European Temper Trumptums

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Europe and President Elect Trump, European "democracy", European establishment, European Union, European weakness

Tags: , , , ,

European Temper Trumptums, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, November 15, 2016

The arrogant claim to the moral high ground by European elites has no basis in reality.

There is no respect for freedom and democracy on a continent where citizens, such as the politician Geert Wilders, are arrested and prosecuted by in a court of law for speaking their minds freely about topics that the authorities find it expedient not to debate in public.

Freedom, respect for the rule of law, and people’s race, religion and gender have never been less respected and protected in Germany during the post-WWII era than under Merkel. German authorities have completely failed to protect women, Christians and others from the chaos unleashed by the mass, unvetted, immigration of mainly Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rule of law is anything but “respected” in Germany.

Not everyone is “panicking”. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, rejected the invitation and told his colleagues to end their “collective whinge-o-rama” about the U.S. election result.

Critics of the U.S. election omitted, however, the runaway lawlessness, divisiveness and corruption that American voters declined to reinstate.

 

“A world is collapsing before our eyes”, tweeted the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, as it became clear that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election. Although he later apparently deleted the tweet, the sentiment expressed in his tweet encapsulates the attitude of the majority of the European political establishment.

Deutsche Welle (DW), Germany’s international broadcaster, described the reaction to Trump’s victory across Germany’s political spectrum as “shock and uncertainty.” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen described Trump’s win as a “heavy shock.” German Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: “The world won’t end, but things will get more crazy”.

Green party leader Cem Özdemir called Trump’s election a “break with the tradition that the West stands for liberal values.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s deputy chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said:

“Trump is the trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. … They want a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table. And he who doesn’t keep his mouth shut gets publicly bashed.”

In a fine touch of irony, EU Commissioner Guenther Oettinger, who recently referred to the Chinese as “slanty eyed,” told Deutschlandfunk radio that the U.S. election was a “warning” for Germany: “Things are getting simplified, black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. You can ask simple questions, but one should not give simple answers.”

In France, the media reaction was summed up by the left-leaning newspaper, Libération:

“Trumpocalypse… Shock… The world’s leading power is from now on in the hands of the far-right. Fifty percent of Americans voted in all conscience for a racist, lying, sexist, vulgar, hateful candidate.”

Critics omitted, however, the runaway lawlessness, divisiveness and corruption that American voters declined to reinstate.

President François Hollande described Trump’s victory as marking the start of “a period of uncertainty.” Previously, Hollande had said that Trump made him “want to retch.”

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, one of the most powerful men in Europe, told students at a conference in Luxembourg, “We will need to teach the president-elect what Europe is and how it works”. He also claimed that, “The election of Trump poses the risk of upsetting intercontinental relations in their foundation and in their structure.” He added that Americans usually have no interest in Europe.

Chancellor Angela Merkel herself offered to work closely with Trump only “on the basis that shared values, such as democracy, freedom, respect for the rule of law and people’s race, religion and gender are respected” — the overbearing implication being that Trump cannot be expected to respect these concepts.

Just how hysterical European political leaders’ reaction has been to Trump was manifested in the fact that they felt compelled to hold an informal “crisis meeting” — some diplomats called it a “panic dinner” — on Sunday evening, to deal with the “shock” of the presidential election. “We would never have had a similar dinner if Hillary Clinton had been elected. It shows just how much we’re panicking,” said a diplomat from one of the smaller EU states.

Not everyone is “panicking.” UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson rejected the invitation and told his colleagues to end their “collective whinge-o-rama” about the U.S. election result.

There is indeed an unmistakable infantility about the reactions of European political elites to the election of the new US president, which are reminiscent of a young child lashing out after being denied candy. More significantly, the reactions reveal an overbearing disrespect for the American people’s free and democratic choice of a leader. Most important, however, is that the arrogant claim to the moral high ground by European elites has no basis in reality. It simply is not true that, as Merkel claimed, freedom and democracy, rule of law and respect for people’s race, religion and gender are at the foreground of European policies.

In fact, there is something deeply ironic about Angela Merkel mentioning freedom, the rule of law and so on. In fact, freedom, respect for the rule of law, and people’s race, religion and gender have never been less respected and protected in Germany during the post-WWII era than under Merkel. German authorities have completely failed to protect women, Christians and others from the chaos unleashed by the mass, unvetted, immigration of mainly Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rule of law is anything but “respected” in Germany, where large pockets of Muslims live in parallel societies, or no-go zones, where police are too afraid to enter, where the residents impose their own rules, such as polygamy, and where committing social benefits fraud is rampant while German authorities turn a knowing blind eye.

2046

This pattern repeats itself endlessly in other European countries. In Britain, the police and social workers have turned a blind eye for years to Muslim gangs grooming, prostituting, and raping young white British teenagers in cities such as Oxford, Birmingham, Rochdale and Rotherham. How is that for “respect for the rule of law” and human rights?

There is no freedom, or respect for gender in Swedish women being told not to go out after dark, or German women being told to follow a “code of conduct” because local police authorities can no longer protect them from sexual assault.

There is no respect for religion on a continent where authorities have been unable to stem a tidal wave of anti-Semitism or to protect Christians who flee from the Middle East to Europe, only to experience similar prosecution from local or migrant Muslims.

There is no respect for freedom and democracy on a continent where citizens, such as the politician Geert Wilders, are arrested and prosecuted by national authorities in a court of law for speaking their minds freely about topics that the authorities do not find it expedient to debate in public.

Perhaps Europe can start preaching to president-elect Donald Trump once it gets its own house in order?

Cartoons of the Day

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Media, Nukes, Obama, Protesting Trump

Tags: , , , , ,

H/t Power Line

bill-c-votes
glass-ceiling
beatings
participation
canada-border-patrol

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

proper-job
lost

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

nukeaccess 

legacy-1

 

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon?

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Antisemitism in America, Breitbart, Media and Donald Trump, Never Trumpers, President Elect Trump, Steven K. Bannon, Trump appointments

Tags: , , , , , ,

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon? PJ Media, David P. Goldman, November 15, 2016

(Gosh Darn! Trump should have appointed Keith Ellison or some other “acceptable” leftist, anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Islamist. Please see also, The Ellison Angle and Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?. — DM)

All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against Steve Bannon, the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. Steve is fervently pro-Israel, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that he is anti-Semitic. Other observant Jews who know Bannon, for example Joel Pollak, attest to his support for Israel and friendship for the Jewish people.

All we have learned from the sewage-storm directed at Bannon is that the Establishment plays dirty and that the formerly Republican #NeverTrumpers aren’t just misguided ideologues, but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars. Hell hath no fury like a self-designated elite scorned. All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

They hate Steve Bannon because he beat them fair and square on the battlefield of social media. He is the President-elect’s most effective general. Trump’s enemies can’t reverse the results of a national election, but they can try to cut the incoming president off from his popular base.

The charges against Steve Bannon are a tissue of lies without a modicum of merit.

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon’s hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel. Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world. Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

But that is not what one hears from Ian Tuttle at National Review, who complains that “in May, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol was labeled a ‘Renegade Jew.’ He was indeed, by another Jew, David Horowitz, who argued that Kristol had betrayed Jewish interests by trying to torpedo Trump–a point Horowitz emphasizes here. Tuttle knows this but chooses to twist Horowitz’ headline into its opposite. Tuttle’s colleague Jonah Goldberg also inveighs against Bannon but his post is too silly to quote.

Generously, Tuttle allows that Bannon is not Goebbels. No, he isn’t, but the Establishment (including conservative Establishment) media drumbeat against Bannon takes its cue from Goebbels doctrine of the Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and people will believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

NeverTrumper John Podhoretz meanwhile penned an underhanded a attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read this a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is: “The key moral problem with Steve Bannon is that as the CEO of Andrew Breitbart’s namesake organization, he is an aider and abetter of foul extremist views, including anti-Semitic ones. He used the site to promote the alt-right, which has retailed anti-Semitism as well as general outright racism and white nationalism. The distinction may seem like a minor one, but it isn’t; the hatred Breitbart has channeled is too general for it to be singled out for its anti-Semitic content.”

Note the construction of Podhoretz’ sentence: Breitbart isn’t anti-Semitic, but in some vague, unnamed way, he has facilitated anti-Semitism from the alt-Right (whatever that is). The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It’s time for Commentary to find a new editor.

Those are facts, indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms “Jews” or “Israel” and “site:www.breitbart.com” into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subject. I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views. In lieu of other evidence, the the supposedly offensive David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

Of course, one expects the Establishment media to lie at two hundred decibels. Yesterday’s email blast from the usually staid Financial Times began, “Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, the establishment head of the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, while naming Steve Bannon — his campaign chair who ran Breitbart News, a website associated with the alt-right and white supremacists — as his chief strategist and counsellor.” To claim that Breitbart is associated with white supremacists is a despicable lie. , but the FT feels compelled to say such things because polite opinion requires ritual anathemas of Trump.

And the liberal Jewish website The Forward wrote, “The reaction was quick and furious from Jews and anti-hate groups. The Anti-Defamation League, which stays out of partisan politics and vowed to seek to work with Trump after his election, denounced Bannon as ‘hostile to American values.'” The Forward headline asks, “Will Steve Bannon bring anti-Semitism into Trump’s inner circle?” It is shameful that Jewish organizations cry “wolf” over anti-Semitism in pursuit of a patently political agenda.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes,” tweeted France’s Ambassador to the United States as the returns came in early in the morning of Nov. 9. The “liberal world order” of elitist social engineering has come to an end. The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine have no more reason to publish than do the New York Times or the New Republic. The world simply has moved away from them. And symbolizing their humiliation is one man who who took on their vast media machine with seemingly insignificant resources, and defeated them. They will stop at nothing to destroy him.

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

sd

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course. 

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused todenounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.

The Ellison Angle

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Antisemitism, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Keith Ellison, Media, Nation of Islam, Racism

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Ellison Angle, Power Line, Scott Johnson, November 15, 2016

Democrats and their media adjunct are stirring the pot about the alleged bigotry of prospective Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon, yet they are poised to name a long-time advocate of one of the leading racist and anti-Semitic organizations in the United States as chairman of their party. I’m referring of course to Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison and his long involvement with the Nation of Islam.

Yesterday Ellison formally announced his bid to become chairman of the Democratic Party. Leading Democrats have lined up to support him. He seems to be poised to take the reins of the national party. Allison Sherry reports from Washington for the Star Tribune:

Ellison drew widespread support over the weekend and Monday from the party’s elite, including Sanders and presumed incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Harry Reid, the current Senate minority leader, threw his support behind Ellison. Even President Obama told reporters the party needed fresh faces and new ideas to rebuild, though he did not mention anyone by name.

As a black and left-wing Muslim in a one-party town with a cheerleading newspaper, Ellison has been insulated from the kind of media scrutiny that he should have received over the past 10 years. Rather, he has been celebrated as the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. Who wanted to stand in his way? Certainly not the political reporters or editors at the Star Tribune.

The Star Tribune has never troubled itself to chronicle Ellison’s unsavory years on the make in Minneapolis as an active local leader of the Nation of Islam, even though it could have drawn on its own archives to do so. The Star Tribune has left Ellison free to lie about his past and it is a freedom that he has exploited to the hilt.

Thus Sherry reports on Ellison’s current bid without the slightest hint of Ellison’s back pages:

Ellison issued a statement Monday castigating Trump’s choice, saying that Bannon “is adored by white supremacists, white nationalists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and the KKK,” and that the president-elect must rescind the appointment if he is “serious about rejecting bigotry, hatred and violence from his supporters.”

Ellison’s public agitation on behalf of the Nation of Islam extends back to his days as a law student at the University of Minnesota Law School through his first attempt to secure the Democratic endorsement for a state legislative seat. Over the years Ellison agitated on behalf of the Nation of Islam he operated under names including Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad. I summarized this aspect of Ellison’s rise in the Weekly Standard article “Louis Farrakhan’s first Congressman” and the companion Power Line post “Keith Ellison for dummies.”

Ellison’s freedom from media scrutiny has served him well so far. Apart from an extremely misleading letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council in 2006, Ellison has never had to account, explain or apologize for his long-time membership in and advocacy of the Nation of Islam. Rather, Ellison has lied about it, minimized it and suppressed it. In his own memoir Ellison rewrites his past, presenting himself as a critic of the Nation of Islam for its bigotry and hatred. He does not confide in readers that the source of his knowledge is personal and that it comes from the inside. I don’t think much of the Democratic Party or its leaders, but I have to ask whether Democrats really know what they are buying with Ellison.

UPDATE: I just heard a radio news report indicating that Ellison denies he was ever a member of the Nation of Islam. This is a bald-faced lie for which I have the ocular proof in “Keith Ellison for dummies.”

Germany bans Muslim org used as front to recruit jihadists

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Germany, Islamist terror attacks, Salafists, Saudi Arabia

Tags: , , ,

Germany bans Muslim org used as front to recruit jihadists, Creeping Sharia, November 15, 2016

salafistSalafist preacher Ibrahim Abou-Nagie was known for his campaign to distribute Korans to every household in Germany, Switzerland and Austria

Sounds like CAIR. Unfortunately for Germans, their leaders have not banned Muslim immigration – the carriers of the ideology.

Source: Germany bans Islamist organization after raids – CNN.com

German authorities have banned an Islamist organization that they say is responsible for inspiring 140 youths to join the Syria conflict.

Germany Interior minister Thomas de Maiziere announced the ban on Tuesday after police carried out dawn raids on around 200 targets connected to The True Religion, a Salafist organization, across 10 states.

“As a federal minister, I today banned the organization called The True Religion,” de Maiziere told reporters, adding that the ban addressed “the misuse of religion and extremist religions.”

“We do not accept and won’t tolerate” the acts of this network, de Maiziere said, adding that it glorified death and terror.

Salafism is an ultrafundmentalist branch of Islam that is particularly prevalent in Saudi Arabia. It is intolerant of what its adherents consider “deviant” or mainstream Sunni Islam, including Islamic sects, such as Shia Islam, as well as other world religions.

The True Religion is led by prominent Salafist preacher Ibrahim Abou-Nagie, who was born in a refugee camp in Gaza and moved to Germany when he was 18. He later became a German national.

The raids targeted mosques, apartments, offices and storage halls. The main focuses of the raids were in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse and Hamburg, de Maiziere said.

In Berlin 200 officers took part in raids on 20 sites, Berlin police told CNN.

Abou-Nagie triggered national debate in Germany in 2011 when he spearheaded a drive to give a copy of the Koran to every German, Swiss and Austrian household.
Federal Police in September said 800 German nationals had traveled to Syria to join the conflict.

Yes, Trump’s Going to Dump the Iran Deal

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran scam, President Trump, Renegotiation, Revocation, Trump and Iran, U.S. Senate

Tags: , , , , ,

Yes, Trump’s Going to Dump the Iran Deal, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, November 15, 2016

(Interesting food for thought. — DM)

iranscam

Source: National Review

In the days following Donald Trump’s victory, a variety of experts — mostly Trump critics — pronounced that, despite Trump’s frequent statements during the presidential campaign that the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran is one of “the worst deals ever made by any country in history,” he has no choice but to stick with the agreement after he assumes office.

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif was one of the first to insist as much, claiming a Trump administration cannot back out of the nuclear deal because it is not a bilateral agreement between the United States and Iran but “an international understanding annexed to a Security Council resolution.”

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (which The Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith once described as “the tip of the spear of the Iran lobby” in the United States) echoed Zarif’s statement. In a November 11 Foreign Policy article, he argued Trump can undermine the Iran deal but cannot directly dismantle it because the JCPOA is a multilateral agreement “codified by the UN Security Council.” Any attempt by a Trump administration to renegotiate the deal would violate international law and isolate the United States, Parsi said.

Even some conservative experts have suggested Trump probably won’t try to significantly modify or discard the nuclear agreement, but will instead try to goad Iran into withdrawing by strictly enforcing the deal.

But Trump senior national-security adviser Walid Phares poured cold water on speculation that Trump plans to walk back his statements about the Iran deal, when he commented on Facebook over the weekend that the “Iran Deal will be dismantled.”

phares-iran-deal

This firm statement by Phares confirmed previous statements he and Mr. Trump have made that the deal is a dangerous agreement that needs to be either significantly renegotiated or abandoned. As an expert who has followed the Iran nuclear program for many years inside and outside of government, I would like to expand on their statements by offering three key points about the nature of the deal and ten guidelines for renegotiating it.

1. The Iran deal is a dangerous fraud.

Donald Trump was exactly right when he called the Iran deal a “horrible” and “disastrous” agreement. The U.S. agreed to huge concessions to get this agreement, from no restrictions on Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism to no inspections of military facilities. There were secret side deals withheld from Congress that permitted Iran to inspect itself for past nuclear-weapons work and receive secret planeloads of cash in exchange for freeing U.S. hostages. To get the $150 billion in sanctions relief Iran wanted, there was another secret side deal — also withheld from the U.S. Congress — which granted Tehran exemptions for failing to meet some of the agreement’s key requirements.

So what did the United States get for these concessions?

Not much. The Obama administration claims the deal keeps Iran a year away from a nuclear deal for ten to 15 years. But in fact, the time to an Iranian nuclear bomb will drop dramatically under the deal, since Iran will be able to enrich uranium, develop advanced centrifuges, and, with Chinese assistance, finish construction of a heavy-water nuclear reactor that will produce one-quarter of a weapon’s worth of plutonium per year.

It will be very hard to verify the agreement since military sites — where Iran is likely to conduct covert nuclear-weapons work — are off limits to inspectors. The deal dumbed down the IAEA’s quarterly Iran reports, making it difficult for the world to know the true extent of Iran’s compliance. Certainly, there already have been reports of significant Iranian cheating.

Further, the deal was supposed to improve Iran’s international behavior.

Instead, from ballistic-missile tests to increased support to Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Tehran’s behavior in the Middle East has significantly worsened. Just in the last year, Iran has captured and held at gunpoint ten U.S. sailors and fired anti-ship missiles at American and UAE ships. Is this what a new era of cooperation with Iran was supposed to look like?

2. The deal is not legally binding on us.

Knowing that a bipartisan majority of Congress opposed the nuclear deal and that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it as a treaty, the Obama administration arranged to go around the Senate by negotiating the deal as an executive agreement endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. Because Security Council resolutions are binding on all U.N. members, it could therefore be argued that the nuclear deal was binding on the United States even though it had not been ratified by the Senate.

But that is not how our constitutional order works. American presidents historically have decided which international agreements are to be treated as treaties, but the Iran deal specified that it be ratified by the Iranian parliament.

If President Obama wanted to make a long-term international agreement binding on the United States, he needs consent from Congress. Anything else is a serious affront to the Constitution, and no U.N. endorsement changes that.

(This is not the only example of President Obama’s lawless approach to international agreements: The Paris climate-change agreement was deliberately negotiated to make it binding on the United States without Senate ratification and difficult for a future U.S. president to cancel. The same principles apply, however, and I expect President Trump pull out of the climate agreement as soon as possible.)

3. It’s not a true multilateral agreement.

The Obama administration also attempted to entrench the Iran deal making it a multilateral agreement, but this was just window-dressing.

The deal is technically a multilateral pact agreed to by Iran, the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but it is actually a bilateral agreement negotiated almost entirely between the United States and Iran. Iran has only looked to the United States for additional concessions since the deal was announced, and if we want to end the deal, we can.

So it is clear the deal must be either discarded or substantially renegotiated, and that we have every right to do so.

The first steps to renegotiation should be (1) assembling a new anti-Iran coalition of our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states, and (2) imposing new sanctions on Iran in response to its nuclear program, ballistic-missile program, sponsorship of terrorism, and belligerent behavior. Russia and China could be allowed into the new coalition, but they should not be given a veto over any new agreement. This coalition also must be kept out of the United Nations.

Building the new coalition and renegotiating the agreement won’t be the easiest task, but given Iran’s belligerent behavior and the power new U.S. sanctions can have, a strong president and secretary of state can do it.

An agreement that truly addresses the threat from Iran’s nuclear program and the wider threats Iran poses will require reversing all of the irresponsible concessions made to Iran by the Obama administration.

Such negotiations must start from the following ten guidelines:

  1. Iran must cease all uranium enrichment and uranium-enrichment research.
  2. Iran cannot have a heavy-water reactor or a plant to produce heavy water.
  3. Iran agrees to robust verification, including “anytime, anywhere” inspections by IAEA inspectors of all declared and suspect nuclear sites.
  4. Iran must fully and truthfully answer all questions about its past nuclear-weapons-related work.
  5. Iran must agree to limitations on its ballistic-missile program.
  6. Sanctions will only be lifted in stages, in response to Iranian compliance with the agreement.
  7. Iran must agree to end its meddling in regional conflicts and its sponsorship of terror.
  8. Threats by Iran to ships in the Persian Gulf, U.S. naval vessels, and American troops must stop.
  9. Iran must cease its hostility toward Israel.
  10. Iran must release all U.S. prisoners.

Renegotiating or terminating the Iran deal will not just end the threat from a dangerous international agreement.

It will signify that this agreement was an aberration by an incompetent U.S. president who tried to subvert the U.S. Constitution, and it would send a powerful message to the world that the Obama administration’s policies of American weakness and appeasement are over.

Trump critics have argued that renegotiating or terminating the nuclear deal would isolate the United States and hurt America’s global stature. But in reality, President Obama’s foreign policy has already undermined America’s reputation around the world.

Fixing or killing the Iran nuclear deal will be President Trump’s first step toward restoring America’s global leadership.

Putin, Trump speak by phone, discuss future efforts to improve ties – CBS News

Posted November 15, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Putin, Trump speak by phone, discuss future efforts to improve ties – CBS News

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin and President-elect Donald Trump spoke over the phone Monday to discuss future efforts to improve the U.S.-Russian ties, the Kremlin and Trump’s office said.

“President-elect Trump noted to President Putin that he is very much looking forward to having a strong and enduring relationship with Russia and the people of Russia,” Trump’s office said in a statement.
The Kremlin, in a far more specific and longer readout, said that Putin congratulated Trump on his victory and expressed Russia’s readiness to “establish a partner-like dialogue with the new administration on the basis of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in domestic relations.”

Trump’s office said that Putin called him to “offer his congratulations on winning a historic election.”

“During the call, the two leaders discussed a range of issues including the threats and challenges facing the United States and Russia, strategic economic issues and the historical U.S.-Russia relationship that dates back over 200 years,” it said.

In its readout, the Kremlin added that both Putin and Trump agreed that the U.S.-Russian ties are in “extremely unsatisfactory” condition now.

“They spoke for active joint work to normalize ties and engage in constructive cooperation on a broad range of issues,” it said, adding that Putin and Trump emphasized the need to develop trade and economic cooperation to give a strong basis to U.S.-Russia relations.

Putin and Trump also agreed on the need to combine efforts in the fight against their No. 1 enemy — “international terrorism and extremism” — and discussed the settlement of the Syrian crisis in that context, according to the Kremlin. How to fight side-by-side in Syria, where Russia supports President Bashar Assad and the U.S. supports rebels fighting against him and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has been one of the key sticking points between President Barack Obama and Putin.

It said that Putin and Trump agreed to continue phone contacts and to plan a personal meeting in the future.

Trump’s statement Monday said he looked forward to a “strong and enduring relationship” with Russia. During the campaign, he outlined few specifics as to how he would go about it. President Barack Obama began his presidency with a goal to “reset” ties with Russia, but they eventually plunged to the lowest point since the Cold War over the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

Throughout the campaign, the Kremlin insisted that it had no favorites and rejected the claims of interference in the U.S. election. Russia’s state-controlled media, however, made no secret of their sympathy for Trump.

Mr. Obama and Putin may meet and discuss the latest in Syria when they both travel to Peru for an international summit this week, according to a report from Reuters.

Both Mr. Obama and Putin will be in Lima, Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit on Saturday and Sunday. The news of a potential meeting came from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Reuters reported.

The U.S. and Russia have held a series of negotiations aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria. At the G-20 summit in China earlier this fall, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin met to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria but weren’t able to reach an agreement, with Mr. Obama saying “gaps in trust” between the U.S. and Russia were hindering discussions.

Mr. Obama leaves Monday for a week-long trip to Europe and South America. He’ll travel first to Greece and Germany, followed by the APEC summit in Peru.

There’s a new sheriff in town

Posted November 15, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Israel Hayom | There’s a new sheriff in town

Richard Baehr

Tens of thousands of anti-Trump demonstrators (and in some cases rioters) have ‎taken to the streets to protest Donald Trump’s victory last Tuesday.

The protesters ‎seem to be a collection of those who supported Bernie Sanders and those who show ‎up for Black Lives Matter demonstrations. If more of these two groups had shown ‎up to vote in a few key states, Hillary Clinton might now be working on the Clinton restoration project at the White House. ‎

While there are still several million mail-in ballots to be counted in California and a ‎few other states, which will certainly add to the popular vote margin for Clinton, ‎the fact is that American presidential elections are decided in the Electoral College, and Trump appears to have won more electoral college ‎votes (306) than any Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. In other words, ‎in the arena that mattered, Trump’s victory was decisive. No Republican had won ‎Michigan or Pennsylvania since 1988, or Wisconsin since 1984. ‎

Of course, with Clinton’s majority in the popular vote, some of her supporters ‎are now demanding that the “national will” be honored, and that electors from states backing Trump should vote for Clinton. This, of course, will not happen. So, ‎too, none of the Hollywood personalities who promised to move to Canada if ‎Trump won have yet chartered flights to Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. ‎One wonders why these people never threaten to move to Mexico.

The Trump victory, accompanied by sweeping Republican victories down-ballot in ‎the Senate and House, state legislatures and governors’ races, provides hope to conservatives and Republicans for a reversal ‎of much of what they believe has been the damage done by the Obama administration ‎in its two terms.‎

One area where the tone of the administration should change immediately is U.S. ‎relations with Israel. On the day after his victory, Trump spoke with Israeli Prime ‎Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and invited him to Washington. Netanyahu seemed pleased that Israel once again would have a friend in ‎the White House. Contrast this with the posture of ‎President Barack Obama, who set the tone on his first day in office by making his first call to a foreign leader to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.‎ Later, Obama helped organize a boycott of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in ‎‎2015; walked out on him during one meeting in Washington; made sure his State ‎Department offered up strident condemnations either through press secretaries or ‎top administration officials of every bit of news from Israel on any construction ‎project across the Green Line; and blamed Israel for the lack of progress in the ‎peace process.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Obama administration’s attitude, other than showing the love to Muslim countries, was its obsession with securing a nuclear deal with Iran, which involved ‎American concessions on pretty much every negotiating point pushed by the ‎mullahs over the long months of the negotiating process. Secretary of State John ‎Kerry seemed to serve as Iran’s lawyer at times, repeatedly defending the ‎giveaways, and later, lying about American bribes to get hostages released and ‎Iranian violations of agreement terms after the deal was signed.

Kerry thanked ‎the Iranians for releasing American sailors they had captured and humiliated. He ‎and Obama seemed comfortable to have American special forces fighting side by ‎side with Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, in each case extending ‎Iran’s sphere of influence in both countries and the region. Obama said that Iran (the ‎leader of the “Death to America” movement abroad) deserved to have its day as a ‎regional power. Obama, a man with thick ideological blinders on every issue ‎that matters to his “legacy” (something he constantly talks about), seemed unable ‎to even consider the reality of how the Iran deal would play out in the region, once ‎it transformed the balance of power. In essence, he chose for America to ‎effectively abandon any leadership role in the Middle East or elsewhere, a position ‎consistent with his degradation of the American military’s size and capabilities. He ‎seemed to bear a special pride for opening the U.S. up to Iran (and Cuba). Those ‎openings provided rich benefits to the leadership of our former foes, but there is ‎no evidence that any of these openings changed the character of the regimes we ‎were dealing with, or provided any benefit to the citizens of these countries.‎

Throughout his 16-month campaign for the presidency, Trump was a tough ‎critic of the Iran deal, and promised to scrap it or renegotiate it. Now he will have ‎his chance. Of course, the other members of the P5+1 negotiating team on ‎the https://www.paydayloansnow.co.uk/payday/no-credit-check/direct-lender/ deal are for now all committed to preserving it. Feckless as always ‎when commercial interests can be advanced, several see new business ‎opportunities, and simply ignore the strategic threats from a more powerful, better ‎financed Iranian regime that is seeking to expand its military footprint and dominance in ‎the vacuum Obama created. Trump will, however, have the support of many ‎members of Congress, mostly from his party, in any effort to toughen sanctions ‎and call out Iranian violations of the deal, rather than obscure them. ‎

It is an open question where congressional Democrats will be when Iran is ‎considered in the new Congress. A handful of Democrats opposed the deal when it ‎was voted on in 2015 — just four Democratic senators and 25 Democratic House ‎members. After their shattering and surprising defeat on Tuesday, Democrats ‎seem to be quickly creating the circular firing squad that was widely predicted that ‎Republicans would establish after a Trump defeat. Now many “Never Trump”-ers, ‎seeing chances for Republicans to roll back much of the Obama agenda, seem to be ‎willing to fall into line for a united party. Democrats are demonstrating their new ‎problems in the fight over who will become the new chairman of the Democratic ‎National Committee. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign after leaked ‎emails showed how she and the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders during ‎the nomination process. Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile was disgraced and fired ‎by her employer, CNN, after WikiLeaks revealed that she provided debate ‎questions to the Clinton team. One wonders if CNN knew this all along, and how ‎it would have reacted had the story not gone public. A good ‎guess is that with the brand of “journalism” practiced this year by CNN and others, ‎it would have buried the story and kept Brazile on. ‎

Now Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim-Americans in ‎Congress, a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a Sanders supporter, and a frequent ‎critic of Israel, may be the favorite for the DNC job if he wants it. ‎Nothing could provide more evidence that the Democrats are moving even further ‎left, and see the Clinton defeat as a rejection of a center-left approach. The likely new Senate minority leader, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, ‎endorsed Ellison for the job, probably reflecting his fear of a challenge for the job ‎he expects to have from someone to his left, such as Elizabeth Warren. ‎

If the national Democratic Party is comfortable with Ellison as its leader, the ‎chances for bipartisan action on Iran (and many other things) may diminish. There ‎is almost no one more committed to the Obama agenda across the board than Ellison. Senators, of course, are free to do what they want, and with Democrats holding 25 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2018, including nine in ‎states won by Trump — Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, ‎Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and West Virginia — alienating a group (wealthy liberal Jews) that has historically provided large funding for Democratic campaigns may be a ‎bad idea. So some may become new skeptics of the deal, at least until they win ‎re-election.‎

In any case, the atmosphere for pro-Israel activity in Washington has dramatically ‎improved.‎

Richard Baehr is the co-founder and chief political correspondent for the American Thinker, and is a visiting fellow at the Jewish Policy Center.

 

New era for US-Israel relations

Posted November 15, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Israel Hayom | New era for US-Israel relations

Yoram Ettinger

Could anyone have predicted the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential ‎election? Some managed to — those ‎who doubted the accuracy of the polling samples.

In fact, it is doubtful that ‎credible samples can be formulated, due to the fluctuating social, economic, political, demographic and ethnic environments in the ‎‎435 congressional districts, 50 states and the many counties in the ‎United States.‎

The outcome of the elections for the White House, as well as the 34 Senate seats, ‎‎435 House seats, 12 governorships and 86 of the 99 state legislative chambers, spotlights the ‎reasserted profile of America’s conservative flyover country, with its Joe Sixpacks, blue-dog Democrats, homeland security hawks and evangelical constituency, ‎which was not significantly registered in prior election cycles.

The election was a victory of the anti-establishment and ‎politically incorrect folks over the politically correct media, academia, and ‎political, business and foreign policy establishments.‎

How will Donald Trump’s victory impact U.S.-Israel relations?‎

Like all Western democracies and other U.S. allies, Israel is mostly ‎concerned with the U.S. posture of deterrence, which has played a critical ‎role in restraining global radicalism and reassuring free societies. However, ‎the U.S. power projection has been significantly eroded during President Barack Obama’s administration, generating tailwinds for rogue regimes and headwinds for ‎America’s allies, as has been strikingly demonstrated in the Persian Gulf and ‎the Middle East at large. It has fueled global turbulence, instability and ‎Islamic terrorism, which is asserting itself in Europe and increasingly on the ‎U.S. mainland. ‎

The Trump presidency is expected to reboot the U.S. posture of deterrence ‎by reversing the recent cuts in the U.S. defense budget and the ‎size of the U.S. armed forces — in the face of intensifying ‎terrorism, conventional and nuclear threats to the U.S. and its allies — and ‎replenishing the rapidly depleted and aging U.S. military stockpiles; compensating ‎for the declining purchase power of the U.S. dollar; restoring the size of the ‎armed forces, and reassessing the July 2015 agreement with Iran. This last ‎has caused all pro-U.S. Arab countries to downgrade their confidence in the ‎U.S. posture of deterrence and seek closer ties with Russia.‎

The track records of President-elect Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and ‎their foreign policy and national security advisers suggest that U.S.-Israel ‎relations are expected to experience less tension and substantial ‎enhancement, based on shared Judeo-Christian ‎values of liberty and justice, as well as long- and short-term mutual interests ‎and threats, and Israel’s unique and increasing contributions to U.S. ‎commercial and defense industries and to U.S. scientific, technological, and ‎agricultural concerns.‎

Trump and Pence, and most of their ‎advisers on U.S.-Israel relations and foreign policy, are likely to act based on the ‎following 10 understandings‎:

‎1. Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel is a derivative of a unique ‎historical right, enshrined by the early Pilgrims and the U.S. ‎Founding Fathers, rather than compensation for the Holocaust.

‎2. Israel is an effective, unconditional geostrategic ally of the U.S. that extends America’s strategic reach, while employing ‎its own — not American — soldiers, within the framework of a win-win U.S.-Israel relationship.

‎3. The scope of U.S. geostrategic interests, and therefore U.S.-Israel relations, ‎dramatically transcends the Palestinian issue.

‎4. Irrespective of the Arab talk, but based on the Arab walk, the ‎Palestinian issue is not a core cause of Middle East turbulence, nor a center‎piece of Arab policymaking, nor a trigger of anti-U.S. Islamic terrorism, nor ‎the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

‎5. Based on the intra-Arab Palestinian track record — stabbing the backs of ‎their Arab hosts — as well as the relationships between the Palestinian Authority and ‎anti-U.S. regimes and terror organizations, anti-U.S. incitement on the ‎Palestinian street, Palestinian hate-education, and the strategic implications ‎of raging anti-U.S. Arab sentiment, a Palestinian state would be a strategic ‎liability, undermining regional stability and vital U.S. interests in the Middle ‎East.

‎6. The Trump team will probably minimize U.S. involvement in ‎the mediation and negotiation process on the Palestinian issue. The team ‎is aware that the U.S. has introduced numerous Israel-Arab peace initiatives, ‎none of which succeeded. U.S. involvement has always radicalized Arab ‎expectations and undermined prospects for peace by putting further pressure on Israel.

The only two successful peace initiatives, Israel-‎Egypt and Israel-Jordan, were initiated and directly negotiated by the ‎parties involved.

‎7. The Trump-Pence team will not consider Jewish settlements in ‎Judea and Samaria to be an obstacle to peace nor a violation of international law.

‎ ‎8. The Trump-Pence team will recognize that the mountain ridges of Judea and ‎Samaria are critically required for Israel’s existence. This was demonstrated back in the days of President Lyndon Johnson, who was presented with a map by then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ‎of Staff General Earle Wheeler and was told that “the minimum requirements for Israel’s ‎defense include most of the West Bank.” ‎

‎9. The Trump-Pence team is aware that Jerusalem is the ancient capital of ‎the Jewish state, not an international city, and therefore should be the site ‎of the U.S. Embassy in Israel. The refusal to relocate the U.S. Embassy to ‎Jerusalem has undermined the U.S. posture of deterrence, and has strayed ‎from the legacy of the U.S. Founding Fathers, who considered Jerusalem a ‎cornerstone of their moral and cultural worldview, as reflected by the 18 ‎Jerusalems and 32 Salems (the original biblical name of Jerusalem) on the ‎U.S. map.‎

‎10. Trump’s anti-establishment worldview is also targeting the State ‎Department, which has been systematically wrong on Middle East issues, ‎including its 1948 recommendation not to recognize the establishment of ‎Israel, and its current insistence that Jerusalem is an international city. ‎Foggy Bottom will not lead, but will follow, the Middle East policy of ‎the Trump administration, which will not subordinate U.S. action ‎to multilateralism and the United Nations.

The new administration’s perspective on U.S.-Israel relations is consistent with that of the ‎vast majority of the U.S. constituency and the U.S. House and Senate, creating fertile ground for a substantial expansion of mutually beneficial ‎cooperation through congressional and executive initiatives.‎ This provides a unique platform for the dramatic enhancement of U.S.-Israel ‎cooperation in the face of mutual challenges and threats, bolstering the ‎economies and the national and homeland security situations of both countries, aiding U.S. allies, and undermining U.S. foes, and reducing global ‎instability.‎