Friday, September 1, 2017

Expect millions of Iraqi refugees shortly - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The Shiites have a master plan. The Sunnis are in disarray.

In an article last week oArutz Sheva, I wrote that Syrian President Basher Assad is regaining power with the help of an Iranian Shiite coalition made up of Iranian fighters joined by Hezbollah, Iraqi and Afghan militias. In the near future,  I predicted, it is possible that this coalition will try to rid the country of the millions of Sunnis who make up the majority of Syrian citizens, in order to prevent additional rebellions of the type Syria experienced from 1976 to 1982 and has been suffering from for the last six and a half years.

As a result of  last week's article, I was contacted by Sheikh Walid el Azawi, an Iraqi Sunni living in exile in Europe, who heads a party called "The Patriotic 20 Rebellion."  He wanted to tell me the shocking story of the situation in Iraq, where he claims that for years now, Iran is the real ruler and its Ayatollahs dictate Iraqi government policy and actions.

Iranian hegemony blends in well in Iraq, most of whose citizens are Shiite, and now that the Islamic State established by ISIS in Iraq has disintegrated, the Sunnis there have no armed organization to protect them from both Iranian and Iraqi Shiite rage 

The Shiite's desire to rid the country of its Sunni minority is motivated by a desire for revenge, because up to the year 2003, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and treated the Shiites with terrible cruelty all the years he was in power. After his defeat in the First Gulf War in February 1991, he used artillery to butcher tens of thousands of Shiites who attempted to find safety at the gravesite of Hussein ibn Ali in the city of Najef.

There is an even older feud between the Iranians and the Iraqii Sunnis, dating from the 1980-1981 war forced upon them by Saddam Hussein . This war took the lives of over a million people, both citizens and soldiers, on both sides. It is important to recall that both sides used chemical weapons against each other during that accursed war which ended in Iran's defeat when the chemical warfare waged against Tehran killed thousands of civilians.

The Iraqi and Iranian Shiite desire for revenge on Saddam Hussein is now directed against his entire religious sector, the Sunnis, who stand unprotected and unarmed against a rising, strengthening Shiite world. The collective power of Sunni forces – made up of organizations such as ISIS, al Qaeda, the Syrian rebels and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Egypt – is weakening rapidly over the last few months in the face of the growing strength of the Shiite coalition made up of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi and Afghan militias.

Sheikh Walid el Azawi claims that as a result of this enormous shift in the balance of power, the Shiites will do everything they can to expel the Sunnis from Iraq to any country willing – or unwilling – to accept them. If this scenario does come to pass, about ten million Iraqi refugees will soon be joining the waves of the 15 to 20 million already existing refugees   This wave of refugees can turn Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa into economic disaster areas, leading to social unrest and political maelstroms. Do not forget to thank Iran and all those who strengthened that country during the past few years.

What is the solution?

During my conversation with the Sheikh, I asked him what solution he and his party have to offer to save the Iraqi Sunnis and convince them to remain in their homeland.  His answer came as a total surprise: "The Emirate Solution."  He is convinced that this is the only real solution that can save the Sunnis in Iraq from ethnic cleansing.

The country must be divided into  regional states, on the lines of the USA, or cantons as in the Swiss model, each with internal autonomy. Iraq would become a federation with a limited central government while the Emirates would run the lives of whatever group resides in their territory. Each Emirate would lead its own life and refrain from interference in the policies of the other Emirates. Each Emirate would be ruled by a local Sheikh who originally stood at the head of the families within the Emirate's borders, following the population's social traditions. This, claims the Sheikh, will create harmony, stability and peaceful relations with neighboring Emirates for the good of all the citizenry.

The "Emirate Solution" will also grant self-rule to the Kurds of Northern Iraq, making the establishment of an independent Kurdish state unnecessary and preventing the certain violent antagonism of the Iranians, Turks and Arabs to its existence and  ensuing hostilities

For illustration's sake, let us recall that the northern Iraq Kurdish region is surrounded by countries that do not share the Kurdish dreams of independence, and has no corridor to the sea. If the neighboring countries allied against the Kurdish state, should one be established, preventing goods and people from reaching it, the Kurds would have no way of leading normal lives.  How would they export oil and other products in that case? How would they manage to import necessities?

If  the Kurds finally achieve  independence in the framework of the Emirate Solution for Iraq, ending the struggle that has been going on for years, where is the problem? Clearly it lies with Iran, which will not agree to the plan now that it has taken over Iraq – unless it is forced to do so.  And the only power in the entire world capable of forcing iran to agree to anything is the USA.

Sheikh el Azawi is prepared to go to the US at a moment's notice in order to meet with decision-makers there and  explain the logic behind his peace plan for Iraq  and the benefits it s implementation would bring the world and the Iraqis themselves. The Americans, however, are busy dealing with four other issues: North Korea, the relations between the right and left inside America, who is going to resign or be fired on Trump's staff and natural disasters like Harvey and the flooding in  Houston this week. Who could possibly have the time and patience there to do anything about Iraq, the country the US Army left seven years ago with no desire to ever return?

The Emirates Solution in other Middle Eastern states

Afghanistan is another country that gives the US a blinding headache, mainly in the media, and to its security forces,  intelligence and army, because  the 17 years of American involvement there, the spilled American blood and enormous amounts of money put into the country, have not yielded appreciable results - for one main reason:

The Americans have been using all their power to preserve the artificial Afghan entity established by the British and Russians in the 19th century, despite the fact that it is filled with ethnic strife which prevents the creation of a homogeneous, united nation.. The only result so far is blood, fire and tears.

If the Americans and their allies would only take apart the illegitimate entity called Afghanistan and turn it into autonomous or independent states based on whatever local families rule in each one, so that it is governed by rulers with legitimacy,  the heads of families and tribes, possibly Afhanistan could be a land of peace and tranquility reigning among its religious, family and ethnic groups,each living its own life and leaving all the others to do so in peace.

Interestingly, that same Emirate Solution could most definitely be applied to the seven cities  of Judea and Samaria in addition to the Gazan Emirate established a decade ago. I am not a fan of Hamas, but Gaza is a state from every practical point of view, and Israel must find a way to deter effectively and clearly the Jihadist gang that has taken it over. Establishing Emirates in Judea and Samaria will grant the people there stability, prosperity and quiet. It will give Israel peace.

That same solution will solve Jordan's problem as well. It can be divided into a Palestinian Emirate, perhaps more than one,  and a Bedouin Emirate. The king will be a symbolic figure as is the Queen of England.  Sudan has already split into two states, but both parts should be divided into smaller,  more homogenous Emirates in order to bring more stability to this war torn and blood soaked country.

Yemen, a totally tribal society, would benefit from the Emirate Solution, becoming more governable and stable, certainly in comparison to the failed  central government it has at present, which has brought many thousands to the point of hunger, disease, suffering and death.

Sheikh el Awazi's dream, which I share with him, could become the basic principle employed by the world to solve the Middle East problem. Had it been employed in Syrai five years ago, many of its half million dead citizens would be alive today.

Translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Is Trump Adopting the Diplomacy Delusion? - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The end of fighting to win.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Recently, two announcements regarding Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli conflict suggested that the Trump administration is following the old failed strategies for dealing with the challenge of modern jihadism. If so, he is setting us up for the same old failures caused by the same old failure of imagination.

First, Trump announced a bold plan for dealing with Afghanistan, that 16-year-old conflict now in its third presidential administration. He set out an ambitious aim: “From now on, victory will have a clear definition — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.” He clarified that he would not make the mistakes of past administrations: no nation-building, no announcements of troop levels or withdrawal dates, no restrictive rules of engagements.

So far so good. But he also hinted that a diplomatic solution would be sought: “Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen.” And he added that given such uncertainty, “America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field,” suggesting that the war will continue indefinitely.

Yet all this depends on adding an unspecified number of troops, perhaps 4,000, whose mission will be mainly to support and train the Afghan army––pretty much what’s been going on for years. How this mini-surge will work when Obama’s surge of 33,000 soldiers in 2009––which raised the total number of troops to 100,000 by 2010––didn’t, isn’t quite clear. Prissy ROE and micromanagement from D.C. alone can’t account for that failure.

Worse, soon after Trump’s announcement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson undercut Trump’s “We will always win,” by saying “We are there to facilitate and ensure that there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks. As the pressure begins to take hold, we believe we already know there are certain moderate elements of the Taliban [sic!] who we think will be ready and develop a way forward.” Even more astonishing, after he said the Taliban “will not win a battlefield victory,” he went on, “We may not win one, but neither will you.” Contra Trump, Tillerson implies that we are not fighting to destroy the enemy, but to “begin a process, a lengthy process, of reconciliation and a peace accord in Afghanistan.”

Once again, the delusions of diplomatic settlements take precedence over destroying the enemy and those who harbor him. I guess people have forgotten that LBJ’s similar strategy of fighting the North Vietnamese just enough to bring them to the negotiating table was a complete failure.

Meanwhile, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has asked Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Arabs “to hold back on their threat to take unilateral diplomatic initiatives against Israel for a period of some four months, in exchange for an American commitment to submit a comprehensive diplomatic plan within that time frame to advance the diplomatic process,” as World Israel News reported. Trump plans to meet Abbas at the UN is September, where he will present his “road map for peace.” According to a White House statement, “Both sides agreed to continue with the US-led conversations as the best way to reach a comprehensive peace deal.” But they deny the quid pro quo of Palestinian constraint for a comprehensive plan.

Once again, the shibboleths and clichés generated by decades of diplomatic failure are passed around, despite the overwhelming evidence that the Palestinian Arabs are not interested in “two peoples living side-by-side in peace,” and use negotiation and complaints of “settlements” as a tactic in their “stages” strategy for destroying Israel. Meanwhile the terror continues, the incitement starting in preschool trains the next generation of “martyrs,” and the PA uses danegeld from the West to subsidize the families of jailed or killed terrorists.

In both cases, our foreign policy establishment is hostage to received wisdom, institutional inertia, and a stubborn insistence in believing the Taliban or the Palestinian Liberation Organization mostly comprises people just like us, sharing all the same values and goods that we rich Westerners prize. That delusion, disproven over and over for the last century, explains why we keep doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result. Thus we violate Sun Tzu’s famous dictum, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” We don’t understand the reality of Islam, and we can’t see our own delusions.

In the case of Israel, we have a whole catalogue of “conferences” and “conversations,” an endless discussion of “settlements” and tattered “road maps” and “land for peace” bromides. And every time, Israeli concession and billions in international bribes are answered with terrorist attacks and U.N. denunciations. Land restored to the Arabs, as in Gaza, become platforms for indiscriminate rocket attacks and networks of tunnels for terrorist infiltration.

At some point we need to start believing the Palestinian Arabs mean what they say: they will never accept the existence of Israel, and will never stop attacking Israelis. We must stop crediting their pretexts of “national self-determination” and “checkpoints,” and acknowledge their real motive: to win back by any means necessary––terrorist violence or tactical negotiations or duplicitous “agreements” ­––a land once conquered by the faithful and destined by Allah’s will to be restored to the umma. “Conciliation and peace” are irrelevant. Obedience to Allah is everything, and Western notions of peace and freedom and tolerance are infidel snares for the faithful. True peace will come when “the whole world says there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger,” and the perfect social-political order, sharia, governs the whole world.

In Afghanistan, the same motives are at work. It is easy to say, as Trump did, “Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and, that’s right, losers.” We are comforted by such simplistic rhetoric, but it blocks us from using our imaginations to find out what drives a people to kill others and themselves. In their minds, the Taliban are pious Muslim traditionalists, like the other Salafists such as the Muslim Brotherhood.  They see Islam’s decline as a consequence of the seduction of the faithful by Western “innovations” ––democracy, human rights, sex equality, secular government––which all cause the faithful to stray from the pure doctrine of sharia and the model of the rightly guided caliphs, the geopolitical “winners” who brought down two empires and occupied a third of Christian Europe. Like the Palestinian Arabs, the Taliban will wage jihad without expecting in their lifetimes to win. Setbacks, apparent failure, the vicissitudes of the conflict don’t matter as much as continuing the struggle that Allah has commanded the faithful to undertake.

With such an enemy, battles ending in “reconciliation and peace” aren’t in the cards, only temporary treaties that buy time. Magnanimity and bribes are seen only as signs of weakness and disbelief, the cargo of the West’s decadence and hedonism that wants only to live one more day and enjoy pleasure and comfort. They see our eagerness to accept their pretexts as fear and cowardice, and our “development” money and foreign aid as a form of jizya, the divinely sanctioned tribute the infidel owes the faithful.

Our ancestors understood these motives because they had suffered from Muslim attacks and occupation for a 1,000 years. They knew that only unrelenting fierce resistance could keep the armies of Allah in check. Our foreign policy “experts” should all read Winston Churchill’s The Story of the Malakand Field Force to see how to handle jihadist depredations. Can anyone familiar with today’s chaos in the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan dispute Churchill’s description of the same region, and Islam’s role in its chaos?
That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword—the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men—stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.
And who does not recognize in Churchill’s commentary the power of Islam and its glorious past to motivate the faithful to battle?
Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir [infidel] holds today: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet.
But of course, we moderns are so much smarter and righteous than the racist imperialist slandering the people on whom the empire he served preys.

So instead, all we hear from both parties is the “nothing to do with Islam canard” and the magical thinking about “moderate Muslims” we must cater to so they will support our attempts to destroy the alleged “heretics” that have “hijacked” their religion of peace and tolerance. We’re closing in on our second decade of such delusions, and what have we to show for it?

Despite all our appeasement, outreach, and flattery, the center of Shia Islam, Iran, is still the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, funding jihadist gangs like Hezbollah, and quickly becoming a nuclear power. The center of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia, has funded mosques and groups that preach the strict Wahhabism that like Churchill’s Pashtun mullahs, calls for a return to the purity of Islam’s glory days. The enemies of Israel are still just as fierce in their divinely sanctioned efforts to rid the land of the despised Jew “from the river to the sea.” And the Taliban, indistinguishable from Churchill’s Pashtuns, fight on and on, confident that Allah has ordained their eventual success. As the jihadists often tell us, “You have the watches, but we have the time.”

It’s troubling that Trump seemingly harbors the same old Western delusions. Meeting with Mahmoud Abbas and talking about holding meetings to talk about a “comprehensive peace deal,” and failing in his speech on Afghanistan to even mention Islam or “Islamist terrorism,” both suggest he is endorsing the foreign policy establishment’s failed narrative. This isn’t “fighting to win,” as the president promised. This is fighting to keep losing slowly.

Bruce Thornton


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

UN: Jews can’t live in Judea and Samaria, but 7.5 million Chinese can colonize Tibet - Ezequiel Doiny

by Ezequiel Doiny

Tibet was a fully independent state when the People's Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/50.

On August 30, 2017 Bloomberg reported,
"United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Israel to stop settlement construction in the West Bank.... We believe that settlement activity is illegal under international law."
Why has United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres never made similar statements about Tibet?

Tibetan students in New Delhi demonstrate at UN Information Center (photo: R.T.Y Rohini)

In his 5-point peace plan, the Dalai Lama called to stop Chinese colonization of Tibet.
"When the newly formed People's Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1949/50, it created a new source of conflict. This was highlighted when, following the Tibetan national uprising against the Chinese and my flight to India in 1959, tensions between China and India escalated into the border war in 1962. Today large numbers of troops are again massed on both sides of the Himalayan border and tension is once more dangerously high.
"The real issue, of course, is not the Indo-Tibetan border demarcation. It is China's illegal occupation of Tibet, which has given it direct access to the Indian sub-continent. The Chinese authorities have attempted to confuse the issue by claiming that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is untrue. Tibet was a fully independent state when the People's Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/50.
"Since Tibetan emperors unified Tibet, over a thousand years ago, our country was able to maintain its independence until the middle of this century. At times Tibet extended its influence over neighbouring countries and peoples and, in other periods, came itself under the influence of powerful foreign rulers - the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors and the British in India.
"It is, of course, not uncommon for states to be subjected to foreign influence or interference. Although so-called satellite relationships are perhaps the clearest examples of this, most major powers exert influence over less powerful allies or neighbours. As the most authoritative legal studies have shown, in Tibet's case, the country's occasional subjection to foreign influence never entailed a loss of independence. And there can be no doubt that when Peking's communist armies entered Tibet, Tibet was in all respects an independent state...
"Human rights violations in Tibet are among the most serious in the world. Discrimination is practiced in Tibet under a policy of 'apartheid' which the Chinese call 'segregation and assimilation'. Tibetans are, at best, second class citizens in their own country. Deprived of all basic democratic rights and freedoms, they exist under a colonial administration in which all real power is wielded by Chinese officials of the Communist Party and the army.
"Although the Chinese government allows Tibetans to rebuild some Buddhist monasteries and to worship in them, it still forbids serious study and teaching of religion. Only a small number of people, approved by the Communist Party, are permitted to join the monasteries.
"While Tibetans in exile exercise their democratic rights under a constitution promulgated by me in 1963, thousands of our countrymen suffer in prisons and labour camps in Tibet for their religious or political convictions...
"The massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a distinct people. In the eastern parts of our country, the Chinese now greatly outnumber Tibetans. In the Amdo province, for example, where I was born, there are, according to the Chinese statistics, 2.5 million Chinese and only 750,000 Tibetans. Even in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (i.e., central and western Tibet), Chinese government sources now confirm that Chinese outnumber Tibetans.
"The Chinese population transfer policy is not new. It has been systematically applied to other areas before. Earlier in this century, the Manchus were a distinct race with their own culture and traditions. Today only two to three million Manchurians are left in Manchuria, where 75 million Chinese have settled. In Eastern Turkestan, which the Chinese now call Sinkiang, the Chinese population has grown from 200,000 in 1949 to 7 million, more than half of the total population of 13 million. In the wake of the Chinese colonization of Inner Mongolia, Chinese number 8.5 million, Mongols 2.5 million.
"Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent, outnumbering the Tibetan population of 6 million. In central and western Tibet, now referred to by the Chinese as the "Tibet Autonomous Region", Chinese sources admit the 1.9 million Tibetans already constitute a minority of the region's population. These numbers do not take the estimated 300,000-500,000 troops in Tibet into account - 250,000 of them in so-called Tibet Autonomous Region.
"For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past. "
Why has United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres never complained about Chinese settlements in Tibet as he complains against Jewish settlements?

In a better analogy of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel plays the role of Tibet, the dozens of Arab countries that surround it are like China. The Palestinian Arabs serve as the spearhead of the dozens of Arab Nations that are trying to engulf the world’s only Jewish State (smaller than New Jersey) the same way gigantic China is trying to absorb Tibet.

Since United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is not planning to go to the Tibet to condemn the Chinese presence there as illegal, he should not come to Israel to call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Ezequiel Doiny


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New ADL Hire Helped Obama Admin Forge Ties With Hamas-Linked Group - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

A strange way to combat anti-Semitism.

On August 28, The Anti-Defamation League announced that it had hired Obama holdover, George Selim, as its “Senior Vice President of Programs.” According to the ADL’s press release, Selim will be the ADL’s point man on programs connected to law enforcement, education and community security. This newly created position will ostensibly help the ADL better track, monitor and thwart all forms of xenophobia and prejudice. Selim will report directly to the ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt.

On paper, Selim, an Arab-American of Egyptian and Lebanese descent, appears qualified for the role. He served in the Bush and Obama administrations in various capacities, principally in the areas of community outreach and countering violent extremism (CVE). But beneath the surface lies a more sinister side to Selim, one that renders him entirely unfit for his new position.

In a June 7, 2012 interview with the Daily Caller, Selim admitted engaging with representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and further acknowledged that there were “hundreds” of such meetings taking place with various governmental departments and agencies. Selim refused to elaborate on the content of those meetings and offered no insight on which CAIR officials he met with.

In 2007, the United States Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the infamous Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development criminal probe. Members of the HLF were charged with laundering money to Hamas, a genocidal organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. The HLF and five of its officers were convicted of all charges.

CAIR objected to the DOJ designation but a U.S. District Court judge ruled that there was “ample evidence to establish the association.” That ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. DOJ’s designation led the FBI to sever all “non-investigative cooperation with the group.”

Moreover, CAIR officials are on record spewing vicious anti-Israel and anti-Semitic vitriol. Its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, is a poster child for conspiracy theories and medieval-style anti-Semitism. He is a Hamas supporter, has refused to condemn acts of terrorism committed against Israeli civilians, rejects Israel’s right to exist, espoused anti-Semitic canards of Jewish influence and control over U.S. foreign policy, and as has entertained wild David Duke-like conspiracy theories suggesting that Israel had a hand in the September 11 attacks. Even Greenblatt’s ADL has recognized CAIR’s odious nature publishing a dossier of the group on its website.

Selim’s engagement with members of an organization possessing such a malevolent history is beyond baffling. Would he engage with the KKK or the Nazi Party? But what is even more incomprehensible is the ADL’s inexplicable decision to hire him.

When it was founded over a century ago in response to rampant anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and on the European continent, the ADL’s core mission was “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all...”  But under the stewardship of Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL has steadily and grossly deviated from its intended mission purpose. It appears that the ADL has adopted a highly selective approach to combatting anti-Semitism.

While the ADL has rightfully exposed and condemned right-wing anti-Semitism, the organization is far more discriminating and conflicted when confronting left-wing anti-Semitism.

A good recent example is Greenblatt’s endorsement (later retracted) of Rep. Keith Ellison to lead the Democratic Party. Ellison’s associations with the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan are well known and his viscerally anti-Israel positions are a matter of public record. The ADL also publicly endorsed Linda Sarsour’s right to issue a commencement address at a CUNY affiliated college. Linda Sarsour is the David Duke of the Left. Her positions on Israel are no different than those of the former “Grand Wizard” of the KKK. Both advocate for Israel’s destruction. Yet the ADL found the time to shamefully advocate for her. One can be in favor of free speech without feeling compelled to lobby for a foul-mouthed, bully who publicly supports cop killers and convicted terrorists.

The ADL’s conflicted nature is further highlighted by its relationship with the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The ADL lists this group as being among the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the United States. Yet that did not deter the ADL from coordinating its congressional activities with this rancid organization. A passing confluence of interests does not justify partnering with left-wing (or right wing) anti-Semites.

Left-wing anti-Semitism is often far more insidious and dangerous than the garden variety right-wing type witnessed in Charlottesville. Nazis and white supremacists do not hide their pernicious views and intentions. Conversely, left-wing entities and individuals like CAIR, and Sarsour often masquerade as social justice advocates but their goals, often hidden, are no less malevolent than their fascist cousins on the right.

The ADL, the group entrusted with monitoring and combatting anti-Semitism for over a century should be cognizant of this fact. But its hiring of an individual, who willfully engaged with a Hamas-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood front group, on multiple occasions, demonstrates the depths to which this once admirable organization has sunk. If it continues in this path, its unfortunate decline may be irreversible.  

Ari Lieberman


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Has France Been Bought by a State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism? - Drieu Godefridi

by Drieu Godefridi

How could France, the great France, possibly be bought by a tiny state such as Qatar?

  • It is through these tax breaks that the Qataris are buying the "jewels" of France. The U.S. is not selling its defense companies to Qatar.
  • Thanks to its huge gas and oil reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and huge reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France, thanks to 40 years of socialism, is in dire need of cash.
The state of Qatar has been officially labelled as a "state sponsor of terrorism", and an active supporter of Islamic terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State -- not by Western governments, but by Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islamic faith, and the other Islamic regimes of the region.

Knowing the facts of Qatar -- 11000km2, one-third the size of Belgium, population 2.5 million -- the question may seem far-fetched: How could France, the great France, possibly be bought by a tiny state such as Qatar?

For the single reason that, thanks to its huge gas and oil reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and huge reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France, thanks to 40 years of socialism, is in dire need of cash and has a tradition of corruptible officials, to say nothing of a propensity for "collaboration".

On August 4, the English press -- not the French press -- revealed that French prosecutors are actively investigating two events: the awarding the 2022 World Cup of football (soccer) to Qatar, and the purchase by "Qatari Diar", a state-owned investment company, of a stake in the French utility firm Veolia.

At the center of the investigation is former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. To be sure, Sarkozy has not been formally indicted (and he may never be), but the evidence is overwhelming.

First, the World Cup. That the State of Qatar, known for decades for its active support of Islamic terror organizations, and with a temperature among the highest in the world -- in addition to zero tradition in the world of football -- was awarded the 2022 World Cup is, of course, a source of wonder ever since the award was announced by FIFA, the international governing body of football.

French investigators are now looking into a meeting that took place between then-President Sarkozy, Michel Platini -- the French former president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), who sat on the FIFA committee that chose Qatar -- and Qatari officials on November 23, 2010 (10 days before the vote). It is alleged that Platini was dead-set against Qatar and that Sarkozy urged him to change his mind: "They're good people."

The "deal" is said to have been sealed when Qatar agreed to buy the biggest French soccer team, the Paris-Saint-Germain (PSG). It is alleged that huge bribes were paid by Qatar to high-ranking French officials, to secure these two deals: the World Cup and the Veolia investment. Although no evidence has yet been presented, the case would not have been opened by French prosecutors without it. In addition, no one has ever denied the meeting of November 23, 2010.

In April 2010, the "Qatari Diar" fund bought a 5% stake in Veolia. Investigators are tracking 182 million euros suspected of having been used to bribe French officials. Investigators are also looking into a possible link between these two operations: Qatar investing in Veolia as a favor to France, possibly in exchange for France's support for Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup.

France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy (left) greets Qatar's then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani (right) on March 19, 2011 in Paris, France. (Photo by Franck Prevel/Getty Images)

It is doubtful if the French investigators will ever get to the bottom of these two cases. The judiciary in France has a long tradition of submitting to the government. Since 1789, the French judiciary has not even been an independent power -- as are the Legislative and the Executive -- but a mere authority with a more limited scope.

It is revealing that these two investigations were exposed, not by the French press, but by the English press.

What we already know for sure is the following:
  1. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was allowed to buy France's leading soccer team, Paris-Saint-Germain, with the help of then-president Nicolas Sarkozy. The former owner of the PSG was a private fund controlled in Europe by one of Sarkozy's close friends. There would have been no deal without the direct consent of Sarkozy -- that is the way France functions.
  2. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was not only allowed, but actively courted, by French officials to invest in some of France's largest companies, including defense companies, such as Veolia, as well as the Airbus parent company, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS); the energy group EDF; the construction firm, Vinci; and the media and defense group Lagardère.
  3. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was actively supported in its 2022 bid for the World Cup by the government of France and Nicolas Sarkozy, who declared after the FIFA vote in 2010: "Sport does not belong to a few countries. It belongs to the world... I don't understand those who say that events should always be held in the same countries and the same continents."
  4. There is a significant part of the French