Biden Administration's Nuclear Deal: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them.

• "By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store.... What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran's financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales." — Statement from 49 US Republican Senators, March 14, 2022.

• With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime's policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran's hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

• Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue -- just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, "attitudes will change." They did. For the worse.

• Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran's terrorist proxies, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

• The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region" and a promise "not to attack Americans."

• Iran's leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier "commitment," so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though -- and a pretty explicit tip-off -- they stated that they "didn't agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead."

• Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, "not to attack Americans"? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

• Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

• To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran's "excess uranium." (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran's uranium to threaten bombing his next "Ukraine"?

• One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

• The US proposals -- negotiated for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right.

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly "refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation." The US proposals -- negotiated with Iran for the Americans by Russia of all countries -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly "refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation."

Forty-nine Republican Senators recently told the Biden Administration that they will not back the administration's nuclear deal with Iran. The Senators stated:

"By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store. The administration appears to have agreed to lift sanctions that were not even placed on Iran for its nuclear activities in the first place, but instead because of its ongoing support for terrorism and its gross abuses of human rights. The nuclear limitations in this new deal appear to be significantly less restrictive than the 2015 nuclear deal, which was itself too weak, and will sharply undermine U.S. leverage to secure an actually 'longer and stronger' deal. What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran's financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales."

A Biden nuclear deal with the Iranian regime will have major benefits for the ruling mullahs. It will enrich the Iranian regime with billions of dollars in revenues as it lifts sanctions on Tehran's energy, banking and shipping sectors; reintegrate the Islamic Republic into the global financial system, enhance Tehran's legitimacy in the world, increase Iran's exports of oil, and ratchet up foreign investments in Iran -- particularly in the energy industry.

Do not expect the extra revenues to trickle down to the ordinary people of Iran or raise their standard of living. As Ashkan, a construction worker and father of three who lives in the capital Tehran with his family, told me, "people had a lot of hope in 2015 when the nuclear deal was reached," under the so-called moderate administration of then President Hassan Rouhani.

"The officials made us believe that the nuclear deal will be good for the people as well. But after the nuclear deal, inflation kept going up, wages stayed the same, the value of the currency kept going down, price of goods continued to go up, unemployment remained high, and people were still financially struggling during the period of the nuclear deal until the US government of Trump left the deal."

With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime's policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran's hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

The Iranian regime will most likely first utilize the extra revenue by increasing its military budget. This scenario is what occurred in 2015 after the Obama's nuclear deal was struck. Iran immediately raised its military budget by $1.5 billion from $15.6 billion to $17.1 billion. On April 10, 2015, The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) quoted Mohammad Reza Pour Ebrahimi, a member of the parliament's Economic Affairs Committee, stating:

"In addition to the approved figures, $1.5 billion has been allocated to prop up defense of the country and this amount has been approved by this committee."

Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue -- just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, "attitudes will change." They did. For the worse.

For the first time, Lebanon's Hezbollah became emboldened and admitted receiving financial and military assistance from Iran. In addition, Iran's military adventurism in Iraq rapidly escalated. Iran became more forceful in supporting and assisting the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad militarily and economically.

Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran's terrorist proxies, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region" and a promise "not to attack Americans."

"Administration officials who have briefed the media say the IRGC would only be delisted if it promises not to attack Americans and commits to curtailing its destabilizing activities outside Iran. If it doesn't keep its word, it can be redesignated an FTO. This might have been reassuring but for the fact that Biden is currently ignoring requests, from members of Congress as well as from U.S. allies, to put the Houthis back on the list."

Iran's leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier "commitment," so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though -- and a pretty explicit tip-off -- they stated that they "didn't agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead."

Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, "not to attack Americans"? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran's "excess uranium." (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran's uranium to threaten bombing his next "Ukraine"?

One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

The US proposals -- negotiated with Iran for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18358/iran-deal-biden-obama

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden says Putin ‘cannot remain in power’ as he assures Ukraine: ‘We stand with you’ - Adam Shaw

 

by Adam Shaw

'For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,' Biden said during a speech from Warsaw, Poland

President Biden on Saturday said that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," as he declared the Russian invasion of Ukraine a "strategic failure" while pledging continued support for the embattled Ukrainian people.

"For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during a speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.

BIDEN CALLS PUTIN A ‘BUTCHER’ AFTER MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN REFUGEES IN POLAND

It appeared to be the first time Biden has explicitly called for Putin’s removal and would mark a sharp contrast from prior statements from the White House, which have emphasized that regime change in Russia is not the policy of the United States.

Shortly after Biden's address however, the White House denied that Biden was calling for regime change.

"The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change," a White House official told Fox News Digital shortly after the speech concluded.

President Biden delivers a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland, Saturday, March 26, 2022. (AP Photo/Petr David Josek) (AP Photo/Petr David Josek)

The remark came at the end of an address in which he took a strong line against the Russian incursion into Ukraine -- calling the aggression "nothing less than a direct challenge to the rule-based international order established since the end of World War II."

In the speech, in which he referenced Polish Pope St. John Paul II and former president Lech Walesa, he also gave a stark warning to Putin about any potential move into the territory of NATO allies, including Poland.

"Don't even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory," he said. "We have a sacred obligation under Article five to defend each and every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our collective power."

In the speech he stressed the importance of collective action -- highlighting both U.S. and international aid to Ukraine, and sanctions on Moscow that have torpedoed the Russian economy and declared that the ruble had been reduced to "rubble." He also said that "this war has already been a strategic failure for Russia," claiming that Putin thought the Ukrainian people "would roll over and not fight."

