US Coast Guard cutter denied entry into Solomon Islands port sparking concerns of China's growing influence - Andrew Mark Miller

 

​ by Andrew Mark Miller

'China is now running the Solomon Islands,' one expert said

A United States Coast Guard cutter conducting patrols on an international mission in the Pacific Ocean was denied entry to a port in the Solomon Islands raising concerns about China's growing influence in the area.

The cutter Oliver Henry was taking part in Operation Island Chief monitoring fishing activities in the Pacific, which ended Friday, when it sought to make a scheduled stop at Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, to refuel and re-provision, the Coast Guard office in Honolulu said.

There was no response from the Solomon Islands’ government for diplomatic clearance for the vessel to stop there, however, so the Oliver Henry diverted to Papua New Guinea, the Coast Guard said.

Additionally, it was reported that a British vessel was also denied entry but the British Royal Navy has not commented directly on those reports.

COMMUNIST CHINA SURVIVOR ISSUES WARNING TO AMERICANS: SOCIALISM IS ONLY THE FIRST STAGE

United States Coast Guard crew members work on a Cutter at the Coast Guard Sector Miami base on January 26, 2022 in Miami, Florida.  ( (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images))

During Operation Island Chief, the U.S., Australia, Britain and New Zealand provided support through aerial and surface surveillance for Pacific island nations participating in the operation, including the Solomon Islands.

China has been assertively trying to expand its presence and influence in the Pacific, and Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare alarmed some neighbors, the U.S. and others after he signed a new security pact with China.

US RESPONDS IN KIND FOR CHINA-BOUND FLIGHTS AFTER BEIJING SUSPENDS 26 FLIGHTS TO AMERICA

The pact has raised fears of a Chinese naval base being established within 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) of Australia’s northeast coast. A Chinese military presence in the Solomon Islands would put it not only on the doorstep of Australia and New Zealand but also in close proximity to Guam, the U.S. territory that hosts major military bases.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission (Ju Peng/Xinhua via Getty Images)

"China is gaining ground in its efforts to gain dominance in the Pacific," Former United States Department of Veterans Affairs Assistant Secretary James Hutton tweeted in response to the news.

China is gaining ground in its efforts to gain dominance in the Pacific - “Solomon Islands denies port call for Guam-based US Coast Guard cutter” https://t.co/1W4r5DmSDq

— James Hutton (@JEHutton) August 27, 2022

"China is now running the Solomon Islands," Gordon G. Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, posted on Twitter.

 

#China is now running the #SolomonIslands. See this: https://t.co/xlJYki2ZVC.

— Gordon G. Chang (@GordonGChang) August 26, 2022

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Solomon Islands' Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in Beijing, Oct. 9, 2019. (Xinhua/Yao Dawei)

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-coast-guard-cutter-denied-entry-solomon-islands-port-sparking-concerns-chinas-growing-influence

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Still More Dangerous New Concessions by Biden Administration for a Nuclear Deal with Iran's Mullahs - Majid Rafizadeh

 

​ by Majid Rafizadeh

 [I]s it illegal for any president to commit future presidents to anything that has not been approved as a formal treaty by two-thirds of the Senate?

• Newly leaked information from inside Iran, obtained by Iran International, reveals that the Biden administration has made even more concessions to revive the nuclear deal, which have not been revealed to the public. According to the report, "the US guarantees that its sanctions against IRGC would not affect other sectors and firms: e.g. a petrochemical company shouldn't be sanctioned by US because of doing business with IRGC."

• The Biden administration seems to have been bragging that Iran's leaders have dropped a key demand: removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from the US foreign organizations terrorist list. But if other sectors that are linked to the IRGC can freely do business under the nuclear deal, then the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as well as the sanctions against the IRGC, are merely cosmetic.

• The IRGC has a large stake in almost every industrial sector in Iran, which includes the energy sector, mining, telecommunications, gold, shipping and construction. Private sector competitors are not permitted in these sectors because the more closed the economy, the more easily the IRGC can monopolize it.

• As a result, any economic growth in these sectors will directly benefit Iran's military, the IRGC and its elite Quds Force branch, and Iran's militia and terror groups across the Middle East. Since Iran's economy is predominantly controlled by the IRGC or the state, additional revenues will likely be funneled into the treasury of the IRGC and the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

• The other critical concession being reportedly made is that "the participants note the firm commitment of the US President [without mentioning Joe Biden by name] for returning to JCPOA compliance as long as Iran remains committed to the deal." This probably means that future US presidents are obliged to continue with the implementation of the nuclear deal. But why should the US guarantee the implementation of the nuclear deal if it is not even a legally binding treaty, approved by two-thirds of the Senate, in accordance with Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution? In addition, it is illegal for any president to commit future presidents to anything that has not been approved as a formal treaty by two-thirds of the Senate.

• This is a much worse deal than the 2015 nuclear deal. Because, first, the US or EU3 (France, the United Kingdom and Germany) cannot call for reinstating sanctions on Iran unilaterally even if they believe that the Iranian regime is violating the nuclear deal. In the previous nuclear deal, at least, any single party to the deal could unilaterally trigger the snap-back sanctions clause. In addition, with the new deal, restrictions on the regime's nuclear program could be lifted only two years after the agreement is signed; and the Iranian regime will not be obliged to reveal its past nuclear activities, which had military dimensions; and Russia will be trusted to store Iran's enriched uranium, a task for which Moscow will be paid.

• Reportedly, another concession that the Biden administration has made to Iran is that the IAEA is expected to halt its investigation into the regime's past nuclear activities.

• "This shift to appeasement was never going to solve any of the world's issues with the Islamic Republic. The regime's problem with the West is the West's very existence, which obstructs its path to a global caliphate." — Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and an advocate of secular democracy for Iran, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2022.

The Biden administration's policy towards the Iranian regime has been one of capitulation and giving concessions, and it appears determined to enrich and empower what the State Department has called "the world's top state sponsor of terrorism," whose core policy since its Islamic Revolution in 1979 has been to "export the revolution," as anchored in "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Pictured: A member of the Islamic Basij volunteer militia burns an American flag in Tehran, Iran, on July 16 2022. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Since assuming office, the Biden administration's policy towards the Iranian regime has been one of capitulation and giving concessions to the ruling Islamist mullahs of Iran. So far, they include suspending some of the anti-terrorism sanctions on Iran-backed Houthis, then revoking the designation of Yemen's Houthis as a terrorist group; disregarding Iran's oil sales to China; shipping oil to Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Venezuela in direct violation of US sanctions; ignoring the Iranian regime's crackdown on protesters, smuggling weapons to the Houthis and Venezuela; attempting to murder US former officials and citizens on American soil, and taking more foreign hostages.

On top of that, newly leaked information from inside Iran, obtained by Iran International, reveals that the Biden administration has made even more concessions to revive the nuclear deal, which have not been revealed to the public. According to the report, "the US guarantees that its sanctions against IRGC would not affect other sectors and firms: e.g. a petrochemical company shouldn't be sanctioned by US because of doing business with IRGC."

The Biden administration seems to have been bragging that Iran's leaders have dropped a key demand: removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from the US foreign organizations terrorist list. But if other sectors that are linked to the IRGC can freely do business under the nuclear deal, then the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as well as the sanctions against the IRGC, are merely cosmetic.

The IRGC has a large stake in almost every industrial sector in Iran, which includes the energy sector, mining, telecommunications, gold, shipping and construction. Private sector competitors are not permitted in these sectors because the more closed the economy, the more easily the IRGC can monopolize it.

As a result, any economic growth in these sectors will directly benefit Iran's military, the IRGC and its elite Quds Force branch, and Iran's militia and terror groups across the Middle East. Since Iran's economy is predominantly controlled by the IRGC or the state, additional revenues will likely be funneled into the treasury of the IRGC and the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The other critical concession being reportedly made is that "the participants note the firm commitment of the US President [without mentioning Joe Biden by name] for returning to JCPOA compliance as long as Iran remains committed to the deal." This probably means that future US presidents are obliged to continue with the implementation of the nuclear deal. But why should the US guarantee the implementation of the nuclear deal if it is not even a legally binding treaty, approved by two-thirds of the Senate, in accordance with Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution? In addition, it is illegal for any president to commit future presidents to anything that has not been approved as a formal treaty by two-thirds of the Senate.

Additionally, one critical issue about Iran's nuclear program is linked to its past nuclear activities, which reportedly have military dimensions. The IAEA opened a probe into this issue, but the Iranian regime has been refusing to provide answers about several clandestine nuclear sites. Reportedly, another concession that the Biden administration has made to Iran is that the IAEA is expected to halt its investigation into the regime's past nuclear activities.

Yet another major concession reportedly includes the term that only a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can trigger the snap-back sanctions clause.

This is a much worse deal than the 2015 nuclear deal. Because, first, the US or EU3 (France, the United Kingdom and Germany) cannot call for reinstating sanctions on Iran unilaterally even if they believe that the Iranian regime is violating the nuclear deal. In the previous nuclear deal, at least, any single party to the deal could unilaterally trigger the snap-back sanctions clause. In addition, with the new deal, restrictions on the regime's nuclear program could be lifted only two years after the agreement is signed; and the Iranian regime will not be obliged to reveal its past nuclear activities, which had military dimensions; and Russia will be trusted to store Iran's enriched uranium, a task for which Moscow will be paid.

To make things worse, even if the deal falls apart again for any reason, the Iranian regime will be exempt from the US sanctions for 2.5 years. In other words, even if the regime is found breaching the deal and the US decides to pull out of the agreement, Tehran can continue enjoying sanctions relief for additional 2.5 years.

Even though the concessions that Iran has been obtaining from the Biden administration may be catastrophic to the region and even to the United States -- presumably based on a fantasy that normalizing trade with Iran with normalize its aspirations to be a hegemon and instead become a pacifist good neighbor -- the Biden administration nevertheless appears determined to enrich and empower what the US Department of State has called "the world's top state sponsor of terrorism," whose core policy since its Islamic Revolution in 1979 has been to "export the revolution," as anchored in "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". "

As Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran's former Shah, explained last week: "This shift to appeasement was never going to solve any of the world's issues with the Islamic Republic. The regime's problem with the West is the West's very existence, which obstructs its path to a global caliphate. Any efforts to accommodate this radical regime are shows of weakness that Tehran can manipulate" -- as Tehran already seems to be doing extremely well.

• 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/18821/iran-dangerous-concessions

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The "Great Reset": A Blueprint for Destroying Freedom, Innovation, and Prosperity - J. B. Shurk

 

​ by J. B. Shurk

Nothing about Western politicians' embrace of the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" or "Build Back Better" paradigms protects property rights or liberty in the slightest.

• Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. There must be recognized value in what a nation and its citizens possess.

• More than any other source for national wealth, however, one towers above the rest: innovation. The ability of the human mind to create something new and valuable provides society with endless wealth creation.... Innovation is the magic sauce for generating wealth.

• Humans struggling merely to survive in the world do not waste time, labor, or resources on projects that offer no prospect for future reward. Humans working as servants to the state under centrally controlled economies have no incentive to innovate. Only when private ownership and personal liberty combine can human innovation flourish. Freedom is the secret ingredient to innovation's magic sauce for increasing wealth.

• A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. In this way, nations have a great incentive to liberalize over time. Should they not, they quickly become financially and militarily vulnerable to more innovative and wealthier nations. Observing this simple truth, classical liberals have always understood free markets as the gateway to human emancipation. Economic self-interest, in other words, ultimately leads to expansive human rights and liberties across the planet.

• Nothing about Western politicians' embrace of the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" or "Build Back Better" paradigms protects property rights or liberty in the slightest. The WEF's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs... [that] will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their freedoms.

