Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Border wall, Executive order, Immigration law enforcement, President Trump, Sanctuary cities, Trump and immigration, U.S. southern border

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders, Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, January 25, 2017

trump_homeland_33815-jpg-b0031_c0-324-4014-2664_s885x516President Donald Trump holds up an executive order for border security and immigration enforcement improvements after signing the order during a visit to the Homeland Security Department headquarters in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

With a couple strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his own border wall, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing sanctuary cities who try to thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is the 2012 deportation amnesty for so-called Dreamers.

But most of the other policies, including Mr. Obama’s “priorities” protecting almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are gone. In their place are a series of directives that would free agents to enforce stiff laws well beyond the border, that would encourage Mexico to try to control the flow of people coming through the southwestern border, and would push back on loopholes illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“Federal agencies are going to unapologetically enforce the law, no if’s, ands or buts,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Mr. Trump doesn’t break new legal ground, but instead pushes immigration agents to flex the tools Congress has already given them over the years to enforce existing laws.

Immigrant-rights advocates say those existing laws are broken and can’t be enforced. They’ve pushed for a complete overhaul and a redo that would grant most illegal immigrants already in the U.S. legal status.

In the meantime, the groups have asked the federal government to severely curtail — or in some cases to halt altogether — deportations.

On Wednesday, the groups vowed resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies, urging local officials to brave Mr. Trump’s threat to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities, and calling on immigrants themselves to rally.

“Those who are targeted by Trump and those that love us must protect ourselves and each other in these times,” said Tania Unzueta, policy director at Mijente, an advocacy group.

Bill Denying U.S. Aid to Nations that Won’t Repatriate Alien Criminals Could Have Saved Woman

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Deportation of criminal aliens, Foreign aid, U.S. Congress

Tags: , ,

Bill Denying U.S. Aid to Nations that Won’t Repatriate Alien Criminals Could Have Saved Woman, Judicial Watch, January 25, 2017

86,288 illegal immigrants who committed 231,074 crimes were released by the Obama administration since 2013.

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

An imperative bill that aims to withhold American aid to countries that refuse to take back citizens who commit crimes while living—often illegally—in the U.S. is floating around in Congress. Incredibly, the U.S. doles out tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid annually yet some recipients of Uncle Sam’s generosity boldly reject federal efforts to repatriate their most deplorable nationals.

This presents a critical problem for the U.S. and its law-abiding citizens because even the most serious felons get released from prison after serving their sentence. When federal authorities try to deport the alien convicts and officials in their homeland decline, the foreign criminals simply get released into American society. This may sound inconceivable but it happens regularly and, predictably, the recidivism rate is alarmingly high. Federal authorities claim their hands are tied when they can’t remove an alien criminal because they’re not allowed to detain them indefinitely.

Here’s an example of the consequences of this absurd system that scatters criminals into communities throughout the nation. An illegal immigrant from Haiti who stabbed a young Connecticut woman to death after completing a 15-year sentence for murder couldn’t be deported by the U.S. government because his island nation wouldn’t take him back—three times! Federal authorities released him and didn’t even bother tracking his whereabouts allowing the con, Jean Jacques, to commit yet another heinous crime. Six months after being released Jacques stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death in Norwich, a Connecticut city of about 40,000 residents. It’s important to mention that Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, but the gruesome crime ignited fury and the state’s congressional delegation—all Democrats and avid defenders of sanctuary measures—demanded a federal investigation into the matter.

Haiti, a famously impoverished Caribbean country, gets a boatload of money every year from American taxpayers regardless of who occupies the White House. In fact, since the 2010 earthquake the U.S. government has committed $4.2 billion in assistance in addition to the regular flow of cash that Americans give the island nation. The new measure, introduced this year by Texas Congressman Brian Babin, would certainly have made a difference in the Jacques case, though it’s outrageous by any account that Haiti calls the shots in such a critical matter. “There is absolutely no reason that criminal aliens should be released back onto America’s streets, yet that is exactly what is happening by the thousands each and every year because their countries of origin refuse to take them back,” Babin said in a statement announcing his measure.