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE: LIVE UPDATES

Video

Biden cast the fight against Ukraine as one of a continuing battle for freedom that had been seen in Poland in the fight for freedom against the Soviet Union -- and called for the international community to stay united.

"We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come," he said. "It will not be easy. There will be cost, but it's a price we have to pay because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere."

He also had a message for the Ukrainian people: "We stand with you. Period."

He also attempted to speak directly to the Russian people who oppose Putin’s invasion of their neighbor.

"This is not who you are. This is not the future reserve you deserve for your families and your children. I'm telling you the truth. This war is not worthy of you, the Russian people," he said. "Putin can and must end this war. The American people will stand with you and the brave citizens of Ukraine who want peace."

The crowd of about 1,000 included Ukrainian refugees who had fled for Poland. Earlier in the day he met with refugees in Poland’s capital. More than 3.7 million have fled Ukraine since the war began, with more than 2.2 million crossing into Poland.

Fox News' Peter Doocy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, with a focus on immigration. He can be reached at adam.shaw2@fox.com or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-in-power

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Man Told by an Officer That He Could Enter the Capitol on Jan. 6 Now Faces 20 Years in Prison - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

This is the sort of thing that happens in Third World countries, right?

 

On Jan. 6, 2021, a protestor, 40-year-old Brady Knowlton, says that an officer at the Capitol told “You can go in, as long as you don’t break anything.” At 2:35 p.m., Knowlton did, entering through the Upper West Terrace doors. He looked around inside the building, walked through the Rotunda, lobby, and Senate chamber gallery, obeyed the officer’s injunction not to break anything, and left the building at 2:53 p.m. For that, Knowlton now faces twenty years in prison in Old Joe Biden’s vengeful banana republic.

On top of the possibility of being behind bars until 2042, Knowlton, a law student, has suffered numerous other consequences already. According to the Daily Wire, “his law degree has been withheld, his lawyers say, Airbnb has banned him and his wife, and, for reasons that remain undisclosed, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has stripped his Global Entry access.”

According to the charges filed against him in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Knowlton “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds.” He also “did knowingly, and with intent to impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business and official functions, engage in disorderly and disruptive conduct in and within such proximity to, a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, and otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, where the Vice President and Vice President-elect were temporarily visiting.” He “willfully and knowingly engaged in disorderly and disruptive conduct within the United States Capitol Grounds. He “willfully and knowingly entered and remained in the gallery of either House of Congress, without authorization to do so.”

If Knowlton’s contention that a police officer said he could go in is true, it vitiates all these charges, and Knowlton’s claim is certainly corroborated by photographic and video evidence of cops at the Capitol opening gates, holding the doors open for protestors, and reports that police even posed for selfies with protestors. Also, when the FBI raided Knowlton’s home, they found no evidence whatsoever “concerning the breach and unlawful entry” of the Capitol, or “of any conspiracy, planning, or preparation,” or “maps or diagrams” of the Capitol, or of any “materials, devices, or tools” that Knowlton might have planned to use to get inside.

So why is the government pursuing Knowlton with such ferocity? The answer to that is clear: he is being set up to be a fall guy, to validate the Left’s hysterical and counterfactual claims about Jan. 6 by being made to play the role of the “insurrectionist” who was determined to destroy “our democracy” and install Trump as a dictator.

Imagine a country that imprisons peaceful protestors on false charges of participating in an attempt to overthrow the government, as part of efforts to discredit and ultimately criminalize all opposition to the ruling party’s agenda. People who entered a public building when police held the door open for them are being held in solitary confinement and given draconian punishments far out of proportion to what they actually did. This is the sort of thing that happens in Third World countries, right? This is the sort of thing tinpot dictators do in banana republics, where the rulers gained power by underhanded means and have no respect for due process, the rule of law, or the rights of their citizens — right? Maybe so, but the cases of Knowlton and other Jan. 6 protestors show that all this and worse is happening right now in the land of the free and the home of the brave, where up until quite recently, it all would have been unthinkable.

Compare the treatment of Knowlton and the other Jan. 6 scapegoats to the treatment of Quintez Brown, the Black Lives Matter activist who recently shot at Louisville mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg. Journalist Miranda Devine noted that Brown was “portrayed sympathetically by the media and immediately bailed out of jail by his Black Lives Matter comrades, who crowdfunded the $100,000 cost.” Devine added that Brown was “a celebrated gun control advocate, anointed as a rising star by the Obama Foundation, he was an honored guest on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show. He was granted a biweekly opinion column in the Louisville Courier-Journal to spew boilerplate leftist, race-based, anti-cop sentiment.” Brown had, Devine says, “BLM privilege.” Indeed.

In America, we no longer have a single justice system for all people, regardless of race, or of power, or privilege, or the protected victimhood status they may have among the Leftist intelligentsia. We no longer have a justice system that is indifferent to and independent of political pressure. The politically and culturally dominant Left is not content with the massive power and influence it wields now; it is determined to silence all opposition and destroy it utterly.

We have seen the totalitarian impulse of the far-Left play out in revolutionary France, as well as in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Democratic Kampuchea, Fidel Castro’s Cuba, and a host of other places. In every one, the judiciary serves as a tool of the political elites, who wield it in order to prosecute, persecute, and obliterate their opposition. American schools used to teach that our system had a series of built-in checks and balances that would prevent that kind of tyranny from developing.

But now the schools focus on teaching that the Founding Fathers were evil slaveowners and the system they created is just another vehicle of white privilege to be dismantled. By the time the fanatics they have indoctrinated get around to dismantling that system altogether, doing so will be just a formality. The Left has long since hollowed it out and rendered its safeguards meaningless. The persecution of Brady Knowlton and the other Jan. 6 defendants proves that.

