As DOJ appoints special counsel for Trump probes, legal experts ask: What about Hunter? - Aaron Kliegman

 

by Aaron Kliegman

The attorney general's decision to name an independent prosecutor for multiple investigations focused on Trump has exacerbated concerns about a politicized Justice Department.

 

Legal experts are raising concerns about the merits and motivations of Attorney General Merrick Garland's announcement Friday that he's appointing a special counsel to oversee multiple Justice Department investigations involving former President Donald Trump, with some prominent voices asking why the department hasn't taken a similar step with the ongoing probe into President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

"The appointment of yet another special prosecutor assigned with the specific target of Donald Trump shows the lengths to which the corrupt O'Biden administration will go to try and stop Trump," said Sidney Powell, a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, combining the last names of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

"No one," she continued, "has been persecuted at taxpayer expense more relentlessly than has Trump, and the double standard is blatant. They protect Hunter and Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and others from investigation for flagrant criminal conduct and manufacture any excuse to go after Trump."

Powell's words follow Garland's appointment of Jack Smith, a former career Justice Department prosecutor and former chief prosecutor at The Hague, to serve as special counsel to oversee two ongoing criminal investigations.

The first is the investigation into whether any individual, Trump included, attempted to interfere unlawfully in the transfer of presidential power or the electoral certification process in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The second is the investigation into the documents the FBI seized from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August and any obstruction of justice charges that could stem from it.

Garland's announcement came three days after Trump launched his 2024 presidential campaign.

"The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution," said Garland. "Based on recent developments, including the former president's announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president's stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel."

Trump blasted the appointment as the "politicization of justice" and said he "won't partake in it" in comments to Fox News Digital.

Observers were quick to similarly criticize Garland's decision, noting a potential double standard as the Justice Department hasn't named a special counsel to oversee its ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden.

"By appointing a special counsel to investigate his boss's political enemy, Attorney General Merrick Garland continues to politicize and weaponize the Biden Justice Department — all while Garland ignores smoking-gun evidence of Biden's foreign corruption," tweeted Mike Davis, former chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Other legal experts thought Garland's appointment itself was fine but took issue with not doing the same for Biden.

"Appointment of a special counsel is a significant step, but Garland is well within his rights to do so," said Geoff Shepard, a lawyer and author who served in the Nixon administration. "The disturbing thing is that he has not already done so with regard to the Hunter Biden investigation. It reeks of a double standard and gives critics plenty of reason to object."

The Justice Department has been investigating the president's son for potential violation of tax laws as well as foreign lobbying violations related to his business dealings overseas. David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, is the federal prosecutor heading the probe, which to date hasn't yielded any charges — although federal agents have reportedly gathered enough information to feel confident charging Biden with multiple crimes related to taxes and a gun purchase.

Weiss was appointed by Trump, potentially assuaging some concerns that the Biden Justice Department won't honestly conduct its probe. However, as a federal prosecutor, Weiss can still be hired and fired by President Biden, noted Alan Dershowitz, a renowned civil liberties lawyer and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.

Republicans in Congress have previously requested that Garland grant special counsel protections and authorities to Weiss as he investigates the president's son, so far to no avail. On Thursday, House Republican leaders detailed their plans to investigate the Biden family's business dealings and alleged criminal activity when Republicans officially take control of the House in January when a new Congress is sworn in.

Such an effort could be necessary, according to some observers who argue Weiss isn't getting the job done.

Weiss is an "embarrassment," according to Joe diGenova, a former federal prosecutor who argued the Hunter Biden probe should be wrapped up by now. "It shows the political nature of Garland, not using a special counsel where he should in one case and in the other choosing someone not up to the caliber that's necessary when you're dealing with Trump."

DiGenova argued that while Smith "obviously has all kinds of experience" and is likely a "fine lawyer," someone of "greater stature" like a former judge or attorney general would be better suited for this assignment investigating a former president under "questionable" circumstances.

"I've always thought it's important to pick people of prominence to bring credibility to it," he said. "Picking someone that no one knows is not, in my opinion, a good idea. It's important to find someone with a more known track record and more of a public figure."

Some legal experts disagreed, countering that Smith is the right man for the job.

"Jack is a prosecutor's prosecutor," said Andrew Weissmann, a former top Justice Department official and senior prosecutor in the Trump-Russia investigation. "He has been a career prosecutor for decades, across numerous administrations, and does not have a political bone in his body. To boot: He is as fast as [lightning], cutting to the chase in his investigations, and does not get waylaid by irrelevant side issues.

"Jack surely knows the complete drubbing he is going to take in certain quarters of the media, and he has the thick skin and fortitude that is required to brush that off for what it is." 

Dershowitz agreed that Smith "seems very qualified," adding that the appointment of a special counsel helps show the investigation isn't being done by someone who can be fired or promoted by the target's political opponent.

"The appearance of an attorney general investigating a potential political opponent of his boss is reduced with the special prosecutor appointment," he said.

However, he added, special prosecutors have particular targets, focusing on specific individuals, "raising questions about the fairness of the law. Prosecutors normally prioritize who to go after with several investigations to tackle, whereas special prosecutors have only one target."

The late D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman expressed a similar sentiment in an oft-cited passage from a 1988 ruling concerning special counsels, arguing there's inherent pressure on them given their independence and narrow yet public mandate to obtain an indictment and conviction rather than just administer the law. (Silberman's ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson.)

A point of concern to watch with Smith's appointment, noted Shepard, is whether he fills his staff with objective career prosecutors or more openly political individuals, potentially reflecting a political bias in the special counsel investigation.

One key problem, some critics argued, isn't necessarily the special counsel announcement itself but rather the person who made the announcement.

"Garland has so weaponized the Justice Department against conservatives and Republicans that anything he does is questionable," said diGenova. "Regardless of the process of picking Smith, it's tainted because Garland is doing it."

Just the News has previously reported on growing outcry among legal experts and civil libertarians over what they described as the Justice Department's strong-arm tactics targeting Trump allies and critics of the Biden administration

According to Dershowitz, however, right now the best course of action is to hold off on judgment.

"Let's wait and see," he said. "We should judge [Smith] on his merits. Of course, there are risks this could be political. It's so important for justice to be done and to be seen by the public to be done. But I don't envy the special prosecutor in this case. He will be pilloried."

Aaron Kliegman

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/doj-appoints-special-counsel-trump-probes-legal-experts-ask-what-about

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mayorkas, Garland top list as House Judiciary Republicans announce potential witnesses - Charlotte Hazard

 

by Charlotte Hazard

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas top the list of about five Biden administration officials whose testimony is being sought.