• Wealthy free nations are a threat to the WEF's New World Order. If censorship must be embraced to control the "narrative," then so be it. If citizens must be denied freedom of movement under the guise of a "health emergency," no big deal. If private bank accounts must be seized to intimidate protesters, then such threats are the price for ensuring compliance. In this way, the WEF's plans for a controlled economy intentionally reverse centuries of liberal progress. Political leaders today are dragging the West into the past.

• First, individual liberties will continue disappearing. Then, the greatest economic engine of all, innovation, will dry up. Finally, wealth will return solely to the hands of a small "ruling class" minority. This is the future the World Economic Forum hails as "progress." It is not. It is a recipe for human bondage.

Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. The World Economic Forum's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs that will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their freedoms. Pictured: WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab in Davos on May 23, 2022. (Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

How do nations become wealthy? Many are blessed with abundant natural resources. Others conquer foreign lands. Some specialize in unique trade skills and crafts. Timber, mining, fishing, sugar, rum, narcotics, cotton, silk, agriculture, conquest, human slavery, manufacturing, oil, industry, banking, and so on — depending on the century and the region, nations have attained tremendous wealth in myriad ways. Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. There must be recognized value in what a nation and its citizens possess.

More than any other source for national wealth, however, one towers above the rest: innovation. The ability of the human mind to create something new and valuable provides society with endless wealth creation. Unlike central bank quantitative easing and other monetary tools (or tricks?), the brain really is a money-printing machine. Whether an innovator alters existing farming, mining, or manufacturing techniques to make production cheaper and more efficient, or an inventor designs something entirely unique, value that did not exist yesterday materializes the next. Innovation is the magic sauce for generating wealth.

If innovation produces wealth, why aren't all nations wealthy? Because too many nations fail to value innovators or encourage innovation. Without fundamental property rights, strong social institutions, and a dependable legal system, potential inventors have few incentives to build anything new. Humans struggling merely to survive in the world do not waste time, labor, or resources on projects that offer no prospect for future reward. Humans working as servants to the state under centrally controlled economies have no incentive to innovate. Only when private ownership and personal liberty combine can human innovation flourish. Freedom is the secret ingredient to innovation's magic sauce for increasing wealth.

When economists crunch gross domestic product numbers to see whether a nation's economy is rising or sinking, a measure of innovation becomes quantifiable. Embedded within that number is something that encapsulates human ingenuity, personal freedom, and property ownership. In this way, economic innovation directly reflects the human condition at any point in time. It provides a measurement of a nation's freedom.

Now "liberalism" as it is classically understood — as a political philosophy embracing natural rights, limited government, free markets, political and religious freedoms, and freedom of speech, all promoted and protected by an impartial and just rule of law — has always grasped this fundamental truth. Liberty and property rights spawn creativity. Where both are soundly valued, great writers, artists, and inventors produce novelties that would not otherwise exist. It is why medieval Florence birthed at once both modern-day banking and the European Renaissance. The personal freedom to create, build, invest, and own property generates tremendous innovation and national wealth.

Conversely, when today's central planners argue for socialized control over markets and the substitution of "collective rights" in place of "individual rights" while calling their agenda "progressive liberalism," they co-opt and subvert liberalism's historic meaning.

From this recognition that a nation's freedom directly affects a nation's wealth arises an even more remarkable truth: any nation that fails to embrace and protect human liberty will be the poorer for it. A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. In this way, nations have a great incentive to liberalize over time. Should they not, they quickly become financially and militarily vulnerable to more innovative and wealthier nations. Observing this simple truth, classical liberals have always understood free markets as the gateway to human emancipation. Economic self-interest, in other words, ultimately leads to expansive human rights and liberties across the planet.

Now with all that as a bit of rudimentary background, how is it that today we have entities such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) pushing for a radical "Great Reset" of Western society that promises to handcuff free markets with economic regulation while concentrating power into the hands of a small international coalition of central economic planners — most notably their own? How could promising a future where people will "own nothing and be happy" possibly be conducive to a free and productive society — or even a happy one? How can a future in which all energy is controlled by international governing bodies and multinational corporations possibly provide individuals with the institutional building blocks for endless innovation? How can farmers sustain larger and more prosperous populations when Western governments continue to stifle agricultural production through regulation and eminent domain?

The questions answer themselves. The WEF's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs such as the use of artificial intelligence to censor dissent, regulate free speech, and even erase ideas from the Internet. Its repressive efforts to control all hydrocarbon energy and cattle and crop farm production will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their ability to create, invent, and grow food. Its policies betray millennia of Western civilizational advancement by replacing respect for individual choice and free will with top-down management of human activity through the blunt instruments of force and coercion. Its motivations are indisputably anti-human at their core because each individual human life is treated as nothing more than a cog or input that can be manipulated as part of a centrally-controlled social machine. When Westerners are reduced to ones and zeroes that are sorted and shifted by the WEF's social programming codes for a "better future," builders obey but no longer create.

Whereas personal liberty has unleashed the human mind and generated tremendous Western prosperity, the World Economic Forum's push for a centrally controlled economic system will crush rights, stifle creativity, and mass-produce poverty and servitude. Its proponents, in fact, seem mostly committed to using a combination of pandemic, famine, and fear to centralize dominance for themselves.

In order to persuade Westerners to give up more and make do with less, the WEF and its globalist allies promise Westerners a future Utopia. As with every similar lie ever told to justify the extraordinary acquisition of power, though, they will fail to deliver. No society, after all, was ever promised more than in Stalin's 1936 Constitution of the USSR — or subsequently treated more abysmally. Despite its claims to the contrary, the WEF's mission directives intentionally reverse Western trends toward greater human freedom, social mobility, and more broadly obtainable wealth — or what, in another era, would have been rightly regarded as true, liberal progress.

Although the WEF and its sister organizations claim to be "saving the planet," their efforts seem primarily an ignoble design to control the planet. "Clean" energy, after all, is controlled energy; and the more that energy is controlled by centralized governments, the more completely once-free markets become centrally controlled. If every potential entrepreneur must first receive permission to use electricity before producing anything new, then no entrepreneur can thrive without the central authorities' blessing. If all manufacturing is viewed as a "threat to the planet," then no independent upstart can innovate or build wealth without first seeking and obtaining government approval. If consumers are forbidden from buying anything unless it is first pre-approved, then free markets are transformed into controlled markets.