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/man-told-officer-he-could-enter-capitol-jan-6-now-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Canada: New Liberal-NDP Pact Signed To Prop Up Trudeau Until 2025 - Christine Douglass-Williams

 

by Christine Douglass-Williams

A violation of Canada's constitution and democracy.

 

In a move never before seen in Canadian history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and New Democratic Party (NDP) Leader Jagmeet Singh reached a new agreement that would see the NDP prop up Trudeau and ensure he remains prime minister until 2025. By then, Canada will have suffered a full decade with the Trudeau government. 

The new agreement instantly awards Trudeau the benefits of a majority in the House of Commons. This official pact between the two parties rescues Trudeau and is an undemocratic manipulation that works around Canada’s electoral system. This merger agreement is not to be mistaken for a coalition government. The NDP cannot install government ministers.

Trudeau‘s power grab demonstrates his pattern of authoritarian overreach. In 2020, Trudeau’s Coronavirus Emergency bill granted cabinet “sweeping powers to tax and spend without parliamentary approval through end of 2021.”

The Calgary Herald highlighted the implications of the Bill–a harbinger of what was yet to come:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minority government tried to sneak a power grab never before seen in our history into its emergency spending bill that would have, in essence, ripped up the Canadian Constitution, trampled the Magna Carta, damaged the very raison d’etre of Parliament and the role of the opposition and spit on the war graves of those who have fought and died for Canada’s democratic way of life.

Then last summer, the Washington Post published an op-ed in response to Trudeau’s sudden election call: It’s ridiculous that Trudeau gets to schedule the timing of his reelection. Trudeau’s unwarranted invocation of Canada’s Emergency Measures Act on February 14 to quash the Freedom Convoy movement should have been an omen. 

Jagmeet Singh has at times been tough on Trudeau over ethics violations. Last July, Singh asked Governor General Mary May Simon — the mostly ceremonial representative of Queen Elizabeth II — to veto Trudeau’s outrageous election call in his failed attempt to gain a majority. But now, Singh has helped Trudeau attain the benefits of a majority.

The new pact ensures that bills introduced in parliament by the Liberals and NDP, will be passed by majority vote in the House of Commons. For example, when the House of Commons faces off in debate over a proposed budget Bill, the Liberals would easily win, now having an NDP guarantee, thus surviving a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. Or, should one of the opposition parties explicitly state that the House has lost confidence in the incumbent government, thus triggering a confidence motion, a direct vote of no-confidence will not pass. There are 338 seats in Parliament. The Liberals hold 160 seats as a minority government, the NDP holds only 25; but together, they have 185 seats, which constitutes a majority. The opposition Conservatives hold 119 seats, and the Bloc Quebecois holds 32 seats. This means that even if every member of the Bloc supported the official opposition Conservatives on bills, together the two parties would only have 151 seats, 34 less than the Liberal-NDP alliance. The Green Party, which generally aligns with the NDP, holds the other two seats.

Much talk circulated among Canadians after Trudeau’s Emergency Measures Act about the possibility of Trudeau facing a no-confidence vote. The new agreement with the NDP is Trudeau’s underhanded insurance policy against that happening.

The benefits to Trudeau are thus clear, but the deal offers little benefit to the blundering Singh. The two parties are already closely aligned on progressive policies, so they already, for the most part, support each other’s bills and initiatives as a matter of course. Most recently, Trudeau’s Emergency Measures Act could not have passed in the House of Commons without full backing from the NDP. The deal effectively reduces Singh to little more than a lackey of the Liberal government and Trudeau. The move is so humiliating for Singh that his embarrassment was on full display in the House of Commons. The National Post reported:

When Singh began asking a question to Trudeau, Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs used their pens to tap the water glasses on their desks, replicating the common custom of wedding guests beckoning newlyweds to kiss during their marriage reception.

Interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen rightly called the pact a “desperate” attempt by Trudeau to “cling to power.” But in an ominous warning, she stated that the new pact “hands the reins of government to the ‘socialist’ NDP,’” and threatens “a massive expansion of government and tax hikes to pay for billions of dollars in new spending on promised social programs.”

The generally Trudeau-supporting Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation quoted Bergen, who adequately described the deal:

The NDP and the Liberals were meeting in secret and they cooked up a backroom deal that will see Justin Trudeau get the majority power that he tried desperately to get last fall and failed to get.

The deal sent leaders of the oil industry reeling, since Trudeau is about to draft an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, a move “Alberta business leaders said Monday, or risk far-reaching consequences for the Canadian economy.”

With Trudeau’s disturbing record of corruption, unethical behavior and massive overreach, Canada needs to brace itself. Trudeau admires China’s “basic dictatorship” for being “able to turn the economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green, we want to start investing in solar.’” He has been steadily demonstrating that he has totalitarian tendencies, and will continue to do so.

 

Christine Douglass-Williams

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/canada-new-liberal-ndp-pact-signed-prop-trudeau-christine-douglass-williams/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ketanji Brown Jackson's Favorite Critical Race Theory Book Rejects the Constitution - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, is unfit.

 

The existence of a speech by Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, praising Derrick Bell, the godfather of critical race theory, and citing his book, “Faces At the Bottom of a Well”, as an influence has been widely reported. Conservatives have covered Bell's racist views, his praise for Farrakhan, his antisemitism, and attacks on America. Much of this was already hashed out during the exposure of the relationship between Barack Obama and Derrick Bell.