The proposed bill (Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act of 2017) upholds the rule of law, the congressman says, and holds these countries accountable by stripping their foreign aid and travel visas if they fail to cooperate. Besides withholding money to uncooperative countries that refuse to take back their criminal alien nationals, the measure includes a mandate that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) submit to Congress a report every three months listing those nations. It also provides the victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens standing in federal court to sue for deportation of such criminal aliens. The congressman mentions Casey Chadwick, the 25-year-old stabbing victim, in his statement.

A federal report, issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is also cited by the lawmaker to make a case for his bill. It discloses that 86,288 illegal immigrants who committed 231,074 crimes were released by the Obama administration since 2013. Among them was Jacques, who was listed as a passenger on three Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flights to Haiti but instead was set free to butcher an innocent young woman.

Trump freezes Obama’s $221,000,000 parting gift to the “Palestinians”

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Trump and Israel, US funding of Palestinians

Tags: ,

Trump freezes Obama’s $221,000,000 parting gift to the “Palestinians”, Jihad Watch, 

A whole lot of rocket launcher orders just got put on hold.

trump2

“State Department freezes Obama’s $221m gift to Palestinians,” World Israel News, January 25, 2017:

The Trump administration has frozen Obama’s parting gift to the the Palestinians.

Former US President Barack Obama, in his waning hours, quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which Congress had been blocking.

The Trump administration announced it is freezing the move.

The State Department is reviewing the last-minute decision by former Secretary of State John Kerry to send $221 million dollars to the Palestinians.

Kerry formally notified Congress that State would release the money Friday morning, just hours before President Donald Trump took the oath of office….

When asked about the transfer by a reporter during Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that “[Trump] is very concerned about how taxpayer money is spent, whether it’s sent overseas and what we get for it in terms of the relationship or our support for a democracy or aid to another country for their defenses. But he’s going to be examining all aspects of the budget… He’s going to make sure that every deal, every dollar that is spent by the government is done in a way that respects the American taxpayer.”

Don’t Fall for China’s Global Baloney

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: China, China and trade, Chinese "democracy", Globalism, Trump and China

Tags: , , , ,

Don’t Fall for China’s Global Baloney, Washington Free Beacon, , January 25, 2017

Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks before reporters after a two-day summit of the Group of 20 major economies in the Chinese city of Hangzhou on Sept. 5, 2016. (Kyodo) ==Kyodo

Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks before reporters after a two-day summit of the Group of 20 major economies in the Chinese city of Hangzhou on Sept. 5, 2016. (Kyodo)
==Kyodo

Reading the gushing coverage of this dictator’s turgid and clichéd speech, I can’t help thinking of the last time America’s liberal elite went gaga over China. “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks,” Tom Friedman wrote in 2009. “But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.” Chief among those advantages, according to Friedman, is the Chinese Politburo’s ability to “just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” Spoken like a true apparatchik. Six months later, on Meet the Press, Friedman confessed his fantasy: “What if we could just be China for a day?”

They are therefore more sympathetic to the world Xi Jinping wants to preserve than the world Donald Trump wants to create. That democracy or self-rule plays a far larger part in Trump’s world than in Xi’s should not be forgotten, however. Least of all by people who think of themselves as liberal or progressive.

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

It’s rather sickening to watch self-described liberals embrace China as a responsible power. The headline on the cover of this week’s Economist, which I now read solely to find out what is not the case, is “China: the global grown-up.” The Washington Post purports to explain “Why China will be able to sell itself as the last liberal great power.” These articles, besides being wrong, have the distinction of following the line set by Beijing itself: “China may lead globalization movement,” says propaganda outlet CCTV.

How one can argue that a Communist oligarchy that practices mercantilism and industrial and diplomatic espionage, builds islands in contravention of international law, disappears lawyers and writers critical of the regime, feeds its people a steady diet of ethno-nationalist propaganda, threatens America’s allies, enables the North Korean psycho-state, recently sailed its aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Strait, massively censors the Internet, and has some of the worst air pollution in the world is “liberal” in any sense of the term is beyond me. Ironic, isn’t it, that the same press that examines every utterance of Donald Trump with Talmudic scrutiny is utterly credulous when Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who is quite self-consciously modeling himself after Mao Zedong, tells the elite assembled at Davos that he will defend free trade and—I had to laugh—immigration. How many Syrian refugees are there in China?