House Republicans soon to be in control of the chamber and its Judiciary Committee on Friday informed the Biden administration of its potential witness list including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for promised hearing on such matters as record immigration numbers at the southern U.S. border and the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notices were sent to Mayorkas, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

Washington Republicans also vowed they would look into what they consider the recent politicalization and abuse of power within the FBI and Justice Department and the targeting of parents who went to school board meetings to challenge such issues as pandemic mandates and curriculum. 

"In addition, to advance our oversight of the Biden Administration's use of federal law enforcement with respect to school board-related threats, we require prompt testimony from employees of the Executive Office of the President," reads the letter to Klain. "We expect your unfettered cooperation in arranging for the committee to receive testimony from EOP employees."

The letter said GOP members of the new Judiciary Committee "anticipate requiring testimony" from:

• Mary C. Wall, senior adviser, COVID-19 Response Team
• Julie C. Rodriguez, director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
• Katherine Pantangco, policy adviser for Intergovernmental Affairs
• Nezly Silva, senior policy analyst for Intergovernmental Affairs

Committee Republicans say the Mayorkas request follows 21 months of apparently unfulfilled requests – including one as recently as Oct. 28 – for information and documents concerning the operations and actions of his department and its components.

"You have ignored these requests, or you have failed to respond sufficiently," the letter read.

Charlotte Hazard

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/house-republicans-announce-potential-witnesses-118th-congress

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Urgent Call for a Podesta Watchdog: The $750 Billion Schumer-Manchin So-Called Inflation Reduction Act - Lawrence Kadish

 

by Lawrence Kadish

While a Democrat-controlled Senate will look on with a studiously indifferent gaze at what has been called this potential slush fund, it will require the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to devise a mechanism that prevents this from becoming a multi-billion dollar scandal.

 

Congress needs to appoint an independent non-partisan monitor with subpoena power to review the disbursements of nearly half a trillion dollars in federal funds that will be distributed by a former Clinton associate and Democratic operative on behalf of the Biden Administration.

Failure to have an independent "inspector general" act as a daily auditor could turn appropriations allegedly slated for environmental projects into one of the largest political slush funds ever suffered by the American taxpayer. What will surely be some very selective disbursements are likely to come in the midst of a presidential election cycle and at a time when Democrats are understandably seeking every advantage. No surprise, given that their standard bearer is now the oldest citizen to hold the office of president while many voters might still view as puzzling how his current vice president came to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

So just who will be the "environmental expert" with the skill, insight, and professionalism to determine where, when and who receives a portion of the $370 billion earmarked for "green" projects in the $750 billion Schumer-Manchin so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Even the New York Times had to acknowledge that the designated administrator for this strategic responsibility, John Podesta, is a "Democratic stalwart." (For those unfamiliar with the word, "stalwart" can be defined as "loyal and resolute.")

And so he is.

While he may boast environmental credentials, let us be clear. Podesta has previously served as White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and chaired Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016. He is first and foremost a creature of Washington.

There is little doubt that Podesta's supervision of the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in a presidential election cycle requires an independent auditor to protect the taxpayer. While there is a General Accounting Office designed to monitor federal spending, they will be hard-pressed to keep tabs in real time on what Podesta is spending and where.

While a Democrat-controlled Senate will look on with a studiously indifferent gaze at what has been called this potential slush fund, it will require the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to devise a mechanism that prevents this from becoming a multi-billion dollar scandal. Voters need to appreciate that a Washington insider has been assigned to direct federal funds to achieve a victory that may have nothing to do with environmental protection and everything to do with who makes what announcement on election night 2024.

Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19126/podesta-watchdog

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Diplomacy Delusion - Bruce Thornton

 

by Bruce Thornton

When fools cling to fantasies about the powers of persuasion.

 

President Biden recently met with China’s Xi Jinping in Indonesia. As Gordon Chang reported for the Gatestone Institute, Biden’s goals for the meeting was to “lay out” each power’s “red lines” and “critical national interests,” and determine “whether or not they conflict with one another. And if they do, how to resolve it and how to work it out.” As usual with such diplomatic theater, nothing of substance was discussed, and tired bromides about “working together” and “candid exchange of views” were exchanged.

The assumptions behind Biden’s statement of the goals themselves reveal the dangerous flaws and delusional thinking that define the fetish of “diplomatic engagement,” which for a century has been the heart of the “new world order.” Ancient common sense and the sorry record of failed diplomacy should have long ago disabused us of this feckless idealism and reliance on “parchment barriers,” negotiated written agreements that almost always lack a robust, credible threat of force to punish violators.

Many of the problems that vitiate the recent talk with China have troubled diplomatic engagement for a century. In the case of China, Chang writes, for decades “of fruitless conversations with China, American presidents regularly postpone taking needed action.” Thus, like other talks with rivals and malignant enemies like North Korea and Iran, such talks produce “horrible results,” and allow our enemies “to buy time and often run out the clock”––just as North Korea did to create nuclear weapons, and Iran is currently doing to achieve the same end.

Moreover, such talks with the world’s most consequential power inflate China’s already arrogant sense of superiority, as well as our own weakness. Such a dynamic only encourages more aggression. Finally, these agreements, which usually lack a serious enforcement mechanism for punishing violations, are what Thomas Hobbes nearly four centuries ago called a “covenant without the sword,” mere “words of no strength to secure a man at all.”

Yet Biden has gone beyond just talking without acting. His  recently promulgated 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the Wall Street Journal writes,  says that “the Biden Team will cancel the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, known as SLCM-N, which is a planned smaller ‘tactical’ nuke that could be launched from U.S. Navy ships or submarines.”

This decision is being made in spite of Iran’s expansion of its missile arsenal, and China’s and Russia’s build-up of tactical nuclear weapon stockpiles that threaten our security and that of our allies. As a result, as Admiral Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, puts it, “The current situation in Ukraine and China’s nuclear trajectory convinces me a deterrence and assurance gap exists.” Indeed, “By the 2030s,” the Posture Review notes, “the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.”

In other words, we are not just failing to act, but taking actions that increase our enemies’ ability to threaten our security and interests. Why? Often, we do so because we lose our nerve and do not want to pay the price in lives and resources to stop an aggressor before he becomes capable of carrying out his designs. Not wanting to face the risks of using force, we then indulge in the theater of “diplomatic engagement,” creating the illusion of action to hide our unwillingness to act.

The dangerous fallacy of diplomacy and agreements has been recognized ever since Homer’s Iliad 2700 years ago. In Book 20, Hector stands before the walls of Troy, awaiting Achilles, who has slaughtered and routed Troy’s army. Knowing that he is fated to die at the hands of Achilles, Hector still hopes that maybe he could negotiate with the rampaging killing-machine. He considers disarming himself and negotiating with Achilles, promising to return Helen and pay a huge indemnity.