But it's important to specifically focus on Jackson's interest in "Faces At the Bottom of the Well."

In her speech, Jackson mentions that Bell, whom along with his wife she praises throughout her speech, "wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life".

The subtitle of the book, which few people have mentioned, is, "The Permanence Of Racism".

Persistence and permanence are not the same thing. But this is another example of Jackson subtly distorting Bell and his book in order to make their extremism seem more moderate.

Jackson goes on to say that, "My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person,who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech." That would have made her ten years old.

As others have pointed out, "Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was published when Jackson was in her early twenties during Bell’s tantrum against Harvard University. It’s unlikely that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee grew up with the hateful text, but it’s entirely plausible that she was influenced by the book which came out when she was at Harvard and then Harvard Law.

Since Bell began his racial strike against Harvard Law before she had completed her undergraduate degree, it’s unlikely that she had taken any of his classes, but the former member of the faculty was clearly an influence on her. Perhaps Jackson’s memory is faulty or she’s deliberately backdating the book’s influence to her childhood to make it seem more innocent. Surely no one could blame a ten year old for being attracted to a racialist text.

"Faces At the Bottom of the Well” is the sort of racist book that could conceivably appeal to a bright ten year old. Bell, despite his position, was never much of a legal or constitutional scholar, and Faces, like the preceding “And We Are Not Saved”, conveys its message that the constitution is just a facade for a white racist agenda through science fiction short stories.

Where "And We Are Not Saved" transports the protagonist back to the Constitutional Convention to denounce the Constitution, "Faces At the Bottom of the Well” indulges in more hyperbolic science fiction scenarios including the rise of a new continent of Afroatlantis and space aliens offering Americans profits in exchange for selling black people into space slavery.

While the scenarios are absurd, they’re there to illustrate Bell’s argument that the Constitution is nothing more than what benefits white people at any given time. This is the same argument that the godfather of critical race theory had repeatedly made throughout his career, contending, for example, that the ban on segregation was not a rejection of racism, only a ploy by white people to defeat the Soviet Union and Communism by showing that they weren’t racist.

(Likewise, Faces, along with a defense of Farrakhan and condemnation of Jews for opposing black antisemitism, portrays Jews as protesting against the plan to sell black people into slavery only because in the absence of blacks, “Jews could become the scapegoats”.)

Such racial conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the work and thought of black nationalists and supremacists, who always begin and end with the premise of white evil, pervade Bell’s work. 

"Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was a way to popularize and communicate this central idea at a level that even a child or a not particularly bright Harvard student, already nursing resentments, would be able to understand by depicting scenarios in which the white society and white people would cheerfully revamp the Constitution to bring back black slavery.

Thus near the end of the “Space Traders'' story, Bell has the Supreme Court unanimously rule that, “if inducted in accordance with a constitutionally approved conscription provision, blacks would have no issues of individual rights for review” and tells us that, “By 70 percent to 30 percent, American citizens voted to ratify the constitutional amendment that provided a legal basis for acceptance of the Space Traders’ offer”. Behind the SciFi is the message that the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would allow black people to be enslaved again and that therefore black people should not rely on whites or the Constitution.

The Constitution, according to Bell, is merely the whim of a white agenda that serves its purposes. To the extent that the law has outlawed segregation and slavery, it did so only because it temporarily served white purposes and the moment that it would serve white purposes to enslave black people again, it would be done within the Constitution.

That is the message of "Faces At the Bottom of the Well”: the book that influenced Jackson.

Does Jackson believe that the Supreme Court would rule that black people could be sold into slavery? Like everything about her record, we know we can’t expect an honest answer.

And yet her speech, which touches not only on the racist rants of Bell and his wife, but on the 1619 Project, introduces the idea that our founding documents are racially untrustworthy.

Praising the racial revisionist history of the 1619 Project, Jackson touts Nikole Hannah-Jones' "provocative thesis that the America that was born in 1776 was not the perfect union that it purported to be" and that only black civil rights activism made America "the free nation that the Framers initially touted."

Much like the 1619 Project, this description is rife with historical anachronisms and fundamental inaccuracies that is even less befitting a Supreme Court justice than a New York Times hack, but also implicitly echoes the critical race theory understanding that the civil rights struggle was not about upholding the Constitution, but overcoming it, that America's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist and remain the enemy.

In the process of her lecture, Jackson invokes critical race theory, the pernicious concept of "white privilege", and intersectionality. 

The radicalism oozes around the edges of Ketanji Brown Jackson's talk.

The Supreme Court nominee praises Gloria Richardson who, in Jackson's words, "took part in several protests that ended in violent clashes with white residents" and "indirectly challenged SNCC’s non-violent ideology." She quotes Richardson as saying, “[w]hen we were attacked at demonstrations, [we women] were the ones throwing stones back at the whites.”

Gloria Richardson was a wealthy leftist organizer with political connections during the Cambridge Riots who had contemptuously dismissed Martin Luther King and asserted, “We weren’t going to stop until we got it, and if violence occurred, then we would have to accept that.” 

Black nationalists hail her because she’s seen as breaking the embargo on local nonviolence in protests. And Richardson had emphasized that to the extent to which she used nonviolence was as a "tactical device". To Jackson, most of the law seems to likewise be a tactical device.

And that’s the problem.

Absorbing the paranoid racism of the godfather of critical race theory during her formative years at Harvard makes for a bad judge and a worse justice. Bell’s approach to the Constitution, like that of black nationalists, was that it was a trick to lure black people into lowering their guard. 

White people, he believed, could never be trusted and all that mattered was seizing power.

Any laws or documents made by white people would only serve them. Only black people could secure the rights of black people. Like the Nazis, the ultimate truths were race and power.