Credit to Xi, though, for putting one over on self-described globalists and others so eager to embrace foreign critics of Donald Trump that they are more than happy to check their belief in human rights at the door. It ought to be obvious that China’s commitment to liberalism does not exist; Xi’s rhetoric is a veneer overlaying the deeply illiberal principles that animate his regime. And that regime, it seems to me, is on the defensive for the first time in 20 years. Surprised like so many at Trump’s victory, Xi understands the danger a nationalist and protectionist America poses to Chinese stability. America’s trade deficit fuels the economic growth that (barely) contains Chinese dissent. So his appeal to the Davos crowd was defensive, an attempt to rally favor among the men and women who have benefited personally from the economic arrangements of the post-Cold War era. It worked.

Makes you wonder, though. If China is invested so heavily in the status quo, perhaps Donald Trump has something of a point when he says that that status quo hasn’t benefited the average American. I know this isn’t a zero-sum world. But Xi seems to think it is, and so does Trump, and so do the millions of U.S. voters who feel that international trade agreements privilege Chinese oligarchs over American workers. A world in which the Chinese autocracy is fat and happy is not exactly a world conducive to liberty, at least not to the traditional liberty of non-dominated peoples. The Economist might have another definition in mind.

Reading the gushing coverage of this dictator’s turgid and clichéd speech, I can’t help thinking of the last time America’s liberal elite went gaga over China. “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks,” Tom Friedman wrote in 2009. “But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.” Chief among those advantages, according to Friedman, is the Chinese Politburo’s ability to “just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” Spoken like a true apparatchik. Six months later, on Meet the Press, Friedman confessed his fantasy: “What if we could just be China for a day?”

It’s a confusing world. Many are puzzled at the international aspect of the new nationalism, the collaboration and commonalities between nation-state populists across North America and Europe. I’m not puzzled, because the nation-state populists are reacting against elites who are internationalized as well. The Frenchman and American applauding Xi at Davos have more in common with each other than they do the mass of their countrymen, especially those who live outside the major metropolitan areas. I think they share a common understanding of liberalism as well. They take it to mean the system of privileges and prerogatives that enriches and empowers meritocratic knowledge-workers like themselves. They are therefore more sympathetic to the world Xi Jinping wants to preserve than the world Donald Trump wants to create. That democracy or self-rule plays a far larger part in Trump’s world than in Xi’s should not be forgotten, however. Least of all by people who think of themselves as liberal or progressive.

Get to Know Iran’s Terrorist ‘Ambassador’ to Iraq

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - Middle East, Iran in Iraq, Iranian Revolutionary Guard

Tags: , ,

Get to Know Iran’s Terrorist ‘Ambassador’ to Iraq, Clarion Project, Shahriar Kia, January 25, 2017

(Please see also The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Has Become More Influential and Powerful. — DM)

iran-revolutionary-guards-atta-kenare-afp-getty-with-ira-masjed-640-320iIranian Revolutionary Guards. (Photo: © ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images). Inset: Brigadier General Iraj Masjedi (Photo: Twitter)

In contrast to international political norms, Iran’s embassy in Iraq is not under foreign ministry authority. The IRGC enjoys complete hegemony over this diplomatic post.

Iran’s new ambassador appointment in Iraq provides a clear insight into the terrorist nature of the mullahs’ intentions, and Tehran’s specific objectives of continuing a policy of lethal meddling in Iraq — while using the country as a springboard for further intervention in Syria and beyond.

This is a challenge the new U.S. administration and Congress should meet with a firm policy calling to end Iran’s destructive role in the Middle East.

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

Iran’s new ambassador to Iraq is part of a terrorist network, an advisor of the notorious Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Quds Force. Brigadier General Iraj Masjedi replaces Hassan Danaii Far, himself a senior IRGC member.

“The Iranian embassy in Baghdad is considered a strategic post outside the country and the ambassador is a highly important figure,” notes the state-run Asre Iran daily.

Masjedi is often quoted by Iran’s media as a senior advisor to the terrorist Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, also sanctioned by the West and under a travel ban.

According to the Saudi news site Al Arabiya, “The Revolutionary Guards considers the Iranian embassy in Baghdad of strategic importance within the states that are subject to Iranian influence.

“Since the fall of the former Iraqi regime in 2003, all the ambassadors of Iran to Iraq were members of the Revolutionary Guards.”

In contrast to international political norms, Iran’s embassy in Iraq is not under foreign ministry authority. The IRGC enjoys complete hegemony over this diplomatic post.

Far’s specific mission in Iraq was literally to purge all members of the Iranian opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), through attacks launched by the Quds Force and affiliated Iraqi proxy groups. The MEK was able to resettle all its members to Europe (which is a different discussion).

Masjedi has a dark record of playing a major role in suppressing the Iraqi people and specifically leading genocidal attacks targeting locals of Diyala Province, a melting pot bordering Iran where Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and others used to live in peace prior to Iran’s covert occupation of Iraq from 2003 onward.

The highly-respected, Saudi-founded pan-Arab news outlet Asharq Al-Awsat writes, “…commanders of the Quds Force who supervise the Shi’ite militia leadership in Iraq are Brigadier Generals Mohammed Shahlaei, Mojtaba Abtahi, Iraj Masjedi and Ahmad Forouzandeh, who are all directly supervised by the Quds Forces Commander Qasem Soleimani.”

Masjedi is a loathed figure in Iraq for his efforts to completely restructure the province’s social fabric. He is known for his remarks justifying Iran’s military presence in Iraq.

“The enemy charged towards Iraqi cities and reached Samara and Karbala, and near Iran’s borders in Diyala. And you expect us to remain silent?” he said.

“We must strategically deepen our struggle,” Masjedi explained on January 31t, 2015, shedding light into the dangerous mentality of an individual now appointed as Iran’s top diplomat in Iraq.

This statement is significant when taken together with the fact that Iran remains designated as the leading state sponsor of terrorism and has taken advantage of the Obama administration’s failed policy of delivering Mesopotamia on a silver platter to Tehran’s mullahs.

The IRGC has stationed around 7,000 armed Quds Force-affiliated elements in various cities across Iraq.

Masjedi strongly agrees with senior Iranian officials who underscore the necessity for Iran to support Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and send troops and Shiite militias to the Levant.

“War in that region [i.e., Syria] is in ways providing security for [Iran],” he said.

The people of Aleppo and Diyala have no doubts about the active role that Iran, the IRGC and the Quds Force are playing in the region.

Masjedi is also known for his comments regarding the battle for the city of Fallujah, a former Islamic State stronghold west of Baghdad, emphasizing, “The involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the battle of Fallujah was in order to preserve Iran’s status as a Shiite center in the world. We are defending Iran and its borders.”

“The next step of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was been the formation of the massive Basij [mobilization] force that is faithful and a friend of Islamic Iran, such as the Iraqi Hashd al Shabi [PMF], which has been established as a powerful army with our organizing and our experience in the Sacred Defense [Iran-Iraq War],” Masjedi said according to a Long War Journal report.

“Many of the militias that are part of the PMF remain hostile to the United States, and some have threatened to attack U.S. interests in the region. One of the more influential militias within the PMF, Hezbollah Brigades, is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Several influential PMF leaders, including the operational leader of the PMF, are listed by the U.S. as global terrorists,” the LWJ report adds.

Iran’s new ambassador appointment in Iraq provides a clear insight into the terrorist nature of the mullahs’ intentions, and Tehran’s specific objectives of continuing a policy of lethal meddling in Iraq — while using the country as a springboard for further intervention in Syria and beyond.

This is a challenge the new U.S. administration and Congress should meet with a firm policy calling to end Iran’s destructive role in the Middle East.

“The regime in Tehran is the source of the crisis in the region and killings in Syria; it has played the greatest role in the expansion and continuation of ISIS. Peace and tranquility in the region can only be achieved by evicting this regime from the region,”said Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

Fake News: Trump Caved to Arab Pressure on Jerusalem Embassy Move

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Arab media, Israeli media, Jerusalem, Trump and Israel, U.S. Embassy

Tags: , , , ,

Fake News: Trump Caved to Arab Pressure on Jerusalem Embassy Move, The Jewish Press, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, January 25, 2017

us-consulate-in-jerusalemUS Consulate in Jerusalem
Photo Credit: Magister via Wikimedia

Several Israeli-based media outlets are repeating a story from an Arab media outlet that the U.S. Embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is “off the table” due to Arab pressure.

But let’s look at the evidence thus far produced and line it up against reality.

The reports claiming the Trump administration has backed down from its stated commitment to move the embassy assert the reason that is happening is because of pressure placed on the new administration by the Palestinian Arab leadership.

A story in the Times of Israel quoted a report in the Arabic media outlet Asharq Al-Awsat. That report mentioned that assurances were given to Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and the PA’s perennial negotiator Saeb Erekat in a meeting held on Tuesday with “David Blum,” of the US Consulate in Jerusalem.

But there is no David Blum in the US Consulate in Jerusalem.

The US Consul General in Jerusalem (serving “Jerusalem, Gaza and the ‘West Bank,’ that is, not Jewish Israelis) is Donald Blome. In other words, there must have been a mistranslation going from Arabic to either Hebrew or English.

A quick search of the actual American diplomat in Jerusalem, Donald Blome, reveals that he was appointed in July, 2015 by President Barack Obama, not by President Donald Trump. Given that Blome’s alleged message of reassurance to the Palestinian Arabs that the new administration was bowing to their pressure, it beggars the imagination that Blome was speaking on behalf of Trump.

There is still more evidence that this explosive “evidence” is, at best, an unofficial remark from a sympathetic holdover from the last – exceedingly hostile – administration. In an updated version of the report on the matter from the very source of the rumor, there have been significant substantive changes in the report.

The first difference is that the name of “David Blum” no longer appears in the report. There is no longer any name associated with any American government office as the source of the claim. This is what the report now says:

A senior Palestinian official told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that the Palestinian leadership has received reassurances that a plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been suspended.

The sources added that based on official information, the plan to move the U.S. embassy was no longer under consideration.

While the sources declined to disclose the party that conveyed the reassurance message to the Palestinian leadership, they stressed that authorities in Ramallah were now relieved from the pressure that was caused by such threat.

So Erekat and Abbas’s names are gone, Blum’s name is gone, and the meeting on Tuesday is no longer mentioned.

This latest rumor, especially one boasting that Arab pressure led the Trump administration to cave on a significant campaign promise should be treated as merely the latest ephemera intended to create divisions between the Trump administration and its Israeli and pro-Israel supporters. That, and the effort to make Arab threats of violence seem all-powerful, thereby becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Any statements about whether and when the U.S. Embassy is moved to Jerusalem should only be given credence when made by a Trump administration official whose jurisdiction extends to this matter.

Cartoons and Video of the Day

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Humor

Tags:

Via Capitol Steps

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

mouths

 

loser1

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

dignity

 

feministstuff

 

stages

 

asspress

 

Laugh While You Can

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iranian provocations, Iranian Threats, Obama and Iran, Trump and Iran, US Military under Obama, US Military under President Trump

Tags: , , , , ,

RIGHT ANGLE: Laugh While You Can, Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, January 24, 2017

(This video was recorded and aired for members only shortly before Obama ceased to be President. It deals with the US Military and Iran under Obama and the differences to be expected under President Trump. — DM)

Upend the ‘Faux System’ of White House Journalism

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Trump and media, Whitehouse press briefings

Tags: ,

Upend the ‘Faux System’ of White House Journalism, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, January 24, 2017

(Here’s a link to an article that focuses on the “SKYPE seats.” Four is a start, but more are needed. — DM)

Forget “faux news.”  We have a “faux system” that needs to be upended.  Without that, it’s “garbage in, garbage out,” as they say in computerland.  And not just for that obvious reason defined by what Barack Obama might have termed a lack of “fairness” — that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three percent but he loses the vote inside the briefing room by, I would guess, nearly ninety percent. It also makes for restricted viewpoints and boring, repetitive questions with little originality and no substantive information beyond what we could learn from communiques.

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

Excuse my ignorance, but I had no idea — until reading about the recent kerfuffle cum journalist Twitter brawl — that by tradition the Associated Press always gets to ask the first question at White House press briefings. (It was given on Monday to the New York Post, creating consternation.)

Which leads me to ask: Who anointed the AP and made them king?

In fact, why would anybody ever, by tradition or for any other reason, always get to ask the first or even the fifth question at a White House press briefing or conference?

Or, to drill down a little further, why does any media outlet get preference over any other when it comes to asking questions?  Or still further, who determines what reporters and organizations get into the briefing room in the first place to sit forever in rows one or two?

Well, um… professionalism.

Oh, I see. Is that a degree from Columbia Journalism School? Hemingway didn’t even go to college and could outwrite everyone in that briefing room by an exponential factor. Journalism isn’t brain surgery or even anesthesiology. It’s an occupation for ambitious hustlers with a gift for gab not so different from screenwriting, but not so high paying.

The truth is that those organizations are indeed there by tradition, a tradition of droit du seigneur and corporate thuggery that makes you yearn for the extension of anti-trust legislation.

You get the position, you keep the position. It’s a game of rich, entrenched bullies that happen to be monolithic media companies anxious to preserve their monopolies. We all know their names and logos, which have been drilled into us as the purveyors of all information from early childhood. As it was so succinctly put by A. J. Liebling back in 1960:  “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to the man who owns one.”

Does this system profit the people?  Is it anything even approximating what the Founders envisioned for our press?  Or does it exist for the benefit of those privileged journalists and their corporate bosses?

Pretty obvious, isn’t it? So when Sean Spicer announced the other day there would be four Skype seats in the White House press room for journalists from presumably smaller, outside-the-Beltway outfits, I applauded. But I asked — four?  Why not forty?

Forget “faux news.”  We have a “faux system” that needs to be upended.  Without that, it’s “garbage in, garbage out,” as they say in computerland.  And not just for that obvious reason defined by what Barack Obama might have termed a lack of “fairness” — that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three percent but he loses the vote inside the briefing room by, I would guess, nearly ninety percent. It also makes for restricted viewpoints and boring, repetitive questions with little originality and no substantive information beyond what we could learn from communiques.

Actually, the system itself is institutionally unfair.  It hasn’t changed in any significant sense in decades, as if the ghost of the UPI’s Helen “Sitting Buddha” Thomas were still plopped down in the front row as she was since the Kennedy administration.

The question is what to do about it.  First of all, move out of that tiny briefing room with its (deliberately?) small number of seats that encourages this continued monopolistic system.  Find a decent venue where a reasonable number can gather. Encourage new voices — not just journalists or even bloggers but maybe actual citizens to ask questions. The people, right and left, don’t need a filter.  They know what they want to know, probably better than those who ask questions for them.

Yes, there are many problems inherent in this that would need to be worked out, many snafus, real and imagined, along the way. But this is the time to do something about a moribund system.

Will Trump and his administration have the courage to do it, to really upend what is essentially a license for permanent elitism?

We shall see.  But instead of a perpetual battle between Trump and the press — a war that has barely started yet has already become tedious beyond words — it would be nice to find a new way of working that would actually inform the citizens of this democratic republic so they could make the necessary educated judgments. What we have now is close to the reverse.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Has Become More Influential and Powerful

Posted January 25, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - Middle East, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Khamenei

Tags: , , , , ,

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Has Become More Influential and Powerful, Iran News Update, January 24, 2017

(Please see also, What Is Iran’s Policy-Making Mechanism? — DM)

10611

The IRGC has successfully suppressed domestic opposition. Examples  include supporters and leaders of the Green Movement, and religious and ethnic minorities such as Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs. As well, other political factions, such as the moderates, have come to the conclusion that they need the blessing of the IRGC in order to survive politically.

The reintegration of Tehran into the global financial system is deepening, and more countries are committing themselves to trade with Iran and investment in its markets.The IRGC and the office of the supreme leader are the main beneficiaries of the increased revenues, which have been diverted into upgrading the IRGC’s military capabilities.  Iran’s lawmakers voted to increase the military budget despite the high unemployment rate.