But common sense wakes him up: “Why thrash things out? I must not go and implore him. He’ll show me no mercy, nor respect for me, my rights––he’ll cut me down straight off––stripped of my defenses like a woman once I have loosed the armor of my body.” Yet despite this moment of clarity about the inhuman ferocity of Achilles, he still tries to bargain with him over the treatment of his body should he be killed, asking that his corpse be returned to his family.

Achilles responds with the eternal truth that no negotiations with an enemy committed to the destruction of his foe can succeed: “Don’t talk to me of pacts. There are no binding oaths between men and lions––wolves and lambs can enjoy no meeting of the minds––they are all bent on hating each other to the death. So with you and me. No love between us. No truce till one or the other falls and gluts with blood Ares,” the god of war.

We moderns, of course, consider such brutal realism to be typical of an ancient savagery and ignorance that we have progressed beyond. War for us is an anomaly to be done away with by a “rule-based international order” that settles conflicts between states with negotiation and covenants.

But think about the horrors of the 20^th Century’s two world wars, when the world’s most civilized peoples slaughtered each other in the millions with artillery shells weighing half a ton, machine guns and tanks, poison gas, aerial bombardment of cities with high explosives and incendiary bombs, and ultimately nuclear weapons. In those two conflicts the combatants behaved just as Achilles describes all sworn enemies do. Only when the aggressors and their cities had been obliterated and “glutted Ares with blood,” could peace and reconciliation be possible.

It’s not just the common sense and realism of the sort we find in Homer that teaches us that negotiating and signing pacts with inveterate enemies who hate us will put us in danger. History also provides empirical evidence for that truth. The September, 1939, meeting in Munich between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler is the poster-boy for feckless appeasement. But “diplomatic engagement” is the father of appeasement, the desperate recourse of leaders and their peoples who have no stomach for war.

The misjudgment of Hitler and Nazism also paved the way for Chamberlain’s doomed effort. Hitler’s public proclamations of his revanchist intentions during the party rallies in Nuremburg and in his manifesto Mein Kampf were no secret. Neither was the anti-Semitic race-laws and the occupation of Austria. Nor did the British heed the analyses from Sir Horace Rumbold, England’s ambassador to Germany when Hitler came to power, who reported to the government the enthusiasm with which the German people received Hitler’s scorn for pacifism, paeans to “Will and determination” which are “of the highest worth,” and his belief that “only brute force can ensure the survival of the race.”

Yet Chamberlain, like many British still traumatized by the slaughter of the Great War, clung to his faith in his powers of persuasion, and the desire of the Germans to seek peace. He seemingly paid no attention to Winston Churchill’s BBC broadcast four years earlier that warned of the existential threat of Germans “who are being taught from childhood to think of war and conquest as a glorious exercise and death in battle as the noblest fate of man,” a nation “in the grip of a group of ruthless men preaching a gospel of intolerance and pride,” who are “rearming with the utmost speed, and ready to their hands this new lamentable weapon of the air” imperiling civilians of all ages.

In other words, Chamberlain missed what Churchill understood: that Nazi Germany was as different from liberal democracies as a lion is from a man, or a wolf from a sheep. There could be no negotiated covenants with such a regime, no “meeting of the minds” upon which agreements and pacts must be based. In the end, brutal force destroyed the Nazi regime at the cost of at least 75 million people, including 40 million civilians.

Yet despite this lesson of history, we have continued for decades to use diplomacy to turn lions into men by entering into “covenants without swords.” As a result, we now face an Iran, China, and Russia armed with the latest drones and missiles, including China’s 1250 hypersonic weapons that can reach our military bases and Carrier Battle Groups anywhere in the world.

Continuing to indulge the illusion of “diplomatic engagement” is the highest form of political malfeasance, for keeping citizens safe is the most important duty of the federal government. No matter how loudly the dogs of diplomacy barked in Indonesia, the Chinese caravans of aggression will relentlessly move on.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an emeritus professor of classics and humanities at California State University, Fresno, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents: The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-diplomacy-delusion/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump Special Counsel Targeted Conservatives for Prosecution in IRS Scandal - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

"Smith asked whether they could charge the groups with conspiracy to violate U.S. laws."

 

What are the bona fides of the special counsel appointed to go after Trump? The ones you expect.

via J.E. Dyer.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced today the appointment of former career Justice Department prosecutor and former chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, Jack Smith, to serve as Special Counsel to oversee two ongoing criminal investigations.

“Based on recent developments, including the former President’s announcement that he is a candidate for President in the next election, and the sitting President’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel,” said Attorney General Garland. “Such an appointment underscores the Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters. It also allows prosecutors and agents to continue their work expeditiously, and to make decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.”

A special counsel was long overdue, but there was no way Garland was going to pick anyone except a loyal soldier to go after conservatives.

How loyal?

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently obtained an email addressed to former IRS official Lois Lerner sent from Election Crimes Branch Director Richard Pilger at the Justice Department. The email addressed to Lerner stated that, “I have been asked to run something by you.” During the Committee’s investigation, Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith told investigators that officials at the Justice Department discussed targeting conservative nonprofit groups with Lerner as early as October 2010.

Pilger says that Smith asked him to arrange a meeting with Lerner. Pilger further stated that the agenda for the meeting was to discuss how the IRS could be, “more vigilant to the opportunities from more crime in the . . . 501(c)(4) area.”

In their letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Committee said, “The Justice Department convened a meeting with former IRS official Lois Lerner in October 2010 to discuss how the IRS could assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits. This meeting was arranged at the direction of Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith.”

Public integrity indeed.

Who better to pick to go after conservatives than a guy with a track record of doing just that.

What we tend to forget is that the IRS scandal was much worse than the popular understanding of it. Beyond an attempt to block and shut down conservative nonprofits, it had roots in the DOJ and the FBI. It wasn’t just about denying tax-exempt status, but actively criminalizing and prosecuting political dissent.

In October of 2010, apparently without a court order, the IRS sent 21 computer disks containing 1.1 million pages of tax-return documents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the Justice Department, the massive data dump included public returns from non-profit groups but also taxpayer information that by law the IRS is required to keep confidential. Reps. Issa and Jordan ask in their letter for information relating to the preparation and transmittal of the data.

How did these documents wind up at the FBI? In September of 2010, IRS officials including Lois Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram helped the New York Times prepare a story about non-profit policy groups which “heavily favored Republicans” in their purchases of issue advertising.

The day after the article appeared, Justice Department Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith noted the story in an email to colleagues and asked whether they could charge the groups with conspiracy to violate U.S. laws.

That’s where this is at.

Why is this happening? Because Smith still had his job after all this. And no good deed will go unforgiven.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/special-counsel-pick-to-go-after-trump-targeted-conservatives-for-prosecution-in-irs-scandal/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

COVID vax makers finally study long-term heart damage as FDA admits bivalent data lacking - Greg Piper

 

by Greg Piper

HHS corrects stats on tripling of COVID-related pediatric hospitalizations, used to justify booster campaign for kids, after analyst calls out bad data. CNN still hasn't corrected false report.

More than a year after the FDA added heart inflammation warnings to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — amid the second academic year of campus vaccine mandates on a demographic at higher risk of severe adverse events — vaccine makers are finally studying the long-term consequences of vaccine-induced myocarditis and pericarditis.

Moderna already has two trials running, while Pfizer said its first trial will start "in the next couple months" and include up to 500 teenagers and young adults under 21, NBC News reported last week. Neither has disclosed the studies on their websites.

The CDC isn't much further ahead in studying long-term post-vaccination harm. In late September, the agency started contacting people who meet the case definition of myocarditis and have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

While an "independent entity" should be reviewing long-term consequences, it's "puzzling" why Pfizer and Moderna waited so long to follow through on the FDA's approval conditions, said MIT professor Retsef Levi, lead author of a study on post-vaccination "emergency" heart problems in 16-39 year-olds in highly vaccinated Israel.

His paper remains in reputational limbo more than six months after the Nature journal that published it added an ominous "editor's note" promising an investigation of criticisms.

"This paper is still under investigation and we are carefully considering all the information and ... possible courses of action the editors could take to ensure the scientific record is maintained," Scientific Reports chief editor Rafal Marszalek wrote in a statement given to Just the News. 

The vaccine makers' belated research follows research that finds heart inflammation is two to three times more likely following second doses of Moderna than Pfizer.

The Journal of the American College of Cardiology study by Canadian researchers, which used the British Columbia COVID-19 cohort, found the strongest association with men and people 18-39 years old. This echoes earlier research reviewed by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Pfizer's new bivalent booster — like Moderna's, composed of now-outdated Omicron BA.4/5 subvariants and Wuhan strain — is also under scrutiny.

It has much higher rates of side effects than its original booster, according to a new preprint by University Hospital Wuerzburg researchers and an Oxford researcher who "receives honoraria" from Pfizer.

Their non-randomized controlled study of 76 healthcare workers who took a fourth dose, not yet peer-reviewed, showed the bivalent recipients had an 85% adverse-event rate, contrasted with 51% for the monovalent. The bivalent was also followed by "an increased rate of inability to work and intake of PRN [as needed] medication."

Are you going for the new Pfizer-BA 4/5 bivalent jab? Think again. The new bivalent jab has got significantly higher adverse reactions than monovalent booster (84.6% Vs 51.4%). Also, there is a trend towards an increased rate of inability to work https://t.co/VDOWcLJInd pic.twitter.com/zISCL4aFc1

— Vipin M. Vashishtha (@vipintukur) November 8, 2022

 

The FDA's vaccines chief recently admitted how little data the agency has to justify its enthusiasm for bivalent boosters.

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks told The New York Times "we're not sure how well these vaccines will do yet against preventing symptomatic disease," particularly from newer subvariants.

But he claimed "the downside is pretty low" to getting the new jabs in relation to the "positive consequences" that would follow "even modest improvements in vaccine response." 

Weill Cornell Medicine virologist John Moore questioned the government strategy of "chasing variants by tweaking" the vaccine composition, telling the Times not to expect "amazing protection pagainst infection" from them.

 

The hedging from FDA about bivalent in this last sentence is remarkable, but realistic. I strongly urge you to consider it. https://t.co/pYeaktZZyT pic.twitter.com/oTtQs5SE8f

— Walid Gellad, MD MPH (@walidgellad) November 18, 2022

 

The FDA didn't answer Just the News queries for the evidence Marks used to make his claims, given the bivalent boosters weren't tested in humans and their makers are only now following up on possible long-term damage from the original vaccines.

Outside studies thus far have shown no improvement over original boosters, and National Institutes of Health Director Lawrence Tabak recently cited "hope," not evidence, that bivalents "will offer even broader protection."

The feds' longstanding efforts to play down post-vaccination heart problems stand in contrast to their urgent appeals to boost young children, backed by data revealed to be false.

The Department of Health and Human Services admitted the goof on COVID-related pediatric hospitalizations, which inexplicably tripled on paper this month, after an eagle-eyed COVID analyst notified HHS of an implausible week-to-week jump in Florida that skewed the entire country.

3/ It should have been obvious this data was flawed and that pediatric Covid hospitalizations didn't triple week over week, but the media doesn't ask these questions. I noticed the issue with the hospitalization data *a week ago* and notified HHS. They finally fixed it yesterday. pic.twitter.com/YFixcPkXmW

— Kelley K (@KelleyKga) November 16, 2022

 

The false stats were cited in an as-yet uncorrected CNN report on a Yale School of Public Health model predicting that a 50-60% booster rate could prevent at least 38,000 pediatric hospitalizations. Fewer than 5% of kids 5-11 have received a bivalent booster, and every age group under 65 is below 20%, according to CDC figures through Nov. 16.

Copying Pfizer's selective disclosure of trial data from its bivalent, Moderna issued a press release Nov. 14 claiming both of its bivalent candidates "trigger a superior antibody response" relative to its original against Omicron BA.4/5, which has already been knocked out by BQ.1 and BQ.1.1.

CEO Stephane Bancel said this response — five times greater than the original — "persisted for at least three months" and showed "neutralizing activity against BQ.1.1," illustrating the "potential to offer protection" against evolving variants. The study of boosted individuals didn't include anyone under age 19.

Pfizer and its partner BioNTech said Wednesday they've started a Phase I study to test a "next generation" vaccine that enhances long-term T-cell response, as opposed to fast-waning antibody jumps, by encoding for "non-spike proteins that are highly conserved" across variants. The trial will be limited to "healthy," boosted 18-55 year-olds.

 

Greg Piper

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/covid-vax-makers-finally-study-long-term-heart-damage-fda-admits

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran continues murder plots abroad while sentencing protesters to death at home - Aaron Kliegman

 

by Aaron Kliegman

Critics are calling for tougher sanctions on the regime, which is targeting Americans and U.S. allies, refusing to cooperate with probes into its nuclear program, and cracking down on protesters.