Everything else was a distraction.

If that is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s worldview, she cannot be expected to come out and say it. But the highest court in the land is the last place for racial paranoia and nationalism. The Supreme  Court is charged with upholding the Constitution. A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and white privilege is manifestly unfit to decide the fate of a nation and its hundreds of millions of people.

Derrick Bell and his hateful ideology believed that white racism was the only abiding truth.

There’s no room for that kind of thinking on the Supreme Court.

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jacksons-favorite-critical-race-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Judge Jackson: A Big Win for the Radical Left - Joseph Klein

 

by Joseph Klein

What a Senate confirmation for Supreme Court Justice will mean.

 

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s pick to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, spent two days during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing ducking questions posed by Senate Republican members of the committee. The Republicans were not probing into Judge Jackson’s personal life, as Democratic senators had done so disgracefully in trying to take down Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh during their confirmation circuses. The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee asked Judge Jackson questions relevant to where she would be coming from as a Supreme Court justice.

The fact that Judge Jackson is the first black woman nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court does not immunize her from being asked tough questions about her judicial record and the cases she worked on as a defense attorney. Yet Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee were labeled racists for doing just that.

Republicans asked perfectly legitimate questions to better understand Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy, the rationale behind the lenient criminal sentences she handed down as a federal district court judge, and her work as a defense attorney for Guantanamo Bay detainees. They also wanted to hear Judge Jackson’s views on a key issue that affects the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court – progressive proposals to pack the Court.

Judge Jackson refused several times to provide her views on court packing. Whether to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from the present nine members is a policy question, as Judge Jackson said. However, packing the Court at the whim of the partisan majority du jour is also a question that goes to the heart of preserving the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an independent judiciary. Even the liberals Justice Breyer, for whom Judge Jackson clerked, and Justice Ginsberg said that increasing the number of justices was a bad idea, an opinion they expressed while they were serving on the Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson did not want to offend her progressive left supporters by going on record opposing one of the progressive left’s key agenda items.

Judge Jackson also did not want to alienate her transgender activist supporters by answering Senator Marsha Blackburn’s question on whether she could define the word “woman.” The judge did not want to touch that hot potato.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied. “You can’t?” Senator Blackburn asked. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Judge Jackson said.

At least, Judge Jackson was willing to acknowledge that there is a possible biological component in defining what constitutes a “woman.”  But as Senator Blackburn later tweeted, “It’s a major red flag that a Supreme Court nominee backed by the far-left refuses to define the word ‘woman.’”

Judge Jackson tried to portray herself as approaching the cases she decides with “impartiality” and by “staying in my lane.” Judge Jackson even sounded like the late Justice Antonin Scalia when she said at one point that her decisional methodology requires her to examine the text of the Constitution and of statutes as written. She claimed that it’s “appropriate to look at the original intent, the original public meaning of the words when one is trying to assess” cases. But Judge Jackson’s judicial record belies her words. She is the poster child for judicial activism - legislating from the bench.

For example, Judge Jackson ignored Congress’s plain words granting the Homeland Security Secretary with “sole and unreviewable discretion” to expeditiously deport illegal immigrants who were in the United States for less than two years. She decided that the Trump administration had acted arbitrarily with “no evident consideration of the considerable downsides of adopting a policy that, in many respects, could significantly impact people’s everyday lives in many substantial, tangible, and foreseeable ways.”  

Judge Jackson stepped way out of her judicial lane. She substituted her policy preference for the clear policy decision of Congress. Judge Jackson felt that it was important for the Homeland Security Secretary to take into account the impact of potential deportations on the everyday lives of the affected illegal immigrants. But that was not what Congress decided. It had vested sole and unreviewable authority for certain expedited removals of illegal immigrants with an executive branch agency.

Judge Jackson brushed aside the applicable statutory language. She then extended the reach of her judicial activism far beyond her own district court’s jurisdiction by issuing a nationwide injunction against enforcing the Trump administration’s “expedited removal” procedure.

Judge Jackson bowed to the wishes of the progressive plaintiffs that included the American Civil Liberties Union. Her ruling was overruled by a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, including judges appointed by former Presidents Obama and Carter.

Judge Jackson also pleased the ‘soft on criminals’ crowd with her light sentences, especially for child pornographers. In tense exchanges with Senators Cruz, Lindsey, and Hawley, the judge was pressed on why she issued for more lenient sentences for child pornographers than those recommended by the sentencing guidelines or even the case prosecutors.

In one egregious case, a 19-year-old man had pleaded guilty to downloading and trading images and movies of child sexual abuse, including of boys under the age of 13. The prosecutor recommended a sentence of two years. The probation officer recommended 18 months. Judge Jackson decided to sentence the man to only 3 months in prison, followed by supervised release.  

Judge Jackson tried to explain away her failure to follow Congress’s clear policy choice to have judges impose harsher sentences for child pornographers based on the number of images found in the possession of a defendant. She said that Congress’s legislative policy on enhanced sentences was outdated in the age of the Internet. The Internet, she declared, had made it much easier for individuals to amass vast troves of child pornography images than in the days when snail mail was the main channel for distributing and receiving such images.

Judge Jackson expressed concern that defendants caught with thousands of child pornography images on their computers could be subject to harsher sentences based on their online possession of large numbers of images. “You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison,” Judge Jackson said. “Good, absolutely good,” Senator Lindsey replied.

In any event, once again Judge Jackson stepped way out of her judicial lane. If Congress’s law dealing with enhanced sentencing for individuals caught with large numbers of child pornography images is outdated in the computer and Internet era, it is up to Congress – not a judicial activist like Judge Jackson – to change the law.

It’s worth noting that Justice Breyer, who Judge Jackson would be replacing, has sometimes been relatively tough on criminal justice matters. He sided at times, for example, with government authorities on search and seizure and sentencing.

If Judge Jackson is confirmed, as expected, leftists will have a far more reliable ally in their fights against law enforcement and incarceration. She foreshadowed during a speech back in 2015 that she thought critical race theory was relevant to sentencing, a perspective she tried to play down during her confirmation hearing.

During her days as a public defender and in private practice, Jackson defended Guantanamo detainees. She explained that it is a "core constitutional value" for even those accused of the most heinous crimes to have legal representation. But Jackson’s defense of the Guantanamo defenders is not the issue. What’s troubling is that Jackson chose to align herself with radical Left opponents of the war on terror in the rhetoric she used in a legal brief challenging the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists deemed enemy combatants.

The brief accused former President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of engaging in acts in their official capacity that "constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity" in violation of the Geneva Conventions. That is music to the ears of the far Left.  

Judge Jackson made no major gaffes during her confirmation hearing and appears to be on her way to Senate confirmation. The leftist groups that have supported her nomination such as Demand Justice, MoveOn, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, and Demos could not be happier.

 

Joseph Klein

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-nearing-senate-joseph-klein/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Florida Republicans condemn 'woke' Disney, urge more boycotts by conservatives against the 'activist machine' - Marisa Schultz , Andrew Murray

 

by Marisa Schultz , Andrew Murray

Disney has spoken up against Florida's new parental rights in education bill, which Dems have dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

Florida GOP members of Congress railed against Disney for advocating against the Republican-led "Parental Rights in Education" bill and signaled that the Orlando vacation destination may see boycotts from conservatives for its political activism. 

In interviews with Fox News Digital, several Republicans lawmakers said Disney has become too "woke" in their opposition to legislation that bars instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Critics have dubbed the effort the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

"Corporate America is under this cloak of arrogance where they think they get to play God with morality and sexuality and a host of other realities in this world, and somehow if you don't agree with their interpretation, then you are guilty of some kind of hate speech," Florida Republican Rep. Brian Mast told Fox News Digital. 

DESANTIS SLAMS 'WOKE' DISNEY AFTER CEO CONDEMNS PARENTS' RIGHTS BILL

Mast likened Disney's recent opposition to the bill to Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball moving the All-Star game out of Georgia last year to protest the state's voting law as well as efforts by Twitter and Facebook to censor conservative voices. He said conservatives are better than liberals at avoiding companies that try to cancel their viewpoints and Walt Disney World in Florida may be in for lost tourism.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA - SEPTEMBER 30: General view of Rededication Moment and debut of "Disney Enchantment" during "The World's Most Magical Celebration" Walt Disney World Resort 50th Anniversary at Magic Kingdom on September 30, 2021 in Orlando, Florida. (Gerardo Mora/Getty Images / Getty Images)

"There's a real conviction to actually boycott companies that try to cancel you on the conservative side," Mast said. 

Under pressure from LGBTQ activists and progressive employees – some of whom who have walked out of the job in protest– Disney CEO Bob Chapek’s eventually criticized the Florida legislation, paused all political giving in Florida and apologized to employees. 

"You needed me to be a stronger ally in the fight for equal rights and I let you down," Chapek said in a statement on March. 11. "I am sorry."

Disney cast member Nicholas Maldonado protests his company's stance on LGBTQ issues, while participating in an employee walkout at Walt Disney World, Tuesday, March 22, 2022, in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack / AP Newsroom)

While Disney employees were walking out to demand more LGBTQ support, conservative employees quietly penned an anonymous open letter saying the company has become an "increasingly uncomfortable place to work" for employees whose political and religious views are not explicitly progressive. They described an "environment of fear" for right-leaning employees and being treated as "villains."

"Disney has turned their family-friendly company into an activist machine that perpetuates a whole agenda of left-wing propaganda," said Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. "What they’re doing is incredibly dangerous as their company is mainly marketed towards families and children."

DISNEY EMPLOYEES ARE WALKING OUT TO DEMAND MORE LGBTQ SUPPORT

Steube added: "Even their employees have noted Disney doesn’t have room for religious or political conservatives. I hope folks remember that when choosing where to spend their hard-earned vacation funds."

FILE PHOTO: A screen shows the logo and a ticker symbol for The Walt Disney Company on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., December 14, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid / Reuters Photos)

Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., said "these corporations need to stay out of politics."

He called it "hypocritical and disgusting" that companies like Disney and Coca-Cola call out states like Florida and Georgia, but continue to do business in China despite its human rights abuses and government censorship.

"They'll bow down to an authoritarian regime that has zero diversity and, in fact, is committing genocide against ethnic minorities," Waltz said. "They'll do whatever it takes to keep that business but yet want to preach social justice here at home … It's really hypocritical and disgusting."

The Parental Rights in Education bill bans Florida school employees or third parties from giving classroom instruction on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade.

The bill, which passed the House and Senate and awaits the signature of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has been dubbed the "Don’t Say Gay" bill by Democrats who have claimed it bans any discussion pertaining to being gay in the state's schools. President Biden has called the bill "hateful."

But DeSantis and backers say there's nothing in the bill preventing anyone from saying gay, but rather it's about age-appropriate education on gender and sexual orientation in schools. 

"For years, children have been exposed to the teachings of gender identity and sexual fluidity in Florida’s classrooms," said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla. "If you think schools should be imposing these teachings upon elementary-aged children, you’re the controversial one—not me."

Rep. Carlos Giménez, R-Fla., said Disney is increasingly out of touch with Florida values if the company thinks it's appropriate for the state to teach issues of sexual orientation and gender identity to 5, 6, and 7 year-olds.

"In Florida, we are standing up for our parents and families," Gimenez told Fox News Digital. "Maybe it’s time for Disney to rediscover its core values and quit trying to appease the woke left."

DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES - 2021/11/22: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a press conference at Buc-eeís travel center, where he announced his proposal of more than $1 billion in gas tax relief for Floridians in response to rising gas p ((Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) / Getty Images)

But Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Fla., said she's "not worried" that Disney's stance will impact tourism more broadly in Florida. 

"Tourism is such a big industry in Florida, and families love coming here," Frankel told Fox News Digital. "So from where I sit in Boca Raton, Fla., I think the average person is not looking at it closely, my point of view this is a blip. However, someone in Orlando might see it differently." 

Disney did not respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.

 

Marisa Schultz , Andrew Murray

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/disney-boycott-conservatives-woke

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Elon Musk and the Chinese Temptation - Peter Schweizer

 

by Peter Schweizer

Musk's dilemma is not unique. The close technology-sharing relationship between Tesla and SpaceX poses national security risks to his adopted home country, but so do Google's and Microsoft's work with China on artificial intelligence.

• "Other American CEOs have close relationships to the [Chinese Communist] Party. But [Elon] Musk is the only one who loudly praises Beijing while running a space company with incredibly sensitive and powerful defense applications." — Isaac Stone Fish, Barron's, November 13, 2020.

• Musk's dilemma is not unique. The close technology-sharing relationship between Tesla and SpaceX poses national security risks to his adopted home country, but so do Google's and Microsoft's work with China on artificial intelligence. U.S. government policy is predictably slow in catching up to the speed of hard-charging, globe-spanning enterprises like Musk's, and the Chinese are only too happy to increase that gap.

• At some point, however, companies such as SpaceX, Google and Microsoft, and the individual Americans who own, direct, or invest in them, will face a similar choice between their obligation to America and their pursuit of more profits abroad.

"Other American CEOs have close relationships to the [Chinese Communist] Party. But [Elon] Musk is the only one who loudly praises Beijing while running a space company with incredibly sensitive and powerful defense applications." — Isaac Stone Fish, author of America Second: How America's Elites Are Making China Stronger. Pictured: Musk meets with China's Premier Li Keqiang in Beijing on January 9, 2019. (Photo by Mark Schiefelbein/AFP via Getty Images)

Elon Musk has fans all over the ideological spectrum. People on the Left love him for popularizing electric cars with his Tesla company, or maybe for openly smoking pot on podcaster Joe Rogan's show. Conservatives love him for his entrepreneurial dash and penchant for standing up to politicians and Big Tech censorship of the internet. And everyone loves Musk for responding to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and severing of its communications links by making his Starlink satellite broadband internet service available in Ukraine and donating Starlink terminals to Ukrainians. The Starlink connectivity, according to one report, may even be helping armed Ukrainian drones target Russian military vehicles.

Less is known about Musk's business dealings in Communist China, but that might be about to change. Republicans in the House of Representatives have signaled their intention to scrutinize Musk's business operations in China, specifically with "bleed over" between electric car manufacturer Tesla and SpaceX, whose sensitive technologies have national security implications for the United States. As the Wall Street Journal put it:

"The concerns center on the potential for China to gain access to the classified information possessed by Mr. Musk's closely held Space Exploration Technologies Corp., including through SpaceX's foreign suppliers that might have ties to Beijing."

Rep. Chris Stewart, (R-UT), is pressing for confidential briefings on Capitol Hill with officials from agencies including the National Reconnaissance Office, which coordinates the launch of intelligence satellites, to determine whether the Chinese government has any direct or indirect links to SpaceX, the Journal reports.

Musk has built factories and showrooms for Tesla in China, using Chinese government-subsidized loans and capital from government-connected investors such as Tencent to do it. He has enthused about the energy and support he gets from China's leadership, contrasting it with the "complacency and entitlement" he finds in New York and Los Angeles. He is not wrong about that -- New York and California are among the worst states in the nation for doing business, and employers are fleeing in droves for more business-friendly states such as Texas, where Musk has also opened factories.

But Musk doesn't bother to flatter U.S. state governors the way he has China's Communist dictator, President Xi Jinping:

"It seems ironic, but even though you have sort of a single-party system, they really, actually seem to care a lot about the well-being of the people. In fact, they're maybe even more sensitive to public opinion than what I see in the US."

Musk's Chinese adventures go against even some of his own policies. In the US, Musk encourages any Tesla employee to reach out directly to Musk himself with problems. In China, though, that policy was quickly shelved by the government-connected Chinese executives who Musk placed in key positions, as noted in my book, Red Handed: How American Elites are Helping China Win. Grace Tao, a former television personality for China Central Television, was brought in to head up communications and government affairs. She explained to fellow Tesla employees that she was linked to the highest levels of government and could communicate directly with President Xi through a single intermediary if she found it necessary.

Stewart, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, says:

"I am a fan of Elon Musk and SpaceX, but anyone would be concerned if there are financial entanglements with China... Congress doesn't have good eyes on this."

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo agrees. Her department protects the distribution of sensitive US technology, and she understands the challenges of dealing with China. "It's certainly true that China's coercive practices, anticompetitive practices, practices trying to steal our (intellectual property) or steal our technology and know-how are well documented," she said.

Three years ago, Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) proposed legislation that would require the U.S. government to determine whether Chinese entities are "leveraging United States companies that share ownership with NASA contractors." SpaceX lobbied against similar legislative provisions in the House.

SpaceX is a company whose technology has military applications. Gardner's point is that to sell to the Pentagon and NASA, SpaceX must remain compliant with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which require weapons manufacturers to prevent their technology from being accessed by countries like China. Any leak, or forced technology transfer to China, could jeopardize SpaceX's ITAR compliance -- and with it, its relationship with U.S. government entities.

So, Musk will have some choices to make.

Isaac Stone Fish, author of America Second: How America's Elites Are Making China Stronger, noted in 2020:

"Other American CEOs have close relationships to the [Chinese Communist] Party. But Musk is the only one who loudly praises Beijing while running a space company with incredibly sensitive and powerful defense applications. Can Musk continue to walk this line? A clearer separation between SpaceX and Tesla would help him manage the potential downsides of a spiraling U.S.-China relationship."

Musk's dilemma is not unique. The close technology-sharing relationship between Tesla and SpaceX poses national security risks to his adopted home country, but so do Google's and Microsoft's work with China on artificial intelligence. U.S. government policy is predictably slow in catching up to the speed of hard-charging, globe-spanning enterprises like Musk's, and the Chinese are only too happy to increase that gap.

At some point, however, companies such as SpaceX, Google and Microsoft, and the individual Americans who own, direct, or invest in them, will face a similar choice between their obligation to America and their pursuit of more profits abroad.

 

Peter Schweizer, President of the Governmental Accountability Institute, is a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow and author of the new book, Red Handed: How American Elites are Helping China Win.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18357/elon-musk-china

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel to host historic summit with four Arab Foreign Ministers - Tovah Lazaroff, Seth J. Frantzman

 

by Tovah Lazaroff, Seth J. Frantzman

The event, known as the Negev Summit, will take place Sunday and Monday in Kibbutz Sde Boker, which was the home and is also the burial place of Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

 

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid at the Knesset, March 6, 2022.

(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

Israel will for the first time in its history host four Arab foreign ministers, in an event that highlights Israel's new role as a public diplomatic player in the Middle East and will include the participation of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The event,  known as the Negev Summit, will take place Sunday and Monday in Kibbutz Sde Boker, which was the home and is also the burial place of Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

This will be a "historic summit," Foreign Minister Yair Lapid tweeted on Saturday night. He will be joined at the summit by his counterparts, Blinken of the US, Sameh Shoukry of Egypt, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, Abdullatif Al Zayani of Bahrain, and Nasser Bourita of Morocco. As of Saturday night, Jordan was not expected to attend.

The meeting comes after another historic parley, in which Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. 

The meeting highlights Israel's strengthening normalized relations with its neighbors under the rubric of the Abraham Accords. The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco formalized diplomatic ties with Israel in 2020. Egypt has had a peace deal with Israel since 1979, with Jordan following in 1994.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz reviews an honor guard in Rabat during his visit to Morocco last week. (credit: DEFENSE MINISTRY)

The meeting of the Arab ministers is also seen as an important show of regional solidarity against the Iranian nuclear threat and regional aggression.

"The concept of new alliances comes from the fact that we need a long-standing stability regardless the current American administration is good to us or mediocre," a source in Abu Dhabi said.

On Saturday European Union foreign policy chief  Josep Borrell said Saturday that the US and five world powers were "very close" to an agreement on reviving their 2015 nuclear deal, which would curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting tough sanctions.

Israel and its Arab neighbors fear the deal will increase rather than decrease the danger of a nuclear Iran.

Israel has, in the past, hosted diplomates from Abraham Accord countries, but never three at the same time. The meeting is also the most significant face-to-face meeting of the Abraham Accords that includes high-level representation from the Biden Administration.

Blinken did host a virtual meeting with representatives of the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco in September to mark the one-year anniversary of the accords, brokered in 2020 by former US President Donald Trump.

The meeting this week will build on the Sharm meeting as well as build on Israel’s movement to US CENTCOM. This is important because Israel has taken part in new military exercises in the region, such as IMX, which also included Arab states. Israel will soon take part in Iniohos 22, a military drill in Greece. 

The US, Italy, Cyprus and France will also take part. Reports say that Albania, Egypt, Austria, North Macedonia, United Kingdom, India, Canada, Croatia, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia will send observers. This illustrates that Saudis may be observing the drills that Israelis take part in.  

In addition, there have been other recent important military drills, such as Blue Flag in Israel, Noble Dina, and Red Sea drills involving the US, Israel, Bahrain, and UAE back in November. 

The clear message is that the Abraham Accords countries are coming together, with US backing.

 The visit by the Moroccan delegation this week also comes after Israel announced that “the Head of the Strategic Planning and Cooperation Directorate Maj. Gen. Tal Kelman, the Head of the International Cooperation Division, Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin and the Head of the Intelligence Directorate’s Operations Division, completed the IDF’s first official visit to the Kingdom of Morocco on Thursday.” 

The IDF noted that “the visit took place in Rabat, Morocco’s capital city. The IDF officials met with the Inspector General of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Belkhir El-Farouk and senior members of Royal Moroccan Armed Forces General Staff, including the heads of the Moroccan Intelligence and Operations Directorates.” Israel’s Defense Minister was in Morocco last year. 

While in Israel Blinken will meet with Bennett and Defense Minister Benny Gantz. He will also travel to Ramallah for a conversation with Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas. Blinken will then travel to Morocco and Algeria before returning to Washington.

Lahav Harkov and Reuters contributed to this report.

 

Tovah Lazaroff, Seth J. Frantzman

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-702409

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter