Posted tagged ‘President Elect Trump’

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors

December 2, 2016

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors, Daily Caller, Kerry Picket, December 1, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice did not want to discuss why the agency refuses to investigate alleged harassment and death threats toward Electoral College voters in states that went for Donald Trump.

“The department will decline to comment,” DOJ deputy press secretary David Jacobs told The Daily Caller in an email Wednesday afternoon.

The Justice Department seemed concerned about protecting voters from being intimidated at the polls on Election Day. It deployed 500 monitors to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states to watch polling stations this past presidential election cycle.

The department’s goal is “to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement at the time to the Chicago Tribune. “The department is deeply committed to the fair and unbiased application of our voting rights laws and we will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible person that wants to do so is able to cast a ballot.”

Some have wondered, then, why the Justice Department and the FBI will not investigate the recent claims of threats and harassment of these electors as per violation of Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307).

Attorney J. Christian Adams, who previously worked in the DOJ’s civil rights division, appeared unsurprised by the department’s reaction, telling TheDC in a statement Thursday, “The Justice Department should be investigating the brutal attacks on Trump voters caught on video and the death threats to Trump electors. Federal law protects people who want to vote. The Obama Justice Department unfortunately only protects people who vote the right way.”

According to the law, it is a crime to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.”

The law was used in the past to protect the rights of average American voters in nationwide elections, but the language is not restricted to the individuals who make up the popular vote.

Voters of the Electoral College who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b, since the College is a necessary part of the federal voting process.

Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act, for example, says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.”

The votes Americans cast for president and vice president three weeks ago cannot go into effect if electors, chosen by the voters, are intimidated or threatened from casting their votes in the Electoral College on Dec. 19.

Trump Selects James Mattis for Defense Secretary

December 1, 2016

Trump Selects James Mattis for Defense Secretary, Washington Free Beacon, December 1, 2016

Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander, U.S. Central Command, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 5, 2013, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Future Years Defense Program. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander, U.S. Central Command (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Gen. James Mattis as the next secretary of defense is sending shockwaves through the defense community, where insiders are praising the retired Marine Corps general as a plain spoken realist who has the leadership ability to rebuild America’s military, according to conversations with multiple sources.

Mattis, former commander of U.S. Central Command, is known for being outspoken about combat and America’s need to reassert authority across the globe to challenge threats from extremism and radical rogue regimes.

Trump’s selection of Mattis follows those of Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) as the next CIA director and retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser, picks that have won plaudits from observers and mark a clear ideological shift from the Obama administration.

Foreign policy insiders and congressional sources told the Washington Free Beacon that Mattis has proven himself on the battlefield and earned respect among his peers.

“Mattis is not someone who is going to prioritize wishful thinking over the reality of the world we face,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes.

Rubin said Mattis has the experience necessary to implement tough reform while keeping America’s fighting force nimble and well equipped.

“But it’s not enough for the next defense secretary to face down our enemies. He must also face down the huge bloated bureaucracy which the Pentagon has become,” Rubin said. “His predecessors have all taken the easy way out–enjoying the perks of office without carrying out substantive reform. The United States needs the most powerful military in the world capable of projecting force globally. It does not need the most bloated bureaucracy, capable of projecting powerpoints for hours a day.”

Michael Ledeen, a onetime consultant to the National Security Council and State and Defense Departments, as well as a former special adviser at the State Department, also had high praise for Mattis, who he described as a consummate Washington outsider.

“He hates Washington, really hates it,” Ledeen said, describing this as a positive trait for a defense secretary. “He’s the best possible. The choices [by Trump] have been pretty good, I must say.”

The selection of Mattis also earned praise in Congress from Republican sources who work on foreign policy issues.

“General Mattis is exactly the type of leader we need after eight years of failed leadership under President Obama,” said one senior GOP aide. “He would serve our country well by reaffirming fractured alliances and pushing back against our enemies. I am encouraged to see President-elect Trump considering him to run the Pentagon.”

Another senior Republican Senate staffer who handles Middle East issues said that Mattis’ extensive combat experience makes him a perfect fit for the role.

“As a Marine, General Mattis served our nation honorably and fearlessly,” the source said. “We should expect no less if Mattis, as a civilian, is now asked to serve as secretary of defense.”

Raheem Kassam, editor of Breitbart London and a Trump world insider, said that the selection of Mattis sends a positive sign to America’s closest allies, including Britain.

“Mattis is revered the world over,” said Kassam, who had speculated about Mattis getting picked weeks before his name emerged in the running. “This is one appointment that even British liberal and conservatives agree upon. And frankly, it is about time America projected the ‘don’t f— with us’ attitude that he so well embodies.”

BREAKING: McCain and Graham Seek to Gut 9/11 Bill to Immunize Foreign Governments Funding Terrorists

December 1, 2016

BREAKING: McCain and Graham Seek to Gut 9/11 Bill to Immunize Foreign Governments Funding Terrorists, PJ MediaPatrick Poole, November 30, 2016

john-mccain-lindsey-graham-saudi-terror-sized-770x415xcU.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (L) speaks as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (R)

In a Senate floor speech today, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham announced that they are offering an amendment to strip a key element of the recently passed Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act (JASTA) that clarifies U.S. law for civil claims against foreign governments for funding terrorism.

JASTA was passed in the Senate in May with no objections, and passed the House of Representatives unanimously in September. President Obama promptly vetoed the bill. The Senate and House successfully voted to override the veto and the bill became law.

McCain and Graham specifically said they want to strip the “discretionary state function” provision from JASTA that creates liability for foreign governments funding terrorist groups.

According to Hill sources familiar with the McCain/Graham amendment, their intention is to immunize countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have funded Sunni terrorist groups in Syria — the Syrian “rebel” effort that both McCain and Graham have publicly supported since 2011.

The McCain/Graham amendment was slammed by 9/11 family groups that fought for JASTA.

The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism put out the following press release this afternoon:

In a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon Senator Graham pitched this new language as a simple “caveat” but in reality he is proposing to amend JASTA to add a specific jurisdictional defense Saudi Arabia has been relying on for the last 13 years to avoid having to face the 9/11 families’ evidence on the merits.Moreover, Senator Graham and Senator McCain mischaracterized JASTA in several material respects during their speeches today. For example, Senator Graham argued that JASTA is deficient because it does not require that a foreign state have “knowingly” supported terrorism in order for liability to attach, but in fact JASTA’s liability provision expressly requires that the foreign state have “knowingly provided substantial assistance” to a designated terrorist organization in order for liability to arise. Senator Graham also suggested that adding a discretionary function provision to JASTA would protect the US from claims for drone strikes in Pakistan, which is simply incorrect given that Pakistan has made clear its view that domestic and international law prohibit those strikes.

Notably, Graham’s and McCain’s efforts come in the wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is now employing roughly a dozen Washington lobbying firms at a cost of more than $1.3 million per month.

“In April of this year, Senator Graham met with 9/11 family members from the September 11 Advocates Group and told them that he supported our cause 100%,” said Terry Strada, National Chair for the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism.

“Senator Graham is now stabbing the 9/11 families in the back. He and Senator McCain are seeking to torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia’s lobbyists. We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute betrayal.”

“The 9/11 Families are fortunate to have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action in the Senate, and we take comfort that President-elect Donald Trump strongly supports our cause. The President-elect has made his support for JASTA crystal-clear, and there is zero risk that he will support this kind of backroom backstabbing of the 9/11 families,” Strada concluded.

In their statements today, Senator Graham said with respect to their intentions:

We’re trying to work with Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn, who deserve a lot of credit for trying to help the 9/11 families. Here’s what we’re asking. We’re asking that we put a caveat to the law we just passed saying that you can bring a lawsuit, but if you’re suing based on a discretionary function of a government to form an alliance with somebody or to make a military decision or a political decision, the only time that government is liable is if they knowingly engage with a terrorist organization directly or indirectly, including financing. I am okay with that because our country is not going to fall in league with terrorists and finance them to hurt other people. If we don’t make this change, here’s what I fear: That other countries will pass laws like this, and they will say that the United States is liable for engaging in drone attacks or other activity in the war on terror and haul us into court as a nation and haul the people that we give the responsibility to defend the nation into foreign courts.

McCain added:

The changes that Senator Graham and I are proposing, I think, are modest. And I think that logically, that you should not pursue or prosecute a government that did not knowingly — the word isn’t abetted or orchestrated, but knowingly — knowingly stand by and assist a terrorist group that they shouldn’t be dragged into our courts. If we don’t fix it, our ability to defend ourselves would be undermined. And I just want to emphasize one more point that the senator from South Carolina made. We have had drone strikes in many places in the world, in many countries in the world. Pakistan is another example. And all of us have supported the efforts, and many of them successful, in destroying those leaders who were responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and women. And it is a weapon in the war against terror. But sometimes, as in war, mistakes are made and innocent civilians were killed along with those terrorists. Does that mean that the United States of America, the government, is now liable? I’m afraid that some in the tort profession would view this as an opening to bring suits against the United States of America.

It appears their intention is to pass the amendments to JASTA during the lame-duck session before they lose key allies, such as Senator Kelly Ayotte, who lost her reelection bid in New Hampshire.

Democrats Must Dig Faster and Use Bigger Shovels

December 1, 2016

Democrats Must Dig Faster and Use Bigger Shovels, Front Page MagazineOleg Atbashian, December 1, 2016

demhole

Being an ex-Soviet citizen, I naturally perceive the reality through the prism of my past Soviet experiences. That said, today’s political developments in America remind me of what happened in the USSR during Perestroika and Glasnost. The day Trump won the election I felt as elated as when the USSR officially collapsed.

I was lucky to have witnessed the fall of two evil empires from the inside. One was run by the monstrous Communist Party; the other by the well-greased Democratic party machine.

In the USSR, the Communist Party thrashed violently, obsessed with its own self-preservation without any regard to the crumbling Iron Curtain and the fact that nobody feared them any longer, nor believed a single word coming out of their mouths. And then it went down surprisingly fast. Disbanded without a whimper.

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

The biggest media topic of the day, apart from how president-elect Trump is Hitler, is how the Democratic party can dig its way out of the sinkhole in which it woke up on November 9th.  In the meantime, perpetual panic attacks among Democratic elites result in uncontrollable anger, projections, verbal incontinence, hallucinations, and outright lunacy.

Amidst alarming reports that her own party is being consumed by crisis, chaos, and infighting, Elizabeth Warren all of a sudden decided to call Trump’s well-organized transition “chaotic” and demanded that a federal agency investigate this matter.

It was followed by the delusional idea of a ballot recount  in three states at once. The debate is still open on who was more insane: those who brought it up a week after the expired deadline – or their supporters who donated over $5 million of their money for this crash and burn project.

Other widespread examples of lunacy, verbal incontinence, hallucinations, and projections include intrusive and repetitive thoughts about race, racism, and racists.

Aiming to regroup and clean up the mess without losing any of their personal power, confused Democratic elites are offering more erratic solutions, from embracing white working class nationalism to excluding white people from running the party.

Who are we to argue? If the Democrat party wants to continue to run on affirmative action principles, let them. I also urge them to expand on the idea and hire affirmative action pilots for their jets and affirmative action doctors for their Botox injections.

Barack Obama was an affirmative action president. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile were affirmative action DNC chairs. Hillary was an affirmative action presidential nominee.

As a result, the Democratic party has lost the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, many governorships, state and local legislatures, as well as the ability to make Supreme Court appointments that will determine the direction of the Judiciary for a generation. The Democrat party today is the weakest it has been since the 1920s.

My only regret is that the Democrats hadn’t tested all of their half-baked ideas on their party first, before forcing them on the entire nation. Had they done that, their party would not have survived natural selection and today’s Republicans would have to compete with a lot more sensible group of people.

In spite of all the evidence, some Democratic hard-liners continue to believe their party lost the elections because it didn’t fully live up to its own principles.

Power to the hard-liners! If only they could force every rank and file Democrat to live exactly the way they want the rest of Americans to live, we’d see their ranks deflate to the size of the Communist Party USA faster than you can say “hypocrisy.”

demhole1

Here’s a helpful to-do list:

Things the Democratic elites should do in order to live up to their party principles:

  • Relinquish all positions of power to the less fortunate, previously overlooked due to their lack of skills, intelligence, language proficiency, work ethics, felony record, hygiene, or another disability.
  • Balkanize the Democratic party by splitting it into a thousand factions based on race, gender, language, country of origin, ethnicity, culture, religion, sexual orientation, profession, education, or disability – and let them fight each other to the death for power.
  • Limit your own healthcare options so that the less fortunate can have more.
  • Surrender all firearms, get rid of bodyguards or Secret Service agents.
  • Tear down all walls and fences around you, remove your locks and throw away the keys.
  • Move all your offspring from private “academies” to inner city public schools.
  • Turn your luxury condos and mansions and into communal apartments for the homeless, or better yet, for the refugees from Syria, Somalia, and other troubled Third World countries.
  • Stop hiring tax accountants; donate all your income to the IRS because the government  knows best how to use your money for the common good.
  • Redistribute the remaining personal wealth equally among fellow Democrats – stocks, bonds, real estate, yachts, bank accounts – to each according to their need.
  • Buy only overpriced, fair-trade, union-made, free-range, non-GMO, non-polluting, green-energy, locally grown, halal, organic, and otherwise regulated products.
  • Convert to the most progressive religion of Islam; then try to impose political correctness within its ranks and generally manage that organization as you’ve managed your own party.
  • Have mandatory consensual sex with each other regardless of gender, age, or body image – excluding any reproductive sis-gender relationships.
  • Help stop global warming and protect the environment by disconnecting from the power grid; replace shopping with dumpster-diving; establish quotas on toilet paper.
  • Save the planet and fight overpopulation by limiting your own lifespan.

Some of you may say, dude, don’t point out their errors, we don’t want them to smarten up. I say, we do want them to smarten up, dude. And right at this moment the best way to go about it is point out precisely how the use of their far-fetched leftist ideology has brought them to ruin.

With any luck, the least brainwashed of them will lose faith and stop pushing their hoary Utopian dogmas on the rest of us. There will be others, of course, who will stay the course and keep digging their way out of their hole until they surface in North Korea. Godspeed, comrades! Please dig faster and use bigger shovels.

Being an ex-Soviet citizen, I naturally perceive the reality through the prism of my past Soviet experiences. That said, today’s political developments in America remind me of what happened in the USSR during Perestroika and Glasnost. The day Trump won the election I felt as elated as when the USSR officially collapsed.

I was lucky to have witnessed the fall of two evil empires from the inside. One was run by the monstrous Communist Party; the other by the well-greased Democratic party machine.

In the USSR, the Communist Party thrashed violently, obsessed with its own self-preservation without any regard to the crumbling Iron Curtain and the fact that nobody feared them any longer, nor believed a single word coming out of their mouths. And then it went down surprisingly fast. Disbanded without a whimper.

In the U.S., hardly anyone believes the leftist media anymore, especially after it was exposed to be a cog in the Democratic propaganda machine. Ideologically driven Hollywood movies tank in the box office, and politically correct colleges are quickly becoming the butt of every joke.

Make no mistake, well-connected Soviet apparatchiks still held on to their power and money, retaining many key positions in the government. That largely explains the undying culture of corruption in ex-Soviet countries that had never purged their ex-Communist officials, which badly needed to be done for the same reason de-Nazification was done  in post-World War II Europe. But at least the stifling ideology was gone and living standards began to improve by leaps and bounds.

The Trump administration would be wise to perform a thorough lustration of leftist ideologues in all government agencies, similar to how it was done in Poland and other former Eastern Bloc states that have successfully purged their communist past. I’m not calling for purges of all rank and file Democrats, but the more zealous ideologues in the government had better get ready to use their professional skills, if any, in the private sector.

The election was only a preview; the real fight is about to begin. We need to move fast while the Democratic party is wallowing in its crisis. In the words of their own apparatchik, you never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat

December 1, 2016

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat, The Federalist, December 1, 2016

kellyanne

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

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

If you’re a woman still anguishing over “what to tell our daughters” about the 2016 election, I suggest you point to Kellyanne Conway: the first woman to run a presidential campaign. This smart, tough, cool mom of four was the winning campaign manager for the most brutal presidential race in history—and she kept a steely smile on her face the whole time. She’s now poised to become either White House press secretary, or the most sought-after political consultant in the world.

After taking the helm of the listless Trump campaign in August, Conway helped shape a more disciplined candidate, with a message focused on a stronger economy and national defense. Conway is like the pretty brainiac who tamed the school jock, got him to shut up in class, and made him carry her books. Hell, she even got him to study once in a while. She’s the kind of example I want for my own daughters on how to handle an egotistical, sometimes boorish male boss: with firmness, class, and calm.

But Conway didn’t just take on Trump. She faced down an antagonistic, male-dominated media that had declared was acting as a de facto arm of the Clinton campaign. One of the few bright spots leading up to Election Day was watching political commentators lose their cool and credibility trying to rile Conway. It didn’t work (and still isn’t). This lawyer, pollster, and business owner should be the new hero of the post-feminism era: a super mom who rose to the top of her field and is now, unquestionably, the most influential woman in Washington.

Why Don’t Feminists Love Conway?

But modern-day feminists are still wringing out their “I’m With Her” crying towels and snubbing Conway’s historic victory because, well, she’s a Republican.

Without any sense of irony, they ignore the achievements of a self-made woman (Conway), while lamenting the loss of a candidate who earned fame and power largely because of her husband. If she were a Democrat, Conway would be the toast of women’s groups across the country, feted in the media, splashed across the pages of Vogue and Cosmo. She would be touted as a future candidate herself. Maybe even Lena Dunham would’ve thrown out a tweet or two after her Election Night shower-cry.

But I suspect there’s even more to this than partisan politics. After all, you can’t accuse a man of misogyny—which literally means “hatred of women”—if he puts a female in charge of the riskiest, most important endeavor of his life. Trump can’t be a sexist pig who hates women if he fires two men and replaces them with a woman, right? Acknowledging, even celebrating, Conway’s success would undermine that entire plotline.

Conway Undermined Trump’s Misogynist Image

The Trump-is-a-misogynist meme was the cornerstone of Clinton’s campaign message: a Google search of “Trump” plus “misogynist” yields 579,000 results—not counting the approximately five billion tweets making the same accusation.

The day of the election, The Telegraph UK published a lengthy list of allegedly sexist Trumpisms dating back to the 1980s. Some were not bad (in 1994, he said he gets mad if dinner isn’t on the table when he gets home, so what did that make my grandfather). Many were cringe-worthy—particularly remarks he made as a guest on the Howard Stern show, perhaps one of Trump’s worst judgment calls of all time. Some were downright slap-worthy, and nothing you would want to hear from your husband or son or boss. But when people put a microphone in front of your face for three decades, you’re bound to have to live down a trove of dumb comments.

But raw, even offensive remarks do not a misogynist make. Yet the pearl clutching by the female left went into overdrive after Trump was elected, with women weeping and fearing for their daughters—as if Trump is a one-man Boko Haram ready to swipe them out of their classrooms and turn them into drink cart girls.

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

So what do we tell our daughters? Be less like Lena and more like Kellyanne.

Peters: Obama Can ‘Never Admit He’s Wrong About Anything’

November 30, 2016

Peters: Obama Can ‘Never Admit He’s Wrong About Anything’, Washington Free Beacon, Charlie Hoffmann, November 30, 2016

(Please see also, Dr. Jasser joins Your World discussing ideological vetting that must occur in wake of OSU attacks. — DM)

Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters chastised President Obama on Wednesday for his handling of Islamic terrorism while discussing the recent terrorist attack at Ohio State University during a Fox News appearance.

Host Martha MacCallum referenced President-elect Donald Trump’s tweet in response to the attack and compared it to the responses President Obama has given to past terrorist acts.

 

ISIS is taking credit for the terrible stabbing attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who should not have been in our country.

 “President Obama can never admit he’s wrong about anything ever, and he’s obviously wrong about ISIS and Islamist terrorism in general,” Peters said. “One thing I have high hopes for with the incoming administration is we will put a lot of this political correctness behind us.”

Peters then said certain communities of immigrants should have more surveillance because of their inability and unwillingness to integrate into American society.

“They concentrate, they refuse to integrate, and this political correctness has resulted in of all states, Minnesota becoming the per capita greatest exporter of recruits for ISIS in the United States,” Peters said in reference to the large Somali immigrant population in Minnesota.

Citing the practice of some Somalis practicing female genital mutilation, Peters told MacCallum that he does not view this as a religious or racial issue but instead as a cultural one.

“One point I want to stress, because I don’t want it to get lost in all this” Not all Muslims are terrorists,” Peters said. “So we have to focus on the troublesome groups. We don’t want to pay the same amount of attention to Iranian Americans who serve in our military.”

Peters then expressed hope that the new Trump administration would get America’s immigration system in order to prevent further lone wolf terrorists attacks from occurring.

Dr. Jasser joins Your World discussing ideological vetting that must occur in wake of OSU attacks

November 30, 2016

Dr. Jasser joins Your World discussing ideological vetting that must occur in wake of OSU attacks, American Islamic Forum for Democracy via YouTube, November 29, 2016

(Please see also, How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam. — DM)

How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam

November 30, 2016

How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam, The Federalist, November 31, 2016

usmc-08001-998x666

Is political Islam in America’s best interests? This question should be central to our strategy of fighting ISIS and Islamist terrorism in general. Yet it’s one that many political leaders would rather not answer, because of our politically correct climate. But since Trump’s transition team announced last week that it’s considering retired Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense, this reluctance might fade.

In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation last year, Mattis spoke about America’s position vis à vis political Islam. Rather than equivocating on the matter in order to avoid saying something uncomfortable or politically incorrect, Mattis simply pointed out that America needs to make a decision about its stance toward this ideology.

Recall that political Islam, or Islamism, is a movement within Islam: it works toward the increasing implementation of Islamic law and values in all areas of life—usually via state control—in order to make Islam a dominant force in the world.

Why We Don’t Talk About Islamism

Mattis’ suggestion—which sounds like a basic element of defense strategy—has been surprisingly neglected in the years since 9/11. The U.S. tends to deal with Islamism on a case-by-case basis. And so long as any particular group or political entity doesn’t have a direct and obvious link to terrorism, we tend to give them a pass. Even then, this is sometimes too high of a bar, as is the case with the Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups.

No one wants to delve into the question of Islamism because it has become a politically charged issue, one that often leads to accusations of bigotry and Islamaphobia. As Islam is increasingly treated as a protected class by America’s progressive Left, any scrutiny of any faction within Islam is considered off limits. This is done in the name of tolerance, but is in fact a highly intolerant position. But it’s successfully scared off politicians and military personnel, who tend to make vague and noncommittal statements on the topic.

This makes Mattis’ statements all the more notable. He’s simply urging the U.S. to make a decision. And what’s more, he’s arguing that this decision ought to be based on what we believe is in our best interest:

“Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States?…If we won’t even ask the question then how do we even get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight we’re leaving others adrift.”

What Is In The Country’s Best Interests?

This is a surprisingly unpopular question to ask in general, and specifically when it comes to Islam. The concept itself—asking what is in America’s best interest—has largely been ignored as of late. Under Obama, America has pursued a policy of “leading from behind,” and more or less disregarding America’s interests abroad. The Obama administration has done this based on the notion, central to the progressive narrative of history, that America is a de facto colonialist power, whose influence in the world is malign and ought to recede of our own volition.

But if the U.S. can’t identify what is in its best interests, or refuses to pursue those interests out of an oversized sense of political correctness, there’s no way to forge a comprehensive global defense strategy. As Mattis points out, if we won’t even talk about political Islam with a critical eye, how can we figure out which side we’re on, and make decisions from that point? Neglecting the question not only hurts our interests—it leaves our allies unsure of where we stand and how we will proceed when Islamist movements gain traction in their countries.

Mattis also points out that ISIS is counting on Americans not having a debate on whether political Islam is good for America. If we don’t examine this question, we can’t create a cohesive strategy, and our fight against ISIS’s self-proclaimed Caliphate (or other groups like them) will ultimately fail.

This is the opposite of what some Islamist apologists and those on the left insist, which is that ISIS wants us to talk about the connections between Islam and violence, in order to make Muslims feel like the West is at war with their entire religion. Then, so the thinking goes, Muslims will turn on the West.

Mattis Would Change Our Reputation

As it is, ISIS has largely won this battle. Any serious strategic discussion about the relationship between political Islam and American national interests has been deemed illegitimate and offensive by the political Left. See, for example, the scrubbing of terms related to Islam from Department of Homeland Security training materials.

Mattis’ appointment as Defense Secretary would be a marked change not only from the Obama administration, but also from the Bush years. Both administrations were reluctant to substantively engage in a debate on the merits or threats of political Islam.

Since giving this speech at Heritage, ISIS has experienced significant territorial losses. But the question Mattis raises has not lost its relevance. It will be central to many of the Trump administration’s foreign policy challenges. Political Islam remains, and will remain, a problem for the West both in terms of domestic security and global strategy. Whether it’s the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the U.S., or political Islam in a post-Arab Spring Middle East, the U.S. needs to know where it stands on this issue.

Mattis concludes that political Islam is not, in the end, good for America. But he acknowledges that what’s most important is that we have a discussion about it—so that we can develop a broader strategy for how to deal with Islamism in the world. Without a cohesive strategy, there is little hope of checking the destructive influences of political Islam both at home and abroad.

Carrier Blinks, Jobs Stay, Trump Wins

November 30, 2016

Carrier Blinks, Jobs Stay, Trump Wins, PJ MediaMichael Walsh, November 29, 2016

carrier(AP Photo/Nati Harnik, file)

Big day on Thursday for Indiana and the great workers of that wonderful state.We will keep our companies and jobs in the U.S. Thanks Carrier

More #winning:

From the earliest days of his campaign, Donald J. Trump made keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States his signature economic issue, and the decision by Carrier, the big air-conditioner company, to move over 2,000 of them from Indiana to Mexico was a tailor-made talking point for him on the stump.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump and Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor and the vice president-elect, plan to appear at Carrier’s Indianapolis factory to announce a deal with the company to keep roughly 1,000 jobs in the state, according to officials with the transition team as well as Carrier.

Mr. Trump will be hard-pressed to alter the economic forces that have hammered the Rust Belt for decades, but forcing Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies, to reverse course is a powerful tactical strike that will hearten his followers even before he takes office.

“I’m ready for him to come,” said Robin Maynard, a 24-year veteran of Carrier who builds high-efficiency furnaces and earns almost $24 an hour as a team leader. “Now I can put my daughter through college without having to look for another job.”

This was one of those campaign promises the How Not to Do It Left assured us would be impossible to keep. But the Circumlocution Office failed. Leave it to the New York Times to put a “progressive” spin on the decision, and compare Trump, favorably if indirectly, to Bernie Sanders:

It also signals that Mr. Trump is a different kind of Republican, willing to take on Big Business, at least in individual cases.

And just as only a confirmed anti-Communist like Richard Nixon could go to China, so only a businessman like Mr. Trump could take on corporate America without being called a Bernie Sanders-style socialist. If Barack Obama had tried the same maneuver, he’d probably have drawn criticism for intervening in the free market.

Trump understands that if he makes an example out of one of these corporate relocaters, the others will fall quickly into line, lest they see their heads on pikes in the morning. So first Ford, now Carrier:

“I think it’s pretty clear Carrier did this because the public relations cost to them was far greater than the short-term savings,” said Robert Reich, a prominent liberal Democrat who served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. “Even though it’s political theater, these are real people and the longer they are employed at Carrier, the better.”

Over the long term, and for less prominent firms, however, the temptation to move to cheaper locales for manufacturing will be just as great as it was for Carrier, Mr. Reich said.

Oh, shut up.

Israel jets mark go-it-alone policy on Syria

November 30, 2016

Israel jets mark go-it-alone policy on Syria, DEBKAfile, November 30, 2016

raidfire480Arab media show damage caused by air strikes to Syrian army compound in Damascus

Although Erdogan is notorious for his wildly unpredictable decision-making, it is more than likely that before going public on his radical change of heart on Assad, he was in touch with the new national security team taking shape in Washington. If that was the case, then Donald Trump was using Erdogan to notify Putin that the entire architecture of their understandings on Syria was now at risk.

If the Arab media reporting on Israeli air attacks on Syrian military and Hizballah targets in Damascus from Lebanese air space are confirmed, Jerusalem will be shown to have followed Ankara in backing away from those short-lived, understandings, opting instead for an independent policy in its own security interests with regard to Syria.

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

Arab media carried conflicting reports wich described Israeli warplanes striking in and around Damascus overnight Tuesday, Nov. 29, with “four long-range Popeye” missiles fired from Lebanese air space on the government-held town of Al-Saboorah, a western suburb of Damascus, near the highway to Beirut.

A Lebanese newspaper reported that a Syrian army ammunition depot was destroyed in one of the raids, while other strikes hit and damaged a Hizballah arms convoy bound for Lebanon on the Damascus-Beirut Highway. There was also speculation, later denied, that one of the air strikes aimed at assassinating a senior Hizballah figure.

None of these reports were confirmed by Israel or any other official source.

Even so, Israel’s reported military action against enemy targets in Syria is bound to have repercussions in the next 24 hours, since, whatever took place, broke out of the secret overarching understandings on Syria reached provisionally this month between US President elect Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Those understandings hinged strongly on joint US-Russian cooperation in the war on the Islamic State in Syria, supported by the coalition fighting for the Assad regime, namely, the Syrian army and its allies, the Lebanese Hizballah and foreign Shiite militias under the command of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

As the sub-text of the “big power” understandings, an outline was drafted between the next US administration, Moscow, Jerusalem, Amman and the UAE on arrangements for stabilizing Syria’s southern borders with Israel and Jordan.

Talks on these arrangements were first disclosed in an exclusive DEBKAfile report on Nov. 21, after they had already produced the unheralded return of the UN observers to the Golan demilitarized zone outside Quneitra.

But then, Sunday, Nov. 27, Russian warplanes staged a sudden series of airstrikes against Syrian rebel concentrations in the very region under discussion, southern Syria. After a three-month pause in these attacks, Moscow appeared to have waited for major Syrian government progress in Aleppo, to go against those understandings and send Russian jets into action over Jasim and Daraa in order to wipe out the rebel forces holding out in the South. Heavy casualties were sustained by those forces.

The Russian action was seen by the incoming Trump administration and Jerusalem as presaging the next danger-fraught step: To round out the raids, the Syrian army would come flooding into the South, along with Hizballah and other Shiite militias fighting under Iranian Revolutionary Guards command.

Tuesday saw two further ruptures in the trilateral understandings on Syria.

Assad announced he was gearing up for a decisive victory in Aleppo, notwithstanding a request from Trump’s advisers to Putin to hold back from the final step and refrain from retaking every last eastern district from rebel hands..

This was followed by an unforeseen statement by Erdogan: “The Turkish military launched its operations in Syria to end the rule of President Bashar al-Assad.”

This sentiment pivoted sharply away from the secret Trump-Putin understandings endorsed by the Turkish leader that was contingent on Assad remaining in power.

Although Erdogan is notorious for his wildly unpredictable decision-making, it is more than likely that before going public on his radical change of heart on Assad, he was in touch with the new national security team taking shape in Washington. If that was the case, then Donald Trump was using Erdogan to notify Putin that the entire architecture of their understandings on Syria was now at risk.

If the Arab media reporting on Israeli air attacks on Syrian military and Hizballah targets in Damascus from Lebanese air space are confirmed, Jerusalem will be shown to have followed Ankara in backing away from those short-lived, understandings, opting instead for an independent policy in its own security interests with regard to Syria.