 

The Biden administration's recent efforts to declare support for ongoing anti-government protests inside Iran and to impose sanctions on those involved in the Iranian regime's crackdown haven't deterred Tehran from escalating its violence against demonstrators.

Meanwhile, amid a seemingly tougher posture from Washington toward Iran, the regime has nonetheless continued to ramp up its illicit nuclear activity and continue targeting U.S. and allied citizens with alleged kidnapping and assassination plots.

After receiving widespread criticism for what some experts called its "weak and baffling" response to widespread protests in Iran, the Biden administration did a 180 over the past month, expressing support for the Iranian people demonstrating against their theocratic government and taking limited steps to support them. The administration even signaled for the first time it's not pushing to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, instead prioritizing the protests.

However, the reversal has appeared to have little impact on the regime's crackdown, leading critics to call for more concrete support for the Iranian people.

Iran on Wednesday sentenced three more protesters to death, raising fears that the regime will use executions to intimidate Iranians in order to suppress the demonstrations.

That brings the number of people sentenced to death in connection with the protests to five, according to Iran's judiciary. However, many more imprisoned demonstrators may face similar punishments. There have been at least 30,000 detentions, according to figures compiled by the organized Iranian opposition.

The death sentences are the latest escalation in a regime crackdown that has contributed to hundreds of estimated deaths, leading some observers to chastise the Biden administration for not doing more.

"I'm not surprised that the Biden administration has been more of an appeasement administration when it comes to the [leaders] in Tehran, because that's what they've always been," Bryan Leib, executive director of Iranian Americans for Liberty, told the John Solomon Reports podcast on Thursday. "They never wanted to have gotten tough with this regime."

Leib went on to describe the current protests sweeping Iran as a potential "revolution" led by young people and especially women.

"There's an opportunity right now for the Biden administration to grow a spine and really do something to support the Iranian people," he said. "And I'm not talking about putting out statements. I'm not talking about sending out tweets. I'm talking about enacting the stiffest and toughest sanctions ever heard of before on the Islamic Republic and also getting our European allies to do the same thing. The time is now for this administration to take a strong stance against the regime. I don't think they're going to, but they should. They really should."

In 2020, when the Trump administration was in office and implemented a policy of exerting maximum economic pressure on Iran, the country plummeted to a low of $4 billion in accessible foreign exchange reserves. That figure climbed up to $41.4 billion as of August.

While increasing support for the protesters, U.S. officials have seemed unwilling, according to Leib, to describe the demonstrations as a movement for democracy and to overthrow the regime, instead saying the Iranian people only want their government to institute reforms.

Both State Department spokesperson Ned Price and Biden's special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, angered Iranians on social media for recently saying the protesters are calling for reforms and demanding respect for their dignity rather than regime change.

"How tone deaf can our U.S. officials be?" asked Leib. "When Iranians are on the streets burning down billboards of [Iranian leaders], setting statues ... on fire and chanting 'death to the dictator,' how was that calling for reforms? That's not calling for reforms; that's calling for a completely new government."

The protests have led several House Democrats, most strongly supportive of Biden's Iran policy, to call publicly for additional punitive action against Iran. On Wednesday, 17 Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a joint statement urging the U.S. and its allies to "maintain pressure" on Iran in response to the regime's ongoing crackdown against protesters.

Beyond its crackdown, Iran appears undeterred in its efforts to target U.S. and allied citizens.

The Democrats' letter came two days after Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testified to lawmakers that, "given its capabilities, Iran could advance an attack plot targeted at the United States with little to no warning."

A day earlier, the Associated Press reported that the State Department had notified Congress that Iranian threats against former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Iran envoy Brian Hook — both of whom served in the Trump administration — were still "serious and credible."

Meanwhile, the Iranian agent charged in August with plotting to murder former Trump White House National Security Advisor John Bolton was also named this week in a plot to kill an Israeli businessman in the country of Georgia. Iran reportedly hired a Pakistani hit team to gather intelligence on the target.

Iran has also tried to kill or kidnap at least 10 British citizens or U.K.-based individuals deemed threats to the regime, the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said Wednesday.

Beyond alleged assassinations, Iran has been widely lambasted for supplying Russia with drones to attack Ukraine.

Iran has also been on the march on the nuclear front, ramping up its nuclear program to the point where its breakout time to have enough fuel for a nuclear weapon is "zero," according to experts at the Institute for Science and International Security.

Iran has refused to cooperate with a probe by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), into traces of uranium found at three sites not declared by the Iranian government. Iran's stonewalling earned it a formal censure on Thursday by the IAEA Board of Governors, which could lay the groundwork for possibly referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for failing to fulfill its nuclear obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal.

Talks have been stalled between the U.S. and Iran to negotiate a revamped version of the deal, which places temporary curbs on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for giving Iran access to $274 billion in its first year and at least $1 trillion by 2030 through sanctions relief, according to figures calculated by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Nuclear negotiations are currently "not on the agenda," a spokesman for the White House National Security Council told the Washington Free Beacon this week.

However, Malley has left the door open to talks, reportedly saying he would only resume "when and if" Iran stops killing protesters and providing Russia with drones used to attack Ukrainians.

It's unclear whether the administration has effectively killed the nuclear deal or is just taking an indefinite pause, hoping things will change in order to return to negotiations. The State Department and the National Security Council didn't immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.

 

Aaron Kliegman

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/iran-continues-murder-plots-abroad-while-sentencing-protesters-death-home

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Administration's Inaction Legitimizes Iran's Brutality - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

Continuing to back the nuclear deal by refusing to declare it dead — permanently — sends the message to the Iranian people: that the West does not care about, or stand with, their struggles against a savage dictatorship.

• Reports from the Oslo-based non-governmental organization Iran Human Rights state that in recent anti-regime protests, 326 people have died and 15,000 have been arrested. Executions have already begun.

• The least the Biden administration can do to show support for the Iranian people is immediately to convene a session at the United Nations to address the ruling mullahs' gruesome crackdown.

• Is the Biden administration not taking action because they are concerned that it may scuttle the prospects of the reviving the nuclear deal with the ruling mullahs later?

• Continuing to back the nuclear deal by refusing to declare it dead — permanently — sends the message to the Iranian people: that the West does not care about, or stand with, their struggles against a savage dictatorship.

• The Biden administration needs to stop all negotiations that could lead to economic, financial or political benefits for the Iranian regime.

• Another path that the Biden administration could take is immediately to initiate the process of restoring UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Reports from the NGO Iran Human Rights state that in recent anti-regime protests, 326 people have died and 15,000 have been arrested. Executions have already begun. The least the Biden administration can do to show support for the Iranian people is immediately to convene a UN session to address the ruling mullahs' gruesome crackdown. Pictured: Iranians protest the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody, in Tehran on September 21, 2022. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

As Winston Churchill pointed out, "I never 'worry' about action, but only about inaction".

The Biden administration's inaction has only been legitimizing the Iranian regime's savage crackdown on its population, and sending a message to the Iranian people that Washington does not stand with them or with their aspirations for establishing a democratic system of governance; rule of law and justice; freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly; and human rights for all.

Iranians have been protesting for nearly two months while risking their lives every hour. They have been chanting "Death to the dictator", "Death to [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei" and "This year is a year of blood, Seyyed Ali [Khamenei] will be gone".

Reports from the Oslo-based non-governmental organization Iran Human Rights state that in recent anti-regime protests, 326 people have died and 15,000 have been arrested. Executions have already begun.

According to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

"Some sources suggest that as many as 23 children have been killed and many others injured in at least seven provinces by live ammunition, metal pellets at close range, and fatal beatings. A number of schools have also been raided, and children arrested by security forces. Some principals have also reportedly been arrested for not cooperating with security forces. On 11 October, the Minister of Education confirmed that an unspecified number of children had been sent to 'psychological centres' after they were arrested allegedly for participating in anti-State protests."

The least the Biden administration can do to show support for the Iranian people is immediately to convene a session at the United Nations to address the ruling mullahs' gruesome crackdown.

As Amnesty International's director for the Middle East and North Africa, Heba Morayef, pointed out:

"The Iranian authorities' reckless and unlawful use of firearms against protesters, including live ammunition, reveals yet again the tragically high cost of international inaction. All member states of the UN Human Rights Council must take decisive action now and immediately convene a special session on Iran in order to prevent further loss of life. Failure to act decisively will only embolden the Iranian authorities to further crackdown against mourners and protesters set to gather in the coming days during commemorations marking 40 days since the first deaths of protesters after the deadly repression began in mid-September. "

Is the Biden administration not taking action because they are concerned that it may scuttle the prospects of the reviving the nuclear deal with the ruling mullahs later?

In spite of US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley's recently having said that the White House is not going to "waste our time" on the nuclear deal "if nothing's going to happen," he nevertheless stressed that the Biden administration is still committed to employing diplomacy, presumably to revive the deal granting Iran's mullahs unlimited nuclear weapons at a later date.

The nuclear deal is also expected to lift sanctions on the Iranian regime, an act that would empower Iran's destabilizing rulers with a trillion dollars and further empower them in to "export the Revolution" — as they do by force or threats of force, as in Yemen, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Iraq.

Continuing to back the nuclear deal by refusing to declare it dead — permanently — sends the message to the Iranian people: that the West does not care about, or stand with, their struggles against a savage dictatorship.

The Biden administration needs to stop all negotiations that could lead to economic, financial or political benefits for the Iranian regime.

Another path that the Biden administration could take is immediately to initiate the process of restoring UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

When the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the "Iran nuclear deal," was struck in 2015 during the Obama administration, the parties agreed to lift the UN sanctions against the Iranian regime. The ruling mullahs used the revenues that poured in to further engulf their regional neighbors, noted above.

One of the rounds of sanctions came through UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which tightened the grip on Iran's financial dealings and banned Iran from buying heavy weapons. Another set of sanctions, UNSC Resolution 1803, imposed restrictions on Iranian bank transactions and called on countries to inspect Iranian ships and cargo planes where there were reasonable grounds to believe that the regime was smuggling prohibited products.

A provision within UNSC Resolution 2231 allows such a course of action. To invoke this provision, "a JCPOA participant state" can notify the UNSC that there has been a "significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA." According to the agreement, any signatory party can trigger a 30-day countdown to a "snapback" that would restore all UN sanctions on Iran, including an arms embargo, if Tehran is found to be failing to meet its obligations — which it is. In other words, the US, Germany, France or the UK could trigger the sanctions snapback provision of the nuclear deal.

Reimposing UN sanctions on the Iranian regime and taking a far tougher stance towards the ruling mullahs will send a strong message to the protesters that the US stands with them. Currently, the Biden administration's passivity is only serving to contaminate its legacy as an appeaser of China, Venezuela, Russia and other despots, while empowering and emboldening the ruthless mullahs of Iran.

• 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/19128/iran-brutality

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel's US friends need to stop worrying about election results - Douglas Altabef

 

by Douglas Altabef

Israel is in no great moral existential danger. We have not become a nation other than what you believe or aspire us to be.

 

Far-right Israeli lawmakers Itamar Ben Gvir, center, and Bezalel Smotrich, right, attend the swearing-in ceremony for the new Israeli parliament, at the Knesset, or parliament, in Jerusalem, November 15, 2022.

(photo credit: MAYA ALLERUZZO/REUTERS)

Many of you have written or called me recently expressing varying degrees of concern, some bordering on shock and horror, about our recent elections. Some of you are regular visitors to Israel, others are filtering your awareness of Israel through the prism of the American media, particularly The New York Times.

In any event, there has been a lack of context, and, perhaps inevitably, a tendency to regard the elections here as a function of the sensibilities of what you believe Israel should reflect and represent.

Let me get to the point at the outset: Israel is in no great moral existential danger. We have not become a nation other than what you believe or aspire us to be. Democracy is alive and well here, perhaps too alive. And, the religious representation of half the coalition notwithstanding, we are not headed down a sectarian, exclusionist path.

So, now let’s zoom out for some of that elusive context. Like many in America, Israelis have become increasingly concerned about crime and internal violence. It is not the same random violence that has been rising in America; it is the violence of deliberate one-off or serial terrorist attacks.

In addition, there has been lingering anxiety about the status of the mixed Jewish-Arab cities growing out of the traumatic riots of May 2021. Simply stated, the worry is that these are ticking time bombs, waiting to erupt again.

Israeli security forces clash with Palestinians at the entrance to the Palestinian village of Haris in the West Bank, following the earlier terror attack outside Ariel, on November 15, 2022. (credit: ERIK MARMOR/FLASH90)

The bottom-line concern here is a desire for order, for the expression of Israeli control and sovereignty, and for the application of one set of laws that apply to all, Jew and Arab alike.

Basically, the election was the representation of what we used to say in New York: a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.

Israelis feel that they are being mugged, whether it’s by actual terrorist attacks, or illegal land seizures, or extortion rackets in the North and South. So, many Israelis voted for whom they thought could serve as a new sheriff in town.

Now let’s look at the sheriffs. Having doubled their votes from just a year ago, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Religious Zionist Party have become the focus of concern, largely based on an ossified portrait of who they are and what they represent.

Ironically, the two are considered dangerous for reasons that one would think that Americans would applaud: they are concerned about issues. They are not just looking to fill ministerial seats; they are looking to make policy changes in order to address glaring issues in need of redress.

In Ben-Gvir’s case, public safety looms large. As he has stated on numerous occasions, he is not looking to deport Arabs, he is looking to have Arabs abide by the same set of laws that apply to Jews. This should not be a controversial position, and indeed it is what motivated a great many Israelis to support him.

Smotrich is a smart and principled legislator who proved to be adept as a transportation minister. He has demonstrated his adherence to principles, such as refusing to acquiesce to bringing the Ra’am party into a prospective Netanyahu government, in distinction to the Bennett/Lapid government, which was dependent on Ra’am for its viability.

Like the US, cabinet members here are often political appointees who offer little in the way of expertise for the positions they are filling. Avigdor Liberman as foreign minister is a great example of this.

SO THERE is a lot of jockeying for positions now, and a torrent of demands for changes that are presented as preconditions for joining a new coalition. There is a simple logic to these demands: Smotrich, Ben-Gvir as well as the other religious partners from Shas and United Torah Judaism know that left to his own devices, Netanyahu will not agree nor acquiesce to many of their policies, so they need to use their leverage now at this pivotal time.

The prospect of having the Knesset pass an “override” law – whereby certain decisions of the Supreme Court could be reversed by a majority vote in the Knesset – is one such issue that the new coalition parties are united in favor of.

On its face, it looks like a bald-faced attempt to eviscerate the Supreme Court, and there has been a hue and cry about this from those who see the court at great risk. Again, context is missing.

The Supreme Court has morphed into the most powerful and intrusive judicial body in the West, since the Aharon Barak judicial “revolution” that started in 1995. It has effectively become an uber-legislature, regularly tossing out enacted laws that it believes are unreasonable.

The epitome of this far and wide reach is reflected in the decision last year concerning the Nation-State Law, which was enacted as a Basic Law. Basic Laws are foundational here, and are regarded as the closest thing Israel has to a written constitution. 

The Supreme Court did not opine on the law, but said it had the latitude to do so. That would be the equivalent of the US Supreme Court saying that they had the right to declare clauses or articles of the US Constitution to be unconstitutional.

There are a great many here who see the need for reining in the unlimited discretion of the court. Attempts to change the judicial selection process have been unsuccessful, leaving the override idea as a logical, though draconian, alternative.

There has been no hue and cry in the US about Israeli Supreme Court overreach because it is a left-wing dominated body, which appeals to the sensibilities of most American Jews. But if it were more like what the US Supreme Court has become, I suspect there would be no concern about addressing judicial overreach.

THIS LEADS me to my last point. Are your concerns principled or are they political? In other words, are you upset because duly elected officials will seek to implement policies that you disagree with? Or are you seeing these policies as a true threat to Israel as a humane Jewish state that is intimately concerned with providing rights to all its citizens, regardless of religion?

In this regard, I think it’s important to step back and be willing to assess the players for who they are and what they say now, not who they were and what they said 30 years ago.

Like our own children, like ourselves, public figures evolve, mature and grow from what they were in their youth. Liberal Americans have had no difficulty reassessing the likes of Bill Ayres from the Weather Underground, a bona fide terrorist group, or Angela Davis, an apologist for revolution.

Yet, you are willing and eager to freeze-frame Ben-Gvir and Smotrich as ineffable products of their youth. That is simply unfair, wrong and not astute. These are men who care deeply about this country, and handed the levers of control, they will not seek to dismantle that which they cherish.

There are many things that I oppose about what the new government leaders advocate. But at the end of the day, I believe that they will seek to act on behalf of the nation.

As Ariel Sharon famously said when he became prime minister: “What you see from here, you don’t see from there.”

Friends, thank you for your concern. But I hope you can relent in your fears. Israel will manage, we will find our way, and you all might be surprised by how truly to your liking that way turns out to be.

Douglas Altabef is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu, and a director of B’yadenu and the Israel Independence Fund. He can be reached at dougaltabef@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-722717

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Russian-Turkish Bond to Harm the West - Burak Bekdil

 

by Burak Bekdil

The Erdogan-Putin bond has two main pillars. One is pragmatism: They both strategically, politically and economically benefit. The other is ideological: They both hate Western civilization.

• Turkey's skies remain open to Russian airlines and its doors remain open to hundreds of thousands of Russians and their money. Turkey's exports to Russia are surging.

• Russian cash helped to plug the growing hole in Turkey's foreign currency reserves — and at a time when Erdogan needs foreign money to shore up the country's ailing economy before the presidential and parliamentary elections in June 2023.

• Some analysts see this as a scheme to open up room for parking Russian funds in Turkey.

• The Erdogan-Putin bond has two main pillars. One is pragmatism: They both strategically, politically and economically benefit. The other is ideological: They both hate Western civilization.

Turkey's skies remain open to Russian airlines and its doors remain open to hundreds of thousands of Russians and their money. Turkey's exports to Russia are surging. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation leaders' summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan on September 16, 2022. (Photo by Alexandr Demyanchuk/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

If they had met as presidents of other countries, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin would probably have hated each other. Historically, Turkish Islamists have hated both Tsarist and Soviet Russia. Similarly, Russians have never been fond of the Turks. Today, however, Erdogan, with a foot in NATO, is exhibiting a pro-Russian tilt never seen before. What is the secret of this ostensible marriage?

Turkey has refused to join Western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, thereby throwing Putin a lifeline. Turkey's skies remain open to Russian airlines and its doors remain open to hundreds of thousands of Russians and their money. Turkey's exports to Russia are surging. In July alone, exports to Russia shot up by a dizzying 75% year-on-year.

Russia's state-owned Rosatom, which is building Turkey's first nuclear power plant, had sent around $5 billion to its Turkish subsidiary, the first in a series of such transfers. Russian cash helped to plug the growing hole in Turkey's foreign currency reserves — and at a time when Erdogan needs foreign money to shore up the country's ailing economy before the presidential and parliamentary elections in June 2023.

Some analysts see this as a scheme to open up room for parking Russian funds in Turkey.

It might look to them as if the increase in the Turkish central bank's foreign currency and gold reserves — to $108.1 billion on August 4 from $98.9 billion on July 26 — had to do with Russian money flowing to Turkey. Bloomberg reported:

"Mystery capital flows into Turkey have reached new highs, allowing policy makers to boost foreign reserves despite a growing trade deficit and weak demand for lira assets."

Bloomberg's source remains unclear.

In March, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Russian oligarchs were welcome in Turkey. In October, Financial Times reported that a record $28 billion from unclear origins had flowed into Turkey between January and August this year. Turkish investigative journalist Aytuğ Özçolak listed some of the Russian oligarchs who have business interests, investments and funds in Turkey: Leonid Mikhelson, Vagit Alekperov, Vladimir Lisin, Vladimir Potanin, Alexey Mordashov and Mikhail Fridman.

According to Marc Pierini, senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and former EU ambassador to Ankara, the number of Russian expatriates in Turkey, as well as their real estate investments and financial transfers to Turkish banks, have grown substantially. Furthermore, Pierini wrote, there is a suspicion that Russia is trying to circumvent some of the effects of Western sanctions via Turkey, in particular through the acquisition of stakes in Turkish oil businesses, as joint companies help to blur Russian trade in oil.

Pierini further wrote:

"The Kremlin's policy is highly pragmatic: knowing that Turkey's partners in NATO are keen to keep it in the North Atlantic Alliance and Ankara has every interest in staying within NATO, Putin's goal remains anchoring Erdoğan more and more to Russia through a vast mesh of mutually beneficial operations in the fields of defense, energy, trade, and finance.

"By doing this, Putin is comforting an embattled incumbent president and is openly bolstering Erdoğan's position in the upcoming elections. More than the Turkish president abandoning his traditional Western partners, the world is witnessing the Russian president using Turkey for his own benefits."

Jokes in Ankara's political grapevine describe Putin as "head of Erdogan's party's Moscow provincial branch." Whichever indicators one looks at, Putin wants Erdogan to stay in power. He would rather not gamble with someone else as Turkey's new leader. This is understandable. Erdogan's potential rivals have pledged to reinstate Turkey's strong bonds with the West.

The Erdogan-Putin bond has two main pillars. One is pragmatism: They both strategically, politically and economically benefit. The other is ideological: They both hate Western civilization.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19123/russia-turkey-bond

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New coalition can give Temple Mount back to Jewish people - Michael Freund

 

by Michael Freund

A video posted this week shows a woman being led away from Temple Mount after she sang "Hatikvah" upon arrival.

 

RELIGIOUS JEWS visit the Temple Mount, in 2020.

(photo credit: SLIMAN KHADER/FLASH90)

Here’s a news item you may have missed which is as revealing as it is risible.

This past Monday, a young Israeli woman named Ofir Dayan visited the Temple Mount. Moved by the experience of setting foot on the site where Jews had longed to return for 19 centuries, she burst into song, proudly offering up a rendition of “Hatikvah,” Israel’s national anthem.

But as patriotism poured forth from her vocal cords in the heart of Jerusalem, Dayan was greeted by an unpleasant and rather unwelcome surprise, when an Israeli policeman asked her to stop.

Despite the inexplicable instructions, that is exactly what Dayan did, acting in line with the officer’s directive.

And then, in a short video available on Arutz 7 which captured the rest of her interaction with the police, we are given a glimpse of the inane situation that currently prevails under Israeli sovereignty at the Jewish people’s holiest place.

Israeli security forces stand on a roof top near the compound that houses Al-Aqsa Mosque, known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, following clashes on the compound in Jerusalem's Old City, April 15, 2022. (credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)

In the clip, Dayan can be seen asking, “Which regulation did I violate?” and “Is singing ‘Hatikvah’ considered a religious ritual?” Neither of her legitimate queries warranted anything remotely resembling a compelling reply.

A second policeman then shows up and explains to Dayan that any act that the police deem to be a possible threat to public order on Temple Mount is prohibited due to the sensitivity of the locale.

Dayan looks around quizzically, noting that there is no one in sight nor any sign of disturbance. The policeman nevertheless informs her that she is being detained, even though no apparent law was broken and Dayan had followed the first policeman’s command to the letter. She is then seen being led away.

This outrage encapsulates everything that is wrong with the current state of affairs on the Temple Mount. It presents the soon-to-be-formed new Israeli government with a clear test as to whether pre-election promises about restoring and preserving the Jewish character of the state will in fact be kept.

After all, what could possibly be more innocent – and iconic – than a patriotic young Jewess giving voice to her love of country by singing the national anthem?

One would assume that in a democratic state which upholds the exercise of free speech as a fundamental right, Dayan’s decision to hum a tune on the Temple Mount would hardly warrant police intervention. And yet, apparently, it does.

By contrast, when Muslim Arab worshipers hoist Hamas flags on the Mount and lustily chant “With blood and with spirit we shall redeem you, O Palestine!” the police fail to take action.

This absurd state of affairs, where Jews are openly discriminated against in Israel’s capital, is the result of years of government apathy of both the Left and the Right, and it is time for this to change.

Jewish visits to the Mount are limited to just four hours a day, five days a week. No similar restrictions apply to Muslims.

Jews cannot ascend the Mount on their Sabbath. Muslims can.

Jews are heavily discouraged from praying on the Mount, and there have been cases in which the police detained Israelis for saying a blessing before drinking water or reciting “Shema Yisrael.” Muslims, by contrast, can pray as they wish.

There is no moral, legal or philosophical justification for this prejudicial policy against Jews, which has no place in a free society.

To be fair, in recent years the government has allowed the number of Jews visiting the Mount to increase. During the High Holy Days last month, 7,130 Jews ascended the Temple Mount, including 4,673 during Sukkot. This marks an increase of 33% over the previous year. Similarly, on Election Day earlier this month, 378 Jews were permitted to visit the site, more than double the number the last time Israelis went to the ballot box.

But when compared to the tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs who attend Friday prayers on the Mount each week, these numbers pale in comparison.

Simply put, the Jewish people’s basic rights to freedom of worship and expression on the Temple Mount are being trampled underfoot in a manner unheard of anywhere else in the Western world.

The potential new coalition can change this

BUT THE coalition in formation has an opportunity to change this. As Tom Nisani, director of the Beyadenu activist group, recently pointed out, over half of the members of the new coalition government have themselves visited the Temple Mount, so they know firsthand about the intolerable situation that exists there.

It is imperative for the new government to move quickly to correct the steady erosion of Jewish rights on the Mount and find a way to enable those Jews who wish to pray there to be able to do so, while of course safeguarding freedom of access for all.

Denying Jews their elementary right to commune with their Creator on the Temple Mount for fear of offending others is nothing less than a stain on Israel’s democracy. And the sooner it is removed, the better. 

Michael Freund served as deputy communications director under Benjamin Netanyahu during his first term of office.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-722675

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter