. You WON’T want to miss out on Bill’s compelling insight into the world of opposition research, Fusion GPS, and the Trump dossier.

DOJ Backs Christian Students in School Choice Case

January 19, 2018

DOJ Backs Christian Students in School Choice Case, Washington Free Beacon, January 19, 2018

(Please see also, New HHS civil rights division charged with protecting health-care workers with moral objections. It appears that the Trump administration values religious freedom to a substantially greater degree than did its predecessor.– DM)

Getty Images

“The Constitution prohibits states from discriminating based on religion,” said Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand. “Today’s amicus brief is further proof that this administration will lead by example on religious liberty.”

The Department’s brief is an extension of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s religious liberty priorities, specifically guidance extended by the Department in October on federal religious liberty protections. That guidance  stipulated that state governments may not “deny religious schools—including schools whose curricula and activities include religious elements—the right to participate in a voucher program, so long as the aid reaches the schools through independent decisions of parents.”

*******************************

The Department of Justice filed an amicus brief Thursday in support of students claiming they were discriminated against after the state of Montana denied them placement in a tax credit scholarship program because the school they attended was a Christian one.

The case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, concerns a the Montana Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which allows Montanans to deduct up to $150 of their contribution to a privately run scholarship program. The state department of revenue prompted the suit when it added a rule prohibiting tax credits for contributions to schools owned or operated by “a church, religious sect, or denomination.”

A group of parents brought suit on behalf of their children in December 2015 after they were denied participation in the scholarship program because their children attended a Christian-run school. The suit made it to a state trial court, which sided with the parents; the state then appealed to the Supreme Court of Montana, where DOJ lodged its Thursday amicus.

The Department’s brief argues that the state violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on government interference in the free exercise of religion by denying the religious students access to the scholarship fund.

“By targeting religious conduct for distinctive, and disadvantageous, treatment, Defendants violate the Free Exercise Clause unless they can show that the discriminatory treatment is supported by interests ‘of the highest order’ and narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Defendants have made no such showing here,” the brief reads.

The DOJ contends in its brief that simply extending the scholarship fund to all students, including religious ones, would not run afoul of the Constitution, a position Montana had not explicitly disagreed with. The Department then applies the Supreme Court of the United States’ reasoning in last year’s Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, in which the Court found that denying a church daycare access to state grant money was “odious to our Constitution.”

“The Constitution prohibits states from discriminating based on religion,” said Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand. “Today’s amicus brief is further proof that this administration will lead by example on religious liberty.”

The Department’s brief is an extension of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s religious liberty priorities, specifically guidance extended by the Department in October on federal religious liberty protections. That guidance  stipulated that state governments may not “deny religious schools—including schools whose curricula and activities include religious elements—the right to participate in a voucher program, so long as the aid reaches the schools through independent decisions of parents.”

European leaders, facing growing public unease, toughen up on immigration

January 19, 2018

European leaders, facing growing public unease, toughen up on immigration, Fox News,  Adam Shaw, January 17, 2018

(A good overview of rising anti-migrant views in Europe. — DM)

Thousands of migrants packed into Greek island

Looking for answers as to why the once welcoming E.U. is keeping migrants in horrific conditions, activists on the ground told the Post that they believe it’s part of the new change in tone, with European leaders sending a message to potential migrants.

************************************

As politicians in America and across the globe lined up last week to condemn President Trump’s reported remarks calling certain African nations “s—hole countries,” there was a somewhat muted response in Europe — a sign of how the political winds of immigration are blowing.

Europe is a continent filled with leaders happy to speak out in condemnation of the U.S. president, but the silence last week was noticeable — with the New York Times describing a “ringing silence across broad parts of the European Union, especially in the east, and certainly no chorus of condemnation.”

But a continent spooked by a populist revolt still bubbling in its parliaments and roaring on its streets, many of Europe’s politicians are still struggling with an influx from developing countries, or fighting for their political lives as they fend off challengers running on doing just that.

Europe has been wracked by a continent-wide migration crisis since 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel threw open Germany’s borders to a wave a Syrian refugees — telling Germans: “Wir schaffen das!” [We can do this]

Germany

While Merkel was applauded worldwide – and immediately given Time’s Person of the Year – refugees and economic migrants from other countries, along with a wave of terror attacks and other crimes and social problems, flooded into the continent. Merkel’s poll numbers caved, and she was forced to shift right to appease the anti-migrant sentiments.

In December 2016, she pushed for a so-called “burqa ban” and promised that the 2015 migration surge “cannot, should not and must not be repeated.”

Her Christian Democrats (CDU) nonetheless took a hit in September’s national elections, while the anti-migration Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged, and the woman described just a few years ago as the “chancellor of the Free World” was left fighting for her political life. Her party now looks to convince reluctant former coalition partners, the left-wing Social Democrats (SDU), to form another coalition and keep her in power.

An initial draft of a potential coalition deal includes a hard cap of approximately 200,000 refugees a year — a significant decrease from the more than a million refugees that flooded into the country in 2015 — a sign that migration will be a decisive factor in whether Merkel survives.

Eastern Europe

Other countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, have been taking a strong line of migration for years. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have been particularly muscular in asserting their own sovereignty in dealing with immigration issues — despite opposition from E.U. officials.

Hungary has erected a border fence amid a host of border security measures — and even had the Trumpian chutzpah to ask the E.U. to pay for half of it. For pro-open borders left, outspoken Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has become their bogeyman, using language that makes Trump’s appear almost timid.

In an interview with Germany’s Bild, this month, Orban referred to some migrants “Muslim invaders,” and called multiculturalism “an illusion.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has built a border fence and asked the E.U. to pay for half of it. (AP)

“If you take masses of non-registered immigrants from the Middle East into your country, you are importing terrorism, crime, anti-Semitism, and homophobia,” he said in a follow up interview this week.

Orban also made reference to the mass sexual assaults on New Years’ Eve 2015 in Cologne, Germany, as well as other problems attributed to the wave of migration from Africa and the Middle East.

“[In Hungary] there are no ghettos and no no-go areas, no scenes like New Year’s Eve in Cologne. The images from Cologne have deeply moved us Hungarians,” he said. “I have four daughters. I can not help my children grow up in a world where something like Cologne can happen.”

While Orban is perhaps the most outspoken of Europe’s political leaders, other more moderate leaders are tilting in Orban and Trump’s direction.

France, United Kingdom

Europe’s establishment breathed a sigh of relief in May, when French centrist Emmanuel Macron comfortably beat right-wing and anti-migration Marine Le Pen in France’s presidential election. Macron’s comfortable win was seen by many analysts as a sign that the seemingly unstoppable 2016 populist wave, which gave the world Brexit and President Trump, was finally crashing upon the rocks.

But Macron has rejected an open-arms approach to migration, attempting to find himself a middle ground between Merkelism and Orbanism. In a New Year’s Eve speech, he admitted: “We can’t welcome everyone, and we can’t work without rules.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has come under fire for taking a tougher stance on economic migrants. (AP)

His government has also taken a tougher line on economic migrants, opening himself up to criticism from his own party, who have accused him of being too tough and catering to the right-wing. According to Reuters, opponents point to a new bill that would increase detention times and lead to the deportation of anyone not classified as a refugee from a warzone.

But Macron followed this up Tuesday with a visit to the former “Jungle camp” at Calais — a sprawling refugee camp at the port to the United Kingdom that was deconstructed in 2016.

In a speech at the site of the former camp on Tuesday, he promised to be sure it did not return. In a meeting on Thursday with British Prime Minister Theresa May, he is expected to demand a renegotiation of the border arrangement with the U.K., including more money from the British and for them to take on more refugees.

That push is unlikely to be well-received in the U.K., where the decision to leave the European Union was largely motivated by migration-related issues and a need to take control of borders.

In 2016, Britain allowed in child asylum seekers from Calais who had family members in the U.K. But outrage and mockery followed when pictures appeared in British newspapers showing what one Conservative MP described as “hulking young men” presenting themselves as children.

Former U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said this week that France’s migration problems are France’s to solve and that Macron should stop playing hot potato.

“If they are illegal immigrants, France should get rid of them, if they are people claiming refugee status, France should process them,” Farage said in an interview with the BBC. “It’s actually desperately simple but the French don’t want to do that and the truth of it for the last 10, 15, 20 years the French have been quite happy for camps to develop and for people to climb on the back of lorries to go to England, and then it’s our problem.”

Austria

A key motivator for many Western European politicians are impending elections. While Merkel is scrambling for survival in Germany, across the border in Austria, a right-wing government was formed in December led by the 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz — whose center right People’s Party (OVP) campaigned primarily on a tough stance on migration, and formed a coalition with the far-right Freedom Party (FPO).

Austria will take over the presidency of the E.U. Council in the summer, and Kurz said in an interview published Wednesday one of his top priorities will be “border control to stop illegal migration to Europe.”

But far from looking for conflict, Kurz told German newspaper FAZ that the continent’s view on migration is now much closer to his own.

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz met with his German counterpart Angela Merkel this week. (AP)

“There has been a lot of movement in recent years. For example, the German position is now much closer to ours than it was two years ago,” Kurz said. “Many states have moved in the right direction. Now we need a focus on proper protection of the external borders of the EU and not just the constant debate about the distribution of refugees within the European Union by quotas.”

As Austria turns rightward, and Germany struggles to form a government, all eyes will soon move to Italy, where voters will go to the polls in March in an election dominated by discussions about the E.U. and migration.

Italy

There, the populist Five Star Movement leads the polls, although its reluctance to form a coalition (and with it polling at approximately 27-30 percent) the most likely outcome appears to be a right-wing coalition led by former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party. While Forza is a relatively moderate right-wing party, its path to government lies in a coalition with further right parties, including the Northern League — which has campaigned strongly for control of migration flows into the country.

Yet even current left-wing Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni’s government is far from an open borders free-for-all. Gentiloni’s cabinet includes Interior Minister Marco Minniti who has been credited with overseeing a massive drop in migrants into Italy from Libya by striking controversial deals with the Libyan government to strengthen security and the Coast Guard in the Mediterranean.

Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia look likely to form a coalition after Italian elections in March. (AP)

Humanitarian groups are seeing these debates play out on the ground too. The Washington Post offered a glimpse into a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, where migrants wait in limbo to be shipped back via a deal signed between the E.U. and Turkey in 2016.

“The first thing you notice is the smell: the stench from open-pit latrines mingling with the odor of thousands of unwashed bodies and the acrid tang of olive trees being burned for warmth.

Then there are the sounds: Children hacking like old men. Angry shouts as people joust for food,” the Post reports.

Humanitarian groups have expressed concern for squalid conditions at refugee camps on Greek islands. (Reuters)

Looking for answers as to why the once welcoming E.U. is keeping migrants in horrific conditions, activists on the ground told the Post that they believe it’s part of the new change in tone, with European leaders sending a message to potential migrants.

Eva Cossé, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, told the Post that the message was simple: “‘Don’t come here, or you’ll be stuck on this horrible island for the next two years.’”

New HHS civil rights division charged with protecting health-care workers with moral objections

January 19, 2018

New HHS civil rights division charged with protecting health-care workers with moral objections, Washington PostAriana Eunjung Cha and Juliet Eilperin, January 18, 2018

(It strikes me that there are ample medical service providers who have no moral objections to performing the mentioned procedures, and that those who have such objections should not be compelled to perform them. — DM)

(Video at the link, — DM)

“Governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming, and it begins here and now,” Severino said.

And Montse Alvarado, executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm, faulted Obama-era officials for “forcing Americans to choose between their beliefs and their livelihood.”

***************************************

A new civil rights division within the Department of Health and Human Services will protect health-care workers who refuse to provide services that run counter to their moral or religious convictions, the Trump administration announced Thursday.

This office will consider complaints from doctors, nurses and others who feel they have been pressured by employers to “perform, accommodate or assist with” procedures that violate their beliefs. If a complaint about coercion or retribution is found to be valid, an entity receiving federal dollars could have that funding revoked.

The administration’s move marks the resurgence of religious liberty advocates within the federal government and represents its latest effort to elevate “conscience protections” within the health care realm. Conservative groups welcomed the action while critics warned it could lead to discrimination on the basis of sex as well as gender identity and sexual orientation.

In announcing the new division, at an event featuring Republican lawmakers and religious leaders, HHS Acting Secretary Eric Hargan noted that many of the nation’s hospitals, clinics and hospices are run by faith-based groups that oppose procedures like abortion and sterilization.

“For too long, too many of these health-care practitioners have been bullied and discriminated against,” he said.

According to the director of the department’s Office for Civil Rights, the division will not only consider complaints that might have previously languished but will also engage in public education and, possibly, policymaking. Training and research activities also will be covered.

Roger Severino said in an interview that OCR has seen a “pretty dramatic uptick” in health-care workers’ complaints related to moral and religious beliefs — from 10 during the entire Obama administration to 34 since Trump’s election. He said a “career senior executive” will be appointed to investigate those types of issues.

“We are trying to signal to the world that we are open for business, and we hope to have an effect,” he said.

Numerous existing laws prohibit institutions with federal funding from compelling health-care workers to perform services with which they object on moral or religious grounds. Some of the existing federal statutes “are quite broad,” Severino said.

On the HHS website Thursday, a Conscience and Religious Freedom section outlined the types of procedures likely to come under intensified federal scrutiny — accompanied by a photo of a female health-care worker in a Muslim headscarf. The description of the division’s mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures covered. But legal experts said the language appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

It is unclear whether HHS will issue new regulations to clarify its approach to such conflicts, but conservatives said they now have a chance to challenge state reproductive policies as well as other mandates. In June 2016, HHS officials rejected a religious coalition’s complaint against a California requirement that state insurers provide abortion coverage on the grounds that the complainants did not “meet the definition of a ‘health care entity.’”

Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview that the broad grounds for a complaint that HHS laid out, coupled with the administration’s past record on issues such as gender identity protections and contraception coverage, suggest officials will curtail services for certain groups if health-care workers lodge moral objections. Decades-old statutes that refer to sterilization services could potentially be invoked when referring to gender transition therapies, she noted.

“There’s every reason to think that this administration is going to place religious objections over the health and lives and rights of individuals,” Melling said.

Asked if the administration considers gender identity or sexual orientation to be a protected class, Severino said the department was barred from doing so because of a 2016 federal court injunction out of Texas.

The announcement, made one day before abortion opponents’ annual March for Life, builds on two rules HHS issued in October that allowed employers, including for-profit businesses, to claim moral or religious exemption from providing no-cost contraceptive coverage through their health insurance plans.

And it comes as the Supreme Court considers a First Amendment case regarding a Colorado baker who declined to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Speakers at Thursday’s launch event repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for narrowing such exemptions. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), for one, said the previous administration expected health-care workers “to conform” rather than follow their religious beliefs. “What a difference a year makes,” he added.

Severino echoed that theme, saying that “HHS has not always been the best keeper of this liberty.”

“Governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming, and it begins here and now,” Severino said.

And Montse Alvarado, executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm, faulted Obama-era officials for “forcing Americans to choose between their beliefs and their livelihood.”

(Video at the link — DM)

Yet medical organizations and women’s and LGBT rights groups expressed concern that the policy will hurt vulnerable populations and create an unequal system of health care. The Obama administration had bolstered civil rights protections in health care, including barring medical providers and insurers from discriminating in services or access to coverage based on gender as well as gender identity.

Kelli Garcia, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, said “the wording on the rule creating the office appears to open the door for discrimination against patients because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or a whole host of other reasons.”

Garcia said she worries that cases of denied or delayed care could multiply, describing controversies like one in Michigan in 2015, when a pediatrician refused to see an infant because the parents are lesbians. Catholic Hospitals have been sued for delaying care to women in the midst of miscarriages, putting their health at risk, because there was still a fetal heartbeat.

“The issue is this emboldens people who want to be able to deny this care,” she said.

The National LGBTQ Task Force minced no words in its response to the administration’s action. “We are not fooled: The new office announced this morning is meant to make it easier for people to discriminate, not to protect people of faith,” it said. “Health professionals have a duty to care for all their patients regardless of one’s gender identity, sexual orientation, faith, creed, race, political views, gender, or disability, and no one should be denied care for being who they are.”

Most of the country’s large physician and nursing groups have their own ethics policies regarding conscience objections. The American Medical Association, for example, gives physicians the latitude to act on their moral views to refuse to participate in torture, interrogation or forced treatment. Yet its ethics code also says doctors should not refuse to care for patients based on “race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination.”

 

 

For Real ‘Collusion,’ Look At Obama’s Dirty Dealings With Iran

January 19, 2018


Obama’s scheming with the Mullahs reveals a troubling pattern.

January 19, 2018 Ari Lieberman Front Page Mag

Source: For Real ‘Collusion,’ Look At Obama’s Dirty Dealings With Iran

{A little karma at this point could go a long way. We may see some coming out in the form of FISA. – LS}

  By now it should be readily apparent to all, even those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a spent force or as leftist political commentator Van Jones put it, “a big nothingburger.” Nearly a year has passed since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller and not a scintilla of evidence demonstrating collusion has been forthcoming. Moreover, the investigation itself has been plagued by scandal and partisanship placing a cloud of taint over the entire inquiry. Nevertheless, Mueller’s Russia probe will continue to putter along and after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars (as of December 2017, the cost has reportedly reached a staggering $7 million) the former G-Man will get a trickle of indictments and plea bargains on peripheral figures for matters wholly unrelated to the original investigation. Democrats will then pat themselves on the back and Mueller will go back to obscurity.

Democrats and their allies in the establishment media have cleverly succeeded in temporarily deflecting America’s attention away from the real collusion story, one with real substance and far greater ramifications. A persuasive case can be made that former president Barack Obama colluded with a sworn enemy of the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran. With each passing day, another disquieting facet of the Obama administration’s dealings with the Islamic Republic is revealed and when taken in totality, paints a disturbing picture of the administration’s underhanded efforts to placate and appease the mullahs and their proxies, including Hezbollah.

The Obama administration’s current dealings with Iran began with an outright fabrication to the American people. On August 5, 2015 Obama asserted that negotiations with the Iranians commenced in 2013. Obama argued that the ascent of the “moderate” Hassan Rouhani offered the United States an opportunity to engage with the Iranians. This was in fact, a bald-faced lie. Circumventing the State Department and using Sen. John Kerry (whose Iran connections are a matter of public record) as its point man, the administration began engaging with Iran in 2011 when the toxic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president. For the record, Ahmadinejad is a rabid Holocaust denier. Four years later, Obama sealed his infamous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, alternatively known as the Iran deal, which gave the Iranians $150 billion worth sanctions relief while simultaneously providing them with a legal pathway toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

The flow of lies and deceit continued from there. The JCPOA was, to put it mildly, a flawed agreement, one in which the benefits flowed one way. Charles Krauthammer aptly described it as the worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history. But there were alarming elements of the agreement, chiefly secretive side arrangements between Iran and the IAEA, which were so patently egregious and absurd that even Obama understood that it would render the agreement a hard sell. Under these side arrangements, Iran’s highly opaque Parchin military facility was off limits to international inspectors undermining Obama’s claim that the agreement provided for anytime, anywhere intrusive inspections. Consequently, Obama tried and failed to keep this information from Congress.

Even more disturbing than the administration’s attempt to obfuscate elements of the Iran deal was the manner in which it illegally weaponized the NSA and other domestic intelligence services to spy on members of Congress and leaders of Jewish groups and then leak their identities. You read that correctly. The Obama administration adopted tactics employed by two-bit, paranoid dictators and exploited loopholes in surveillance laws to keep one step ahead of the opposition. Meetings with Israeli officials opposed to the Iran deal were monitored and the contents of those meetings as well as the identities of those who attended were scandalously leaked to sympathetic journalists, who proceeded to mouth administration talking points. The administration also employed subtle use of anti-Semitic stereotypes implying that those opposed to the Iran deal maintained dual loyalties or were agents for Israel. In a grotesque display of anti-Semitic stereotyping, the New York Times, one of the media outlets shilling for Obama, actually implied that congressional members who voted against the deal were motivated by their Jewish ethnicity or high proportion of Jews residing within their districts. Obama’s talking points, which seemed to mimic Tehran’s, were trickling down to his echo chamber in a well-orchestrated scheme.

Bad deals are one thing and can always be attributed to amateurish negotiating skills (found in abundance in Obama’s negotiating team) but Obama’s dealings with Iran went far beyond ineptitude. In May 2016 it was revealed that Secretary of State John Kerry appealed to European banks to do business with Iran. Kerry instantly transformed himself from secretary of state to Iran lobbyist. Knowing that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps controls much of Iran’s economy, the bank heads wanted no part of what Kerry had to offer and curtly showed him the door.

Another even more startling revelation soon followed. It has long been America’s policy not to pay ransom to tyrants and terrorists in exchange for captive hostages but that policy was shattered when Obama agreed to give the mullahs $400 million in exchange for American hostages held without cause by Iran. A further $1.3 billion was transferred later.

The administration alleged that the money was transferred in settlement of Iranian legal claims stemming from a pre-revolution, aborted arms deal, and had no nexus to the hostages. But that argument is unconvincing. The initial $400 million transfer was initiated contemporaneous with the hostages’ release. Moreover, the transaction was an all-cash deal – untraceable the way the mullahs like it – conducted in the dead of night away from prying eyes, the way the Obama administration liked it. As I previously noted, if it walks like a ransom payment and talks like a ransom payment, it’s likely a ransom payment despite the administration’s contrary protestations. The administration did grudgingly acknowledge that the money could have ended up in the hands of the IRGC. Anyone possessing an ounce of common sense knows that the $1.7 billion almost certainly lined the coffers of the IRGC, and was probably also parsed out to Iranian proxy terror groups like Hezbollah, which receives between $700 million and $1 billion annually from Tehran.

What the administration also failed to note was that the United States maintained an $817 million counterclaim against the Islamic Republic stemming from breaches of Iranian contractual obligations. The United States also maintained subrogated claims against Iran to the tune of $3.9 billion. With the stroke of a pen, Obama relinquished these valid legal claims and allowed Iran to get off scot-free. In addition, as part of the ransom deal, Obama authorized the release of seven convicted Iranian felons and expunged warrants on 14 others. Unlike Iran’s American detainees, these individuals actually committed crimes and were afforded due process.

Obama promised the American people that the JCPOA’s had strict mechanisms for enforcement and that these would ensure Iranian compliance but that too was untrue. Twice since the signing of the JCPOA, Iran exceeded its prescribed 130 metric ton limit for heavy water, which is used as a moderator in reactors fueled by natural uranium, and is critical for the production of plutonium. But incredibly, instead of punishing the Iranians for their transgressions, the Obama administration rewarded the mullahs by issuing its consent to allow the Iranians to receive 116 metric tons of natural uranium from Russia. According to experts, the uranium could be enriched to weapons-grade sufficient for the production of at least 10 nuclear bombs.

Ironically, in light of the Obama-era, Uranium One scandal, and Russia’s concomitant acquisition of 20 percent of America’s mining capacity, there’s a fair likelihood that at least some of the Russian uranium came from American uranium mines. This is because at least some uranium from Uranium One’s mining operations in America was exported abroad, despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the company lacked an export license and therefore, could not export uranium produced at their American facilities; yet another fabrication.

It goes from bad to worse. In his zeal to curry favor with the Islamic Republic, Obama shut down a highly successful and lengthy DEA operation – codenamed Project Cassandra – aimed at thwarting Hezbollah drug trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering schemes. As a result, Hezbollah and their IRGC patrons continued their nefarious operations virtually unmolested. That means that Hezbollah drugs continued to pour into the U.S., Hezbollah Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP) continued to make their way into the hands of anti-American insurgents and drug money, stained with the blood of Americans, continued to be laundered to the tune of billions of dollars.

We’re not done just yet. There is bipartisan agreement that the IRGC is a group that actively supports international terrorism. The overseas arm of the IRGC is the so-called Quds Force. Quds Force operatives have been fomenting unrest in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Gaza and Afghanistan. They’ve also been active in India, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central & South America, and Europe. In fact, a cell of Quds Force operatives was recently exposed executing surveillance operations against Israeli and Jewish targets in Germany. A kindergarten was on the list of surveilled targets demonstrating just how deeply depraved the IRGC truly is. The Quds Force is led by a nasty sort named Qassem Soleimani, whose activities have earned him a spot on the U.S. sanctions list.

According to recently surfaced reports, three years ago, Israel decided to rid the world of this menace and was on the verge of accomplishing this objective through a targeted liquidation in Damascus. Soleimani’s removal from the scene would have severely disrupted Quds Force operations. The operation however, never materialized because the Obama administration tipped off Tehran to Israel’s plans. Soleimani dodged a bullet and has since been working tirelessly to foment unrest and undermine America’s interests.

It’s not the first time that the Obama administration betrayed covert Israeli activities to a sworn enemy. In 2012, the Obama administration leaked damaging information that inexplicably sought to sabotage a burgeoning strategic alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan. Such an alliance would have enabled Israel to seek alternate bases in close proximity to Iran from which it could conduct military operations including surveillance and rescue missions, refueling and maintenance and even direct military strikes. The damaging disclosure severely undermined Israel’s strategic position. Some have suggested that Obama leaked the information in an effort to derail an Israeli preventative strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities while others have noted that he was motivated by pure malevolence.

So what is it called when a president …

* Initiates secret negotiations with a Holocaust denier and then lies about it;
* Signs an agreement with Iran that allows Iran’s most opaque nuke facility to avoid inspection and then attempts to hide this fact from Congress;
* Weaponizes intelligence services to illegally spy on Americans to secure passage of the JCPOA;
* Gives the Iranian government, and by extension, the IRGC, $1.7 billion in cash;
* Relinquishes all valid legal claims against the Islamic Republic, including judgements against the regime for acts of terrorism;
* Releases convicted Iranian felons without cause or justification and removes others from INTERPOL list;
* Fails to call out Iran when it materially breaches the terms of the JCPOA;
* Rewards Iran’s bad behavior by giving consent for the transfer of natural uranium to Iran;
* Informs Iran about an ally’s intention to knock off a sworn enemy of the United States;
* Informs Iran about an ally’s covert operations.

At best, it’s called being a mullah lackey but an equally persuasive argument can be made for collusion. The depth and breadth of Obama’s scheming with Tehran is something that cannot be ignored. The prevailing view is that in his zeal to secure a deal with Iran, Obama lost all sense of reality to the point of compromising U.S. national security interests. Others have suggested that Obama harbored a genuine soft spot for the IRGC and its overseas Quds Force component. Either way, for the sake of transparency and national security the DOJ or Congress must fully investigate this matter forthwith, and do so in expeditious fashion.

Holocaust-denying NYT offers ‘A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews’

January 19, 2018

Holocaust-denying NYT offers ‘A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews’, American ThinkerEd Straker, January 19, 2018

The biggest falsehood in Stephens’s piece is that Jews were welcomed to the United States in earlier times, but Muslims are blocked now.  In fact, Jews were prevented from coming into the country during the Holocaust, and many of them died because of it.  Muslims, by contrast, have several dozen Muslim countries to choose from if they want to get out of their own…holes of origin.

It’s sad to watch Stephens trying to use the suffering of the Jews as a passport to import more Muslims into this country.

********************************

You would think that a newspaper that helped cover up the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jewish people, would show a little hesitancy before publishing an op-ed entitled “A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews.”

This insidious piece is authored by the New York Times’ pet “conservative,” Bret Stephens.  Stephens claims he is merely conducting a “thought experiment.”  He says that Jewish immigrants from the early 20th century had much the same characteristics as Muslim and third-world immigrants of today, so banning Muslims today is like banning Jews in the past.

Stephens claims that some Jews who came to America harbored communist views.  True.  He implies we are meant to compare that to Muslims who believe in sharia law.  But there is a difference.

Jews who came to America, even communist Jews, did not blow up the Empire State Building or drive cars into crowds.  They did not murder people screaming, “Moses is great!” or “Abraham is great!”  Some of them had awful views, and they probably had equally awful voting records, but that’s as far as it went, for most of them (except, admittedly, for the awful Rosenbergs).

Stephens also claims that Jews who came to America did not assimilate in succeeding generations.  He must not have been paying attention.  Does Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin look unassimilated?  How about former attorney general Michael Mukasey?  William Shatner?  Jerry Seinfeld?

Stephens also claims that Jews who came to America were uneducated.  Some were, but many weren’t.  Furthermore, Jews valued education and quickly became among the most educated segment of the country, despite rampant discrimination.

Nor can you go around the country and find Jewish “barrios” where all signs are in Yiddish.  When you call a business on the phone, you never have to “press 1 for English” in order to avoid a voice menu in Hebrew.  The Jews, clearly, have assimilated.

So Stephens’s comparison is entirely false.  Many Muslims who come here don’t assimilate, and many not only have radical views, but even act on them, murdering Americans.  As for other “third-world” immigrants, many of them are not only illiterate in English, but illiterate in their own languages as well.

Stephens calls Attorney General Jeff Sessions a “bigot” for having legitimate security concerns about immigrants from Muslim countries.  Stephens, a recent arrival at the New York Times, was formerly a mouthpiece at the Wall Street Journal and was quite at home with the open-borders corporatist crowd that wants cheap imported labor.

The biggest falsehood in Stephens’s piece is that Jews were welcomed to the United States in earlier times, but Muslims are blocked now.  In fact, Jews were prevented from coming into the country during the Holocaust, and many of them died because of it.  Muslims, by contrast, have several dozen Muslim countries to choose from if they want to get out of their own…holes of origin.

It’s sad to watch Stephens trying to use the suffering of the Jews as a passport to import more Muslims into this country.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.