Taking this trend to its logical yet communist conclusion, private property becomes antithetical to the state's goals. We already see the ominous subversion of private ownership today with so-called ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards used to strong-arm industry goals and manipulate free markets. Because control over information makes control over markets more manageable, the more economic uncertainty that results from market manipulation, the more censorship we'll continue to see. Recently, even a senior economist who correctly stated that the American economy had entered into a recession found his research "fact checked" and "corrected" by the U.S. government's friends at Facebook. Where free markets are under attack, free speech is inevitably under attack, too. The individual blessings of liberalism are not easily dissected from the body politic without inevitably rendering liberalism's death, as a whole.

The issue today may be "climate change" or COVID-19 or "sustainable food supplies," but the stated issue never seems anything more than a public relations campaign for fooling the masses. It always appears to be merely a disposable excuse designed to seduce Westerners into handing a small cabal of "elites" power and control over everyone else. Convincing mankind to believe that free markets will inevitably lead to some kind of apocalypse increasingly looks like the only policy goal that matters. It may well be the most diabolical trick those with power have ever played against those with no power at all. Fear is used expertly as a torturer's tool to convince Westerners to forsake willingly their own freedom. The innocent mantra whispered into their ears is simple: Trust us, humanity, we will save you. The implication, however, is far more sinister: For your own good, you must be made to enjoy your new chains.

Notice that for the World Economic Forum to succeed in its mission to control all human activity, it must first destroy the sovereignty of nation states. Why? Because, as noted above, liberal nations that embrace freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and free market entrepreneurship foster innovation and great wealth. Any nation not encumbered by the WEF's market proscriptions will most likely continue to prosper, while those shackled to the "Great Reset" will most likely languish. This is why Western politicians have worked so hard together to push their "Build Back Better" proposals irrespective of the wishes of any one nation's voting citizens.

Wealthy free nations are a threat to the WEF's New World Order. If censorship must be embraced to control the "narrative," then so be it. If citizens must be denied freedom of movement under the guise of a "health emergency," no big deal. If private bank accounts must be seized to intimidate protesters, then such threats are the price for ensuring compliance. In this way, the WEF's plans for a controlled economy intentionally reverse centuries of liberal progress. Political leaders today are dragging the West into the past.

First, individual liberties will continue disappearing. Then, the greatest economic engine of all, innovation, will dry up. Finally, wealth will return solely to the hands of a small "ruling class" minority. This is the future the World Economic Forum hails as "progress." It is not. It is a recipe for human bondage.

 
J. B. Shurk writes about politics and society.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18825/great-reset-wef

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Divider in chief? Biden likens Trump supporters to fascists after promising to unite country - Aaron Kliegman

 

​ by Aaron Kliegman

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Nathan Brand, called Biden's remark "despicable," according to NBC News.

President Biden declared in his inaugural address that the central mission of his presidency was to unify the country.

"Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, and uniting our nation," said Biden. "I ask every American to join me in this cause ... With unity we can do great things."

At another point in his speech, Biden listed an array of challenges facing the country and declared that in order to overcome them, to "restore the soul and to secure the future of America, requires ... that most elusive of things in a democracy: unity."

Biden went on to say "there is no peace, only bitterness and fury" without unity, which he described as "the path forward" in "our historic moment of crisis and challenge."

In short, Biden made a pledge to be America's unifier in chief.

Some 19 months later, on Thursday night, Biden was speaking at a fundraiser for Democrats in Bethesda, Md., an affluent suburb just outside Washington, D.C. At the event, Biden vilified the Make America Great Again movement aligned with former President Trump and his administration as "semi-fascist."

"What we're seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy," Biden reportedly said. "It's not just Trump, it's the entire philosophy that underpins the — I'm going to say something, it's like semi-fascism."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Nathan Brand, called Biden's remark "despicable," according to NBC News.

The MAGA movement, which has the support of a large segment of the country, especially among conservatives and Republicans, has become synonymous with Trump's political agenda and Trump himself, who received more than 74 million votes in the 2020 presidential election.

It's unclear how Biden likening so many Americans and Trump supporters to fascists fits with his stated mission to unite the country.

"We must meet this moment as the United States of America," Biden said during his inaugural address. "If we do that, I guarantee you we will not fail. I promise you: I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did."

However, Thursday was hardly the first time that Biden has attacked Trump supporters as radicals since taking office.

"This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history, in recent American history," Biden told reporters in May.

More broadly, Biden has repeatedly demonized Trump supporters and other Americans who disagree with his political agenda.

In January, for example, Biden said Trump "and his supporters" want "to suppress your vote, to subvert our elections," and "to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them," describing Republican election reforms as "Jim Crow 2.0," a reference to laws that enforced racial segregation in the South.

"That's the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies," he continued. "Will you stand against election subversion? Yes, or no? Will you stand for democracy? Yes, or no? ... Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?"

Biden has made similar comments throughout his presidency, describing Republican-led voting laws as "un-American" and grounded in autocracy.

Biden and his allies have similarly described those involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, or who support legal fair play and humane treatment for Jan. 6 prisoners, or who question the results of the 2020 presidential election as insurrectionists and threats to American democracy.

"I've said it before: We're are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War," said Biden. "That's not hyperbole. Since the Civil War. The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did on January the 6th."

Biden's administration has similarly labeled political opponents who oppose critical race theory, question the results of the 2020 election, or refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine as potential domestic terrorists disseminating disinformation.

Biden also attacked those unvaccinated against COVID-19 for not doing the "right thing" and "costing all of us." He accused them of causing "a lot of damage" by "making people sick and causing ... people to die" and standing in the way of "getting back to normal."

When announcing his vaccine mandates last year, Biden warned those hesitant to receive the vaccination: "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin."

Such rhetoric has led Americans to say Biden is doing more to divide than unite the country, according to polling.

A Quinnipiac University poll from earlier this year, for example, found 49% of U.S. adults think Biden is doing more to sow divisions, compared to 42% who think he's doing more to unite the country.

A Fox News poll from last year found a majority of Americans believe the nation has become less united since Biden took office.

Meanwhile, a host of other polling has shown Americans believe the country is severely divided. According to one poll released by Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service earlier this year, a plurality of Americans say civility in politics has declined since Biden took office.

There are two areas, however, where Biden seems to have largely united the country: his job performance and the current direction of the country.

Despite a recent uptick in Biden's approval rating according to Gallup, polling has consistently shown for months a strong majority of Americans disapproving of his job performance. One Quinnipiac poll from last month placed Biden's approval rating at just 31%.

Polling also indicates the American people overwhelmingly believe the country is on the wrong track.

An astounding 88% of Americans, for example, say the country is on the wrong track, and only 10% believe it's heading in the right direction, according to a recent survey from Monmouth University.

For months, pollsters have found between 70% and 90% of Americans see the country heading in the wrong direction.

In a sense, it seems, Biden has lived up to his inaugural pledge — just not in the way he intended.

 
Aaron Kliegman

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/divider-chief-biden-suggests-trump-supporters-are-fascists-after-promising

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democrats to conservatives: We hate you; we really hate you - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

The rhetoric from establishment Democrats is getting increasingly eliminationist, something that should worry us all.

It seems like just yesterday that politicians would try to sway voters to come to their point of view and cast a vote for them.  Things have changed.  In the past week, Charlie Crist told conservative voters he wants nothing to do with them because they're evil; Kathy Hochul told Republicans to leave her state; and, in the culmination of this abuse, Joe Biden effectively affixed the label "fascist" to Trump's 74,216,154 voters (all of whom are actual human beings).  Is it any coincidence that, in the same week, activists twice swatted Marjorie Taylor Greene?  Democrat politicians are engaging in eliminationist rhetoric, and it's scary.

Once, Charlie Crist was Florida's Republican governor.  Then he announced that he was an independent, which was followed, inevitably, by his becoming a Democrat.  He's now running again to be Florida's governor.  He'll face off against the very popular incumbent, Ron DeSantis.  Possibly going one better than Hillary, who called those who wouldn't vote for her "deplorables," Crist called those who support DeSantis hate-filled:

Crist: "Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him and I don't want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there." pic.twitter.com/S0B93bw52i

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 24, 2022

 

Those who support [DeSantis] should stay with him and vote for him and I don't want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there. I want the vote of the people of Florida who care about our state, good Democrats, good Independents, good Republicans. Unify with this ticket. Unify with Val Demmings and Charlie Crist. Unify with us. Those who are haters, you're gonna go off in your own world. And you better get right.

Given that Trump voters like DeSantis, as do many who did not support Trump, that's at least 74,000,000 very evil people.

Not to be outdone, New York's current governor, Kathy Hochul, issued an order to the state's 5.4 million Republicans: "Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida, where you belong, OK?  You are not New Yorkers."  It's easy to imagine that, if she had the power to do so, Hochul would be lining up the cattle cars and issuing the deportation orders.

Image: Biden gives his semi-fascists speech.  YouTube screen grab.

These are merely a current and an ex-governor, though.  Do they really speak for the Democrat party?  Before castigating Democrats for engaging in eliminationist rhetoric, shouldn't we make sure that hating tens of millions of Americans is more than just regional politics?

Well, I guess you can't get any more official than the man in the Oval Office when it comes to getting the Democrat party view about those who don't vote for it.  Joe Biden, it turns out, sides completely with Crist and Hochul.  As far as he's concerned, the 74,216,154 living, breathing Americans who support Donald Trump are "semi-fascists."  The way I see it, he meant "fascists" but thought he could soften the blow with the meaningless prefix "semi."

President Biden came under fire Thursday following remarks at a Democratic National Committee event in suburban Washington where he declared former President Donald Trump's political philosophy to be "semi-fascism."

[snip]

"What we're seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It's not just Trump, it's the entire philosophy that underpins the — I'm going to say something — it's like semi-fascism," Biden said at the Rockville, Maryland, event.

As a reminder, fascism is a subset of socialism that, unlike communism (another subset of socialism), allows for private ownership of the means of production provided that everything is ultimately under complete state control.  Germany and Italy were fascist countries.  China, once a communist country, is currently fascist.

Donald Trump's MAGA philosophy sought to shrink the government and return power to the people.  It is the opposite of fascism.  Biden's administration will allow for private ownership of the means of production if everything is ultimately under complete state control.  As revelations about the FBI demonstrate, his administration even has its own secret police.  So tell me — which party has the fascist approach to governance?

Once you have politicians declaring that identifiable classes of people are fascists, are haters, and should be deported, you have created an eliminationist philosophy that can easily slip into calling for the death of those same people.  I don't think it should surprise anybody that Marjorie Taylor Greene was swatted twice in the past few days, something that the swatter invariably hopes will lead to the swattee's death.

You've heard the phrase "vote as if your life depends on it."  This year, it's true.  Don't sit the election out.  Vote a straight Republican ticket in November, because Democrats cannot be trusted with power.

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/08/democrats_to_conservatives_we_hate_you_we_really_hate_you.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Judge signals she'll likely grant Trump's request for a 'special master' to oversee FBI review - Just the News Staff

 

​ by Just the News Staff

Hearing is set for next Thursday.

A federal judge on Saturday indicated that she will likely grant former President Donald Trump's request for a "special master" to oversee the FBI's review of documents seized at his Mar-a-Lago home earlier this month. 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon declared in a two-page notice on Saturday her "preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case." The hearing to finalize the decision is scheduled for Sept. 1, next Thursday. 

Cannon in the notice also demanded that the Department of Justice provide a fuller rundown of what FBI agents seized at Mar-a-Lago when they raided it several weeks ago. 

A "special master" is "appointed by a court to carry out some sort of action on its behalf," often to ensure that legal proceedings are followed properly by plaintiffs and/or defendants. 

Trump's legal team earlier this month had argued in court that it was "unreasonable to allow the prosecutorial team to review [the seized documents] without meaningful safeguards."

"Short of returning the seized items to the movant, only a neutral review by a special master can protect the 'great public interest' in preserving 'the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the president's performance of his official duties,'" the attorneys said in the filing.

Just the News Staff

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/judge-signals-intent-shell-grant-trumps-request-special-master

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden takes credit for deficit reduction as costly, bipartisan COVID relief programs expire - Nicholas Ballasy

 

​ by Nicholas Ballasy

Both Democrats and Republicans voted to pass the first two COVID pandemic stimulus packages, and Democrats passed the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan under Biden along a party-line vote using budget reconciliation.

President Joe Biden is taking credit for reducing the budget deficit by $1.7 trillion after most of the priciest COVID-19 stimulus spending programs that Congress passed have expired.

"We've reduced the deficit," Biden said at a rally in Maryland on Thursday evening. "The Inflation Reduction Act lowers the deficit by $300 billion over the next 10 years, and that’s on top of the $350 billion I reduced the deficit last year and the $1.5 trillion dollars reducing it this year." 

The stimulus spending that Congress approved throughout the pandemic took the deficit and national debt to historic levels.

Since the start of FY2019, the national debt has risen sharply from $21.6 trillion to $30.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. 

Both Democrats and Republicans voted to pass the first two COVID pandemic stimulus packages — the $2 trillion CARES Act and an additional $900 billion bill — under a Republican-led Senate and Democrat-led House during former President Trump's tenure in office.

Under Biden, the Democratic-led Congress passed the third stimulus package — the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan — along a party-line vote using budget reconciliation to avoid the filibuster.

"Legislation has increased the agency's estimates of the federal budget deficit, excluding the costs of servicing the debt, by $0.5 trillion in 2022 and by $0.2 trillion in 2023, mostly by increasing federal spending," read a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis. "The effects of legislative changes on the deficit will be considerably smaller in 2022 and 2023 than in 2020 ($2.3 trillion) and 2021 ($2.6 trillion) because several provisions of pandemic-related legislation will expire or wind down."

The CBO reported that under current law, the budget deficit in 2022 is projected to be $1 trillion, which is $1.7 trillion "less than the shortfall recorded last year, as spending in response to the pandemic wanes and revenues increase."

The deficit in 2019, before the COVID pandemic hit, was $984 billion, which was "equal to 4.6% of gross domestic product," according to the CBO. The deficit grew to a historic $3.1 trillion in FY2020 as a result of COVID-19 stimulus spending. It was $2.8 trillion in FY2021. 

Under Biden, the Democrat-led Congress has passed a $2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that will increase deficits by roughly $400 billion and a CHIPS bill that will raise deficits about $80 billion, according to the CBO.

Congress also passed the PACT Act to expand health coverage for veterans exposed to burn pits, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected will raise the deficit by at least $277 billion. 

Biden signed the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act, which federal budget experts have projected will reduce the deficit between $174 billion and $300 billion over 10 years due to the tax increases in the bill and additional tax collection with $80 billion in new IRS funding.

After signing the bill, Biden unilaterally implemented a student debt forgiveness program that budget watchdogs estimate will ultimately increase the national debt by up to $600 billion.

The CRFB pointed out that the debt forgiveness plan wipes away any deficit reduction that results from the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite this, Biden claimed the debt forgiveness plan is going to be paid for.

"Thanks to our historic deficit reduction, we can afford to cancel $10,000 in student debt and $20,000 if you're on a Pell Grant for tens of millions of Americans making under $125,000," he said on Thursday. 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/biden-takes-credit-deficit-reduction-pricey-covid-stimulus-spending-programs

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Alleged Israeli airstrike in Syria destroyed warehouse with over 1,000 Iran-made missiles - report - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

​ by Jerusalem Post Staff

A targeted warehouse, located within the SSRC, reportedly stored thousands of missiles assembled under the supervision of IRGC "expert officers."

 

Smoke rises from a fire in a container storage area, after Syrian state media reported an Israeli air strike on the port of Latakia on December 7.

(photo credit: SANA/REUTERS)

An airstrike Thursday on the Syrian city of Masyaf that was attributed to Israel struck a missile warehouse containing more than 1,000 Iranian-made missiles, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported on Saturday.

The warehouse, in the city’s Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) complex, stored thousands of medium-range, surface-to-surface missiles assembled under the supervision of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “expert officers,” the report said.

Syrian air defense systems were activated in northwestern Syria on Thursday, with Syria’s state news agency SANA reporting that local forces were “confronting hostile targets” above Masyaf. Later, the agency said the airstrike was an Israeli attack.

Civilians injured, Masyaf area ablaze following alleged Israeli strike

According to SOHR’s report, 14 Syrian civilians sustained injuries with varying levels of severity during the Masyaf airstrike, in addition to casualties reported among officials of Iranian-backed militias guarding the SSRC.

Smoke rises after airstrikes on a rebel-held part of the southern city of Deraa, Syria, June 15, 2017 (illustrative). (credit: REUTERS/ALAA AL-FAQIR)

In addition, several fires broke out in areas surrounding Masyaf due to shrapnel from the explosions of the warehouse, with nearby civilian houses and property suffering material damage, the report said.

According to Syrian reports, secondary explosions continued for hours after the strikes, along with the blazes caused immediately by them. Local residents were reportedly instructed to shelter in place until the fires were brought under control.

The SSRC has allegedly been targeted by Israeli airstrikes multiple times in the past, including in a rare daytime strike on April 9.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-715710

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Syria asked Iran not to attack Israel from its territory - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

​ by Jerusalem Post Staff

The Iran-led axis decided to strike US bases in response to Israeli airstrikes in order to avoid a war, according to the report.

 

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian meets with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Syria

(photo credit: SANA/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

Syrian officials have asked Iran and its proxies not to conduct attacks against Israel from its territory, leading the Iran-led axis to retaliate against Israeli strikes by hitting American bases instead, The New York Times reported on Friday citing a source in Damascus.

The request came during a virtual meeting between Iran and Iran-backed parties from Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. The meeting was reported by Gheis Ghoreishi, an analyst close to the Iranian government, and confirmed to the Times by a person in Damascus.

The source in Damascus stated that the Syrians did not want an attack against Israel to be launched from their territory as that would risk an all-out war in the already destabilized country. Because of the request, the Iran-led "axis of resistance" targeted US bases in Syria in hopes that this would push America to pressure Israel to halt its strikes.

Senior US officials told the Times that drone attacks carried out on August 15 against the al-Tanf base in Syria, which hosts US troops, was more sophisticated than previous attacks and may have been an Iranian attempt to respond to a previous Israeli airstrike.

The day before the drone strike, at least three Syrian soldiers were killed in alleged Israeli airstrikes targeting sites near Tartus on the coast of Syria and near Damascus, according to Syrian state news agency SANA.

AN F-35 seen during an aerial display at an IAF pilots’ graduation ceremony at Hatzerim air base in the Negev. Stealth fighter aircraft of this type were involved in the downing of the Iranian UAVs. (credit: AHARON KROHN/FLASH90)

US strikes target Iranians in Syria in response to drone attack

Last week, the US conducted airstrikes against the IRGC and Iran-backed militias in the Deir Ezzor region of eastern Syria in response to the August 15 attacks. Iran-backed militias responded with rocket fire, with the US responding to the rocket fire with further airstrikes.

"It's our assessment that these groups are testing and attempting to see how we might respond," said Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder after the US airstrikes last week. "I think, based on the strikes that we have taken, we've sent a very loud and clear message and a proportional message, that any threat against our forces who are operating in Syria, or anywhere, will not be tolerated."

Iran decided to strike US bases in response to Israeli airstrikes

During the virtual meeting held by Iran and its proxies, military experts concluded that although the US military is stronger than Iran's proxies in Syria and would likely respond, the Biden administration was trying to defuse tensions in the region and would not start a new war. Based on that conclusion, the meeting participants decided to strike US bases in Syria in response to every Israeli strike.

Last year, the Times reported that Iran-backed militias had targeted al-Tanf in response to Israeli strikes in Syria.

On Thursday, alleged Israeli airstrikes targeted sites near Masyaf, according to SANA. A number of fires were sparked by the strikes, with blazes and secondary explosions reported for hours after the strikes. Initial reports indicated that at least one of the targets was the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-715733

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The True Cost of Student Loans - M. J. McManus

 

​ by M. J. McManus

Now that the government has announced student debts will be cancelled, the colleges will be incentivized to increase their fees.

The cancellation of student debt has echoes of two other unwise political decisions, one made by a Republican President, the other by a Democrat President.

In 1987 Ronald Reagan agreed to an amnesty for illegal immigrants.  At the time it was a deal that would see current illegal migrants given amnesty in exchange for more border security.  The border security was never delivered but the amnesty part was, naturally.  There were as many as 11 million illegal migrants in the U.S. at the time of the amnesty, and at least three million were legalized under the exact terms of the amnesty.  This amnesty did nothing but incentivize further illegal immigration.  The precedent had now been set that the U.S. was in the habit of forgiving illegal immigration.  All you had to do was sneak into the U.S., sit tight, and wait for the next amnesty.

The second one was the decision of the Clinton administration to allow people to have access to mortgages they had little chance of actually repaying.  Under Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas.  In short people with low and poor credit were still given massive loans for homes, despite the obvious risk to both borrowers and lenders.  The government made clear that it would take the hit for any mortgage default.  As a result, banks realized that the smart money was not in being careful with mortgages, but instead lay in getting as many people signed up as possible. After all, Uncle Sam would bail you out.  This caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Both examples are useful when considering the announcement this week to cancel student debt.  The decision is comparable to the illegal immigration amnesty, as it states all you have to do is take out a student loan and sit tight for the government to cancel the debt for you.  Much like the illegal migrants waiting for the next amnesty, there will now be waves of people signing up for student loans and college courses, confident the government will bail them out in the next round of amnesty/debt forgiveness.  This is how the current situation is comparable to the amnesty act and mostly impacts the prospective students.  But it is not just the students who will be implicated.

The announcement to cancel debt is comparable to the mortgage schemes of Clinton, as it will change the behavior of the colleges.  They had to be slightly careful in terms of college tuition fees, as they needed to make sure their prospective students could actually get a loan.  Now that the government has announced student debts will be cancelled, the colleges will be incentivized to increase their fees.  After all, now the government will come to the rescue of students who owe the college.  Much like the banks being confident that the government would bail them out over mortgages to credit-risky customers, colleges are confident that the government will bail them out for the costs of tuition racked up by students.  So why not rack the fees up some more?

It comes at a time many colleges have seen declines in enrollment.  There is a perception that college degrees no longer confer a job market advantage.  In 2008 the ratio of STEM to humanities majors was essentially equal.  However, between 2009-16, enrolment on humanities degrees programs decreased by 0.4% while STEM degree enrolment surged by 43% in the same period.  In ultra-liberal California, the number of STEM undergraduates went up by 39% while humanities degrees declined by 3%.  This net difference of 42% in the nation’s most liberal state is quite a development.  In New York, the nation’s second largest source of graduates, the number of STEM graduates increased by 45% while humanities managed a meagre 1% increase.

This is interesting, as STEM majors tend to be more conservative than liberal arts majors.  This is particularly true for disciplines like engineering.  The Democrats are (probably) as aware of these statistics and trends as Arithmos Analytics, and it should worry them.  The STEM curriculum is more resistant to woke themes being worked in the curriculum than liberal arts.  English Literature majors can be forced to read feminist poetry, but it is difficult to work feminism into advanced calculus or string theory.  If the colleges cease to produce reliably liberal graduates and instead produce young people who are (gasp) not indoctrinated or lean conservative (double gasp) then the colleges cease to be useful to the left.

Hence the announcement from the Biden White House this week.  While there were elements of appealing to the youth vote, there was also a long-term view.  Colleges have been reliably churning out woke foot soldiers who while unemployable, are still good at hash tagging, marching and door knocking for the Democrats.  As fewer young people went to college this would narrow the recruiting pool.  What better way than to widen things up again by telling students “We will pay your loans off!” and telling colleges “Charge as much as you like, we will cover it!” and thus keep a liberal recruiting ground alive.

The losers will be the American taxpayer.  They will now have to pay off the loans of unemployable liberals at the inflated prices set by liberal colleges.  Given that as things stand there is already $1.75 trillion in student debt, how much worse will it get after Biden’s announcement? One thing is for sure is that we will all pay for it, in more ways than one.

M. J. McManus is the Head of Arithmos Analytics. He tweets at @arithmosdata

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_true_cost_of_student_loans.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Barack Obama set the legal path for the FBI's Trump raid - John Solomon

 

​ by John Solomon

2009 executive order stripped prior presidents' standing to maintain executive privilege. Court hearing Friday in Navarro case could challenge that.

White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was a busy man, at least when it came to carrying out President Joe Biden's wish to eliminate former President Donald Trump's claims that materials and testimony from his presidency were covered by executive privilege.

Su sent letters to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon last October and former advisers Peter Navarro and Gen. Mike Flynn in February informing them that the incumbent president had waived any claims Trump might have that testimony or evidence they might provide the House Jan. 6 committee was covered by executive privilege.

File

flynn-jonathanSu.pdf

"President Biden determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents shedding light on events within the White House on and about January 6, 2021," Su wrote Bannon attorney Robert Costello last Oct. 18.

In a Feb. 28 letter to Navarro, Su wrote, "In light of unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and therefore is not justified."

File

Su White House Biden Letter_Redacted.pdf

By spring, Su had also given permission to the National Archives to reject Trump's claims of privilege over documents with classified markings held at Mar-a-Lago so that the FBI could open a criminal investigation of the former president.

"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote Trump's lawyers on May 8. "... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."

File

wall-letter-to-evan-corcoran-re-trump-boxes-05.10.2022.pdf

Su's colleagues in the White House counsel's office sent similar letters to other aides, including former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, records shared with Just the News show.

In the decade after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Su wouldn't have had such wide latitude. An executive order that George W. Bush signed on Nov. 1, 2001 declared that an incumbent president couldn't overrule a former president's claims to executive privilege over documents from their tenure if the two could not come to an agreement.

"If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist," that executive order concluded. "Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and non-appealable court order."

Bush's order added for emphasis: "Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President."

But Barack Obama reversed that guidance nearly a decade later, going back to the Watergate and Reagan-era guidance that the incumbent president had a final say over past presidents and acted through the National Archivist.

"In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order," Obama's order dated Jan. 21, 2009 stated. "The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential record."

Trump never changed that guidance during his presidency, allowing the Biden White House the latitude to waive the privileges of the 45th president in both the Jan. 6 congressional probe and the FBI's criminal investigation of the Mar-a-Lago records.

Once the Biden White House cleared the way, the FBI and Justice Department moved speedily to escalate their investigation, empaneling a grand jury in May and issuing a subpoena to Trump, visiting his home on June 3 and eventually raiding the home with a criminal search warrant on Aug. 8. In other words, Obama's order opened the door to the now-infamous Trump raid.

The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the issue. The most famous case involving Richard Nixon was conducted under an older presidential records law. In that case, the Supreme Court pierced Nixon's executive privilege, stating the incumbent president's opinion on whether to release the records weighed heavily on the decision but was not absolute.

In her May 8 letter to Trump's legal defense team, Wall noted the wiggle room in the court's opinion, saying the Nixon case "strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege 'against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.'"

Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard law professor emeritus, said he believes the Supreme Court today would give a former president more deference than Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate and encouraged Trump to pursue such a legal challenge.

"The idea that a sitting president can somehow waive the executive privilege of a previous president really wrecks the executive privilege, which is implicit in Article II of the Constitution," Dershowitz told Just the News on Tuesday. "You can't have a privilege, which then your political opponent can waive.

"What President would ever seek advice and confide in people around him — Cabinet members, White House counsel, White House chief of staff — if you knew that when you're defeated for office, and you're going to be running again, your opponent can just by saying I waive the privilege, get into every single conversation you ever had. I can't believe that any constitutional scholar would agree with that."

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) said if the Obama-Biden standard is allowed to stand, Republicans in the future will almost certainly seek to pierce the privileges of Obama and Biden when they have control of Congress.

"If they're able to go and waive presidential privilege, and executive privilege at this point, well, who's to say that the next Republican president or presidents coming afterwards, couldn't go in and go after, as you say, Fast and Furious, go after Hunter Biden's laptop, go after everything that Obama did when he was president?" she asked in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

The first challenge to the Obama-Biden precedent may come as soon as Friday, when Navarro's legal team argues in support of a motion in federal court to compel the Justice Department to disclose all of its contacts with Congress and the White House, suggesting the three collaborated to pierce the Trump privilege claims in potential violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Navarro's legal team argues in its motion that Su's "unsolicited" letter to him in February, two days before he was to testify in Congress, likely didn't happen as a coincidence and that the Biden administration should be forced to disclose its contacts with the Democrat-controlled Congress.

"It was improper for President Biden to attempt to influence the Department of Justice's prosecutorial discretion regarding individuals who failed to comply with Select Committee subpoenas," Navarro's lawyers argued. "It is entirely possible that political appointees or others at the Department interpreted President Biden's statement as a directive to prosecute."

DOJ scoffed at the notion and has told the court it has no responsive documents showing contacts between the various players. But the judge has allowed the argument to proceed to a hearing.

John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/how-barack-obama-set-legal-path-fbis-trump-raid

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter