Via Capitol Steps
H/t Freedom is Just Another Word
“The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.”
Indeed, but the white supremacist threat has been wildly exaggerated by Soros-funded groups (which exaggerations have been pushed by Soros-funded media) that downplay and deny the jihad threat. Reuters’ equivalence here also ignores the fact that the jihad is an international movement set on destroying the U.S. and found on every continent; white supremacism is not.
What Trump is really doing here is reversing Obama’s bow to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in scrubbing counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad. On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates delivered a letter to John Brennan, who was then the assistant to the president on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed by the leaders of virtually all significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Khera complained specifically about me, noting that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a slide presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia”; and that I also “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”
These were supposed to be terrible materials because I was supposedly bigoted and hateful. However, many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were simply accurate. The only distortion was Khera’s representation of them.
For instance, Khera stated:
A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming “Homegrown Islamic Extremists,” if they exhibit any of the following behavior:
“Wearing traditional Muslim attire”
“Growing facial hair”
“Frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group”
“Travel to a Muslim country”
“Increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause”
The FBI intelligence report Khera purported to be describing didn’t actually say that. Rather, it included these behaviors among a list of fourteen indicators that could “identify an individual going through the radicalization process.” Other indicators included:
“Travel without obvious source of funds”
“Suspicious purchases of bomb making paraphernalia or weapons”
“Large transfer of funds, from or to overseas”
“Formation of operational cells”
Khera had selectively quoted the list to give the impression that the FBI was teaching that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to “extremism.”
Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force, among other actions:
“Purge all federal government training materials of biased materials.”
“Implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training.”
They wished to ensure that all law enforcement officials ever learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn — and Brennan was amenable to that. He took Khera’s complaints as his marching orders.
In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan accepted Khera’s criticisms without a murmur of protest and assured her of his readiness to comply. He detailed specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality, this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive. Honest, accurate discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence would no longer be allowed.
The alacrity with which Brennan complied was unfortunate on many levels. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were purged. Brennan was complying with demands from quarters that could hardly be considered authentically moderate.
This Obama policy of the U.S. government ensured that numerous jihadists simply could not be identified as risks. The Obama administration was bound, as a matter of policy, to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Now we can hope that Trump will reverse all that.
“Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources,” by Julia Edwards Ainsley, Dustin Volz and Kristina Cooke, Reuters, February 2, 2017:
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, would be changed to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,” the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Such a change would reflect Trump’s election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islam” in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.
The CVE program aims to deter groups or potential lone attackers through community partnerships and educational programs or counter-messaging campaigns in cooperation with companies such as Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook (FB.O).
Some proponents of the program fear that rebranding it could make it more difficult for the government to work with Muslims already hesitant to trust the new administration, particularly after Trump issued an executive order last Friday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Still, the CVE program, which focuses on U.S. residents and is separate from a military effort to fight extremism online, has been criticized even by some supporters as ineffective.
A source who has worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the program said Trump transition team members first met with a CVE task force in December and floated the idea of changing the name and focus.
In a meeting last Thursday attended by senior staff for DHS Secretary John Kelly, government employees were asked to defend why they chose certain community organizations as recipients of CVE program grants, said the source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
Although CVE funding has been appropriated by Congress and the grant recipients were notified in the final days of the Obama administration, the money still may not go out the door, the source said, adding that Kelly is reviewing the matter….
US Agents Tasked With Deradicalization Lack Arabic, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, February 2, 2017
A U.S. Department of Defense program to counter Islamist radicalization efforts is fell into difficulty because of the lack of skills of those tasked with running the program, according to former employees who have gone public.
The DoD says the program, subcontracted and comprising 120 staff members, fights radicalization online “through regular engagement, in-language, with regional target audiences online, using factual information consistent with our approved narratives.”
Yet according to ex-staff of the WebOps program, many employees could not speak Arabic properly, frequently mixing up words or even mistaking Arabic messages for other languages like Farsi or Urdu.
The agents would use keywords to identify which social media users were likely to be at risk of radicalization. However once in touch with someone who was at risk, staff of the deradicalization program made errors like mixing up the words for “salad” and “authority,” thus undermining their credibility.