Regional stability was an obstacle for the IRGC’s objective of expanding its influence beyond Iran’s borders. Rafizadeh writes, “In fact, it was through domestic conflicts that the IRGC expanded its stranglehold by penetrating other countries such as Lebanon and Iraq, and gave birth to several critical Shia proxies. In the long term, these proxies increase Iran’s political and ideological influence.”  He adds, “The more tensions and conflicts there are, the more the militaristic role of the IRGC increases in the region in order to achieve its regional ambitions. This has led to a vicious series of heightened conflicts.”

Once the child that Iran’s Islamic revolution gave birth to, the IRGC is now becoming the father of the Islamic republic. This can only be reversed if global powers or a coalition of regional nations stand against the IRGC’s increasing influence in the region.

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

Majid Rafizadeh, Iran¬ian-American political scientist, Harvard University scholar and president of the International American Council, writes in an article for The National on January 23, 2017 about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who were given birth to during Iran’s 1979 revolution.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after becoming the country’s second supreme leader in 1989, gave considerable power to the IRGC, while sidelining other powerful clerics.

Although the IRGC still had obstacles preventing it from expanding its influence, recent developments suggest that those barriers are being lifted, allowing Iran’s military to be the key decision-maker in Iran’s policy-making.

Many people, who once had considerable amount of political weight and influence, which counterbalanced the IRGC’s increasing power, do not play a crucial role any more. The late Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, who was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic republic was sidelined by Khamenei towards the end of his life, still enjoyed a considerable amount of political legitimacy in creating challenges for the IRGC and others. However, Rafsanjani died this month.

Rafsanjani had significant power as a member of the Assembly of Experts, which is given the power to supervise, elect or remove the supreme leader. After his death, the IRGC is now much stronger, suggesting that the next supreme leader will be under the IRGC’s influence. If the IRGC controls the next supreme leader, it rules Iran’s political establishment unequivocally.

While the nuclear agreement remains in place, the Iranian government’s global legitimacy expands, leading to less scrutiny from the international community on how the IRGC treats domestic opposition.

The IRGC has successfully suppressed domestic opposition. Examples  include supporters and leaders of the Green Movement, and religious and ethnic minorities such as Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs. As well, other political factions, such as the moderates, have come to the conclusion that they need the blessing of the IRGC in order to survive politically.

The reintegration of Tehran into the global financial system is deepening, and more countries are committing themselves to trade with Iran and investment in its markets.The IRGC and the office of the supreme leader are the main beneficiaries of the increased revenues, which have been diverted into upgrading the IRGC’s military capabilities.  Iran’s lawmakers voted to increase the military budget despite the high unemployment rate.

Reuters reported, “Iranian lawmakers approved plans to expand military spending to 5 per cent of the budget, including developing the country’s long-range missile programme which US president-elect Donald Trump has pledged to halt. The vote is a boost to Iran’s military establishment – the regular army, the elite IRGC and the defence ministry.”

Regional stability was an obstacle for the IRGC’s objective of expanding its influence beyond Iran’s borders. Rafizadeh writes, “In fact, it was through domestic conflicts that the IRGC expanded its stranglehold by penetrating other countries such as Lebanon and Iraq, and gave birth to several critical Shia proxies. In the long term, these proxies increase Iran’s political and ideological influence.”  He adds, “The more tensions and conflicts there are, the more the militaristic role of the IRGC increases in the region in order to achieve its regional ambitions. This has led to a vicious series of heightened conflicts.”

The IRGC, more than ever before, is capable of exploiting the rise of Sunni extremist groups such as the ISIL, not only to justify its military presence in the region, but also to increase its global legitimacy by arguing that it is fighting extremism. Without a specific agenda for fighting ISIL, western powers have allowed a certain amount of leeway to the IRGC.  Additionally, some global and regional powers have been reluctant to address counterbalancing the increasing role of the IRGC across the region for economic or geopolitical reasons.

Although founded as a theocracy, Iran is becoming more of a military state as the IRGC pursues its regional ambitions. According to Rafizadeh, “We are more likely to witness the increasing influence and domination of the IRGC domestically and regionally as several major obstacles against Iran’s military have been lifted.”

Once the child that Iran’s Islamic revolution gave birth to, the IRGC is now becoming the father of the Islamic republic. This can only be reversed if global powers or a coalition of regional nations stand against the IRGC’s increasing influence in the region.