As embarrassing, staff lacked awareness of the differences between the myriad Islamist groups. One ex-member said many employees “don’t know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.”
The program was subcontracted to the private corporation Colsa Corp. Former employees allege the company, which runs its own in-house internal assessment of the success of the program, encouraged them to indicate progress regardless of whether or not progress was taking place, in order to maintain funding.
A lack of language skills has long inhibited U.S. counter-radicalization efforts. After 9/11, intelligence sources said, less than a dozen CIA field agents spoke Arabic. In 2006 just 33 FBI agents had even limited familiarity with Arabic. That year, the House Select Committee on Intelligence concluded U.S. human intelligence – ie, the condition of its spying apparatus in terms of personnel, as being in “an entirely unacceptable state of affairs.”
In 2009, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence warned that the necessary organizational familiarity with the key languages of Pashto, Dari and Urdu for the government “remains essentially nonexistent.”
If the U.S. is serious about winning the “war on terror” then language fluency within the departments charged with waging that war needs to be brought up to the required standard.
Dutch Politician Jan Roos: Stop Building a ‘Little Middle East’ in Europe, PJ Media, Michael Van Der Galien, February 2, 2017
(Please see also, Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump. — DM)
THE HAGUE – On Thursday in front of parliament building journalists Jan Roos and Thierry Baudet stopped by with a petition signed by over 150 thousand people. The petition is supposed to give the public a say on the ratification of the EU Ukraine association treaty signed by Brussels last year and approved by Dutch parliament in 2015. Mister Baudet and mister Roos aim to increase participation in EU wide matters as they are concerned the Brussels institution is becoming increasingly undemocratic. For a referendum to be able to take place the petition will need to signed by at least 300 thousand people. (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto)
The leader of Dutch political party VNL (VoorNederland, a classically liberal party) is lashing out at “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.
Yesterday, Dutch outlet De Dagelijkse Standaard (I serve as its editor-in-chief) reported that increasingly more teachers at primary and high schools refuse to talk about certain issues due to fear of Muslim students.
They mention a similar situation in Turkey, led by the increasingly authoritarian President Erdogan, where homosexuality and terrorism are issues better ignored. The teachers say that there’s a “cultural conflict” in Dutch classrooms, and although some of them initially tried to hang on to liberal Dutch values, many have now given up.
VNL leader Jan Roos (VNL currently has two seats in the Dutch Parliament) rose to fame by leading the No campaign in the Dutch referendum about the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, which resulted in a stunning victory for the eurosceptic movement. Roos says that, although the classroom situation is certainly ridiculous, it can’t possibly come as a surprise to anyone:
Considering that the Netherlands further opened its borders to mass migration in the intervening years:
… it’s not exactly shocking that this situation has deteriorated.
Roos has little sympathy for those who blame “a lack of integration or assimilation” for these problems. The real problem, he explains, is “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.
This stance marks an incredibly important distinction between traditional influential parties and newcomers like VNL (which was created only a few years ago). The former pretend that the country would be able to deal with mass migration if only the rules for integration and assimilation were clearer. Roos rightfully believes this not to be so. After all, you can’t “force” anyone to assimilate — or even expect them to — if they’re coming into the Netherlands by the tens of thousands every single year. This while the Netherlands has a population of a mere 17 million souls.
Says Roos:
Because multiculturalism was forced upon us, we were asked to become tolerant towards intolerance. In such a scenario intolerance always wins , which means you’ll end up with an intolerant society. Our Western values will be wiped away in one fell swoop if these minorities [of intolerant people] decide what happens in our country.
That danger is increasing by the day. A new political party is run by Dutch Turks — or, as Roos calls them, “radical Turks” — who defend every outrage that occurs in Turkey while blasting Dutch culture and history at every occasion. This party currently has two seats in Parliament, just like VNL. The polls indicate they may very well hang on to those seats — and perhaps even win a few more — because of widespread support among the Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch communities, who are far more observant of Islam than their counterparts in their countries of origin.
Because of our tolerant attitude towards oppressive cultures and our insane open-borders policy, Roos warns that “we are creating a ‘little Middle East’ in Europe.”
Another example of this development occurred at a ridiculous protest in the nation’s political capital of The Hague yesterday, where Parliament is seated (although Amsterdam is, of course, the Netherlands’ official capital).
Hamas was also present at that protest. But when, in a few years time, the intolerant people turn against their leftist protesters, they’ll come running to us, begging us to help them.
Those leftist protesters, who were waving their politically correct flags and shouting multicultural-loving slogans yesterday, “are cuddling their own downfall,” Roos continues:
The only end result of this can be that our Western values will be wiped out.
Of course, it’s great that teachers, who are generally rather progressive, have finally found the courage to speak out against these problems in their classrooms. But if we don’t act now, mass migration and our dreamy multicultural project will eventually result in the destruction of the free West and of every fundamental right — such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion — we hold dear.
Roos’ words sound remarkably like Geert Wilders’ views on this matter, but there are differences. Yes, he demands an end to mass migration and the grand multicultural project, but — unlike Wilders — he does not want to “ban the Quran”:
If people want to read that book, they are free to do so. The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion will continue to exist if VNL plays a role in the Dutch government, but they will be based on Dutch laws. Those who have trouble with the latter part of my statement — respect for Dutch laws and our values — our free to leave.
According to recent polls, VNL has a real shot at coming back in Parliament after the general election of March 15. Geert Wilders’ PVV, however, is leading with ease. It is followed by the VVD, the party currently at the head of government, which is blamed for the dreadful consequences of unlimited migration from the Middle East and for the slow recovery of the Dutch economy after the economic crisis of 2008.
Berkeley Riots Provoked by Freedom Center Campaign, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, February 2, 2017
The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin (D), seemed to green-light the riots in a Twitter post. “Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable,” he tweeted, in a reference to Yiannopoulos. “Hate speech isn’t welcome in our community.”
*****************************
Leftist UC Berkeley students and outsiders rioted last night to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a David Horowitz Freedom Center-sponsored speech demanding the end of “sanctuary campuses” that harbor illegal aliens. Milo’s address, which was canceled amid violent mob attacks, fire-setting, and wanton property destruction, had been scheduled to mark the launch of the Freedom Center’s #nosanctuarycampusforcriminals campaign.
“One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down,” Yiannopoulos, tech editor at Breitbart News, said after being safely evacuated from the campus.
“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republicans member told SFGate as smoke bombs exploded nearby. He said paint was thrown on his person. “It’s sad.”
“The so-called ‘sanctuary movement’ is a concerted effort by left-wing administrations in major cities to thwart the purposes of the Patriot Act, undermine federal immigration law, and cripple the efforts of the Department of Homeland security to protect American citizens from terrorist threats,” David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the Freedom Center, said on Jan. 31.
“Thanks to the efforts of left-wing activists and administrators, this seditious movement has now spread to our colleges and universities.”
Backed by the Freedom Center, Yiannopoulos, an outspoken gay, Jewish, Greek-born British citizen who ardently supports President Trump, was on campus to demand that federal grants to UC Berkeley be withdrawn and that university officials like UC President Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks who endanger their students with their illegal alien-shielding policies be prosecuted.
UC President Napolitano, formerly President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, is under the microscope because, as head of the taxpayer-supported University of California system, she is deliberately harboring hundreds of illegal aliens attending UC system schools. She has forbidden campus police from working with immigration law enforcement and provided $5 million to aid the illegals UC is sheltering from ICE.
The University of California system even provides legal aid to illegal alien students who wish to keep breaking U.S. immigration laws.
The executive director of the University of California Undocumented Legal Services Center at the UC Davis School of Law explained to Rolling Stone in December what a sanctuary campus was.
“Basically it’s a concept that says, ‘You’re safe here, and your immigration status, we won’t ask,’” said Maria Blanco. “’We won’t turn you over. We won’t turn your records over.’”
Not all the rioters were from Berkeley.
Many of those dressed black bloc-style so police can’t identify them appear to be associated with the “antifa” movement. Antifa may be short for anti-fascist but these thugs, usually a mix of anarchists and communists, use violent fascistic tactics against their targets. These terrorists do not tolerate opposing views. Before the riots broke out those gathered carried signs that read “hate speech is not free speech.” Signs from the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PLS) also showed up in Berkeley.
Antifa is also involved in the protests and melees at airports nationwide launched in opposition to President Trump’s Executive Order 13769 which as of Jan. 27 temporarily banned visitors from a handful of terrorism-plagued Muslim nations.
The Berkeley police had reportedly been given a “stand down” order which allowed rioters to generate mayhem. Later when the police declared the throng of troublemakers an unlawful assembly and ordered those present to leave, the mob chanted “you go first!”
After leaving the campus Yiannopoulos reflected on the night’s events in a video on his Facebook page.
I don’t want to get into wild conspiracy theorizing or pointing fingers but it’s been noted by a number of people including Tucker Carlson at Fox News that the police presence did not seem to be particularly aggressive this evening and that’s something that I witnessed and that my security detail witnessed too. There was a sort of sit back, let it happen approach.
I was evacuated, really, at the first sign of trouble. Trouble did get a lot worse after I did leave so I think I’d’ve had to leave anyway. So this event may never have got off the ground. It seems as though the university and police didn’t really want it to happen but the fact that on an American college campus, a place of higher education, a place of learning in America which I’d come to, as a visitor from the United Kingdom where we don’t have a First Amendment, hoping that this would be somewhere where you could be, do, and say anything, where you could express your views, express your opinions, crack some jokes, make people think, make people laugh, free from violent responses to political ideas. I thought America was the one place where that would be possible.
I am, of course, not the racist or the sexist or anything else that the posters that they put up claim that I am. They do that in order to legitimize their own violence against you. But even if I were, even if the things that they said about me were true, this still wouldn’t be an appropriate response to ideas.
The rioting is amply documented on social media.
Twitter is overflowing with video footage from Berkeley last night showing rioters beating people thought to be conservatives or supporters of Yiannopoulos or President Trump with poles and spraying mace into their eyes. One video appeared to show an unconscious man lying face down in the street being beaten with a shovel. The rioters even provided a soundtrack to accompany their violence, giving the insurrection a rave-like quality as “We Found Love” by recording artist Rihanna was blasted out by loudspeakers.
“Kill fascists” was spray-painted on a shop window. A Starbucks outlet was looted. ATMs at a Bank of America branch were smashed.
Of course any students participating in the mayhem yesterday should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and expelled from Berkeley. Teaching and administrative staff may also have been involved in the violence and if so they too should be dealt with severely.
But given the University of California system’s full-throated embrace of lawlessness, don’t hold your breath.
Local authorities aren’t much better.
The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin (D), seemed to green-light the riots in a Twitter post. “Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable,” he tweeted, in a reference to Yiannopoulos. “Hate speech isn’t welcome in our community.”
When things spiraled out of control, he backpedaled, tweeting, “Violence and destruction is not the answer[.]”
And don’t forget that the George Soros-funded slander shop, Media Matters for America, helped to lay the groundwork for the leftist violence surrounding Yiannopoulos in Berkeley and at other stops on his speaking tour. It has long urged colleges to prevent him from speaking, characterizing his mere words as harassment.
Berkeley, interestingly enough, was the home of something that called itself the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s.
But that was a long time ago.
Trump tackles three real problems, Israel National News, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, February 2, 2017
By exposing American media bias, Muslim terrorism and Europe’s hypocrisy, U.S president Trump is drawing attention to three major issues which should be addressed. He receives much flak from many directions. Part of it comes from people who have not yet digested that Barack Obama is no longer U.S president. However, Trump, as a democratically elected president, should also not behave, even unintentionally, as if he believes in Mussolini’s claim: “Many enemies, much honor.”
The three real problems Trump is tackling all have impact on Jews or Israel.
As far as leading media outlets are concerned, a number of them are weighty distorters of the truth. If one follows the publications of the Camera mediawatch organization[1] over the years one sees how the New York Times regularly expresses anti-Israel bias in both its news and op-eds.
In an interview, Ricki Hollander and Gilead Ini, two senior analysts at Camera, accused the paper of advocacy journalism. They said: “Both its editorial pages and news reporting lean heavily toward an anti-Israel perspective…the NYT poisons the public’s mind against Israel by shaping the perception of the Jewish state as responsible for many, if not most, of the region’s ills. It does this with double standards in reporting about Israel versus her enemies and recounting only half the story. It sanitizes the role of Israel’s adversaries, including terrorist organizations, and obsessively indicts Israel at every turn.”[2]
If Trump would listen to a strategist’s advice he would not attack all media at the same time. He would rather put an experienced media-observer to the task of analyzing the New York Times’ bias, and quote examples of it regularly. This would be far more convincing than an overall attack on the media. The other media outlets would not show solidarity with the NYT, because why back up somebody else’s bias, when he is being attacked? Focusing all attacks on one paper by providing regular examples of it, is far more convincing for the public at large than spreading attacks over general media. Punishing the NYT, for instance, by excluding it from White House Press conferences would then also be seen by many as justified.
A second important problem Trump has raised is that of the major terrorism coming out of parts of Muslim societies. The approach to deal with this important issue could have benefited from some professional assistance, so that the temporary entry-ban of people from seven countries could have stated upfront that it did not concern green card holders, citizens with dual nationalities, those who have helped the US military and a few other categories from the countries concerned.
It would be very advisable that in future, there is further improved vetting of immigrants including screening for anti-Semitism.[3] Trump has suggested this during his election campaign as a possibility and Jewish organizations should support him on this. Was Trump wrong when he tweeted “Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, now”? That might have prevented 9/11. He concluded his argument by saying rightly that there was a horrible mess in Europe.[4]
This brings us to the third issue which has some bearing on Jews. Trump understands that the European Union has for many years maintained policies on various major issues which are the opposite of his policies. Is there anything more alien to Trump’s policies than the German open door attitude toward refugees which started in September 2015? Only a part of those entering were registered by the German authorities. Hundreds of thousands came in without any registration.
Trump wants a strong United States, not one weakened through opposition by European masochists. The massive European criticism of the US entry-ban, provides further proof that one cannot count on halfhearted Europe too much in the battle against terrorism. The same is true as far as keeping hate mongers out. The non-selective immigrant policies of Western European countries have led to a huge influx of anti-Semites, mainly from Arab countries.
One voice dissenting from the European critic-brigades was hardly heard. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that what Trump did was not in line with the Italian policy, yet, “Trump in his electoral campaign has made certain statements. On that basis he has won the elections. Now he carries out what he has said. He is not doing anything different from what he has promised.”
Alfano added: “Europe should not imagine that it can be both incompetent in managing the immigration issue and at the same time be respected for its judgments. It is not in a position to express opinions on the choices of others. Or do we want to forget that also in Europe walls have been erected.”[5]
Israelis understand the truth of what Alfano said. The EU claims to know what Israel should do with regard to the Palestinians, sometimes applying double standards which are the core of anti-Semitism. At the same time, the EU itself is in a major crisis. To paraphrase a regular statement of pseudo-progressives on Israel: By insisting that the Europeans start spending significantly far more on military issues –rather than being parasites living off the United States – Trump may well be saving Europe from itself.
Confronting media bias, Muslim terrorism, and European hypocrisy are all fields where Trump can make a major contribution to the upkeep of Western values – if he does not use overblown rhetoric. Then any good points he makes will get lost. Jews and Israel will benefit if he succeeds. One can only hope that Trump does not spread himself too thin by adding even more subjects to fight about.
________________________
Footnotes:
[2] http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15413
US funding of UN disproportionate, Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, February 2, 2017
This may come as a shock: It’s possible a committee of officials from the Defense, State and Justice departments, as well as the National Security Council, will conduct a review of the disproportionate funding the United States provides to the United Nations and come to the conclusion that American taxpayers should spend less on an organization that is inefficient, corrupt and inimical to American interests.
Nikki Haley, the newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to the U.N., hinted at this radical departure from tradition when she said on Jan. 18 that while she would oppose “slash and burn cuts” to the U.N., she did want to ensure that the U.S. “gets what it pays for.”
One week later, The New York Times reported that it had “obtained” (in other words, someone in the government had leaked) copies of a “draft” executive order (in other words, an unapproved working document) that would “clear the way to drastically reduce the United States’ role in the United Nations and other international organizations.”
A serious question: Is the Times correct to assert that paying less would mean playing a reduced role? The U.S. gets one vote on the Security Council, just as Russia and China do. The U.S. gets one vote in the General Assembly, just as Iran and Venezuela do. How much money it forks over won’t change that.
The Times warned that such cuts “could severely curtail the work of United Nations agencies, which rely on billions of dollars in annual United States contributions for missions that include caring for refugees.”
A second serious question: Are there no other nations that could pick up the slack when it comes to funding efforts to care for refugees? No European nations, no members of the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?
The British Guardian jumped into the controversy, reporting that “U.S. allies have reacted with a mix of alarm and skepticism.” An unnamed “senior European diplomat” said: “It would potentially be brutal.” No one should be so cynical as to think that unnamed senior European diplomats would throw such terms around lightly.
Should the president sign the draft order, funding could be terminated to any international agency that contributes to systematic violations of human rights, is controlled by a state that sponsors terrorism, supports activities that circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran or North Korea, gives full membership to the Palestinian Authority, or funds abortions.
Third serious question: Based on the results of the last election, why should such organizations and activities continue to be funded by Washington?
The U.N. was founded, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, by statesmen with the best of intentions. Its charter sought to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”
A fourth serious question: Can anyone seriously argue that the U.N. is achieving these goals?
Among the recently elected members of the U.N. Human Rights Council are China, Cuba, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The U.N. has never taken any serious action against genocide, as occurred in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan and Syria, nor against states that support terrorism, including Iran. Demonizing and delegitimizing Israel appears to be its main occupation.
Since the 1990s, there have been serious allegations of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing women and girls in the Central African Republic, Bosnia, Liberia, Cambodia, and other countries. Studies have identified U.N. peacekeepers as the source of the cholera outbreak that killed more than 8,000 people in Haiti a few years ago.
Reports of mismanagement, corruption and fraud throughout the organization have been numerous. Calls for reform and transparency have been unavailing. Does this really sound like a good investment for ordinary taxpayers?
Which raises a fifth serious question: How much are we paying? According to estimates by Heritage Foundation scholar Brett D. Schaefer, the U.S. shells out “approximately $8 billion a year in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations.” That’s more than is contributed to the U.N. by 183 of the U.N.’s 193 members combined.
There’s also this: Under U.N. rules, the 129 member states that contribute less than 1.3% can pass budgets over the objections of the U.S. and other nations that contribute much more.
Schaefer writes: “This explains why so many member states are blase about increases in the U.N. budget. The financial impact on them is miniscule and undermines incentives for them to fulfill their oversight role.”
It is telling that not one of the articles I’ve read in the major media lamenting the possibility of cuts by the U.S. to the U.N. bothers to mention how much the U.N. spends or how much the U.S. pays.
A piece in the Times does note that the U.S. provides the lion’s share of the funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations, adding: “At least one of these, the operation in southern Lebanon, directly serves Israeli interests by protecting the country’s northern border, though the draft order characterizes the funding cuts as serving Israeli interests.”
A not quite serious question: Has the Times laid off its fact-checkers? It’s no secret that the UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon have become protectors of Hezbollah, the Iranian-funded terrorist group that rules the area. Following the 2006 war they were given a mission: to ensure that Hezbollah did not re-arm. How did that work out? Under the very noses of those peacekeepers, Hezbollah has installed more than 100,000 missiles in homes, schools, hospitals and mosques, all pointing at Israel.
The Trumpocalypse Goes Global, Power Line,
It isn’t just in the halls of Washington where Trump has everyone in an uproar. In the House of Commons over in Britain, the Corbynite Labour Party had a conniption fit, culminating in this nice exchange between Corbyn and Prime Minister Theresa May, who I must say is reminding me more and more of Margaret Thatcher all the time (about 1:30 long):
There was a similar debate up in Canada this week, too, but much less energetic and colorful, because Canada. (See below.)
Prediction: Trump is going to be a central issue in the upcoming French and German elections. The man’s political brand is going as global as his hotel brand.
What do they debate about in the Canadian parliament? Whether you can say “fart” in debate. Don’t they have a speech and debate clause? (3:38 long.)
Bonus! Nigel Farage gets in on the Trump action in the European Commission:
Recent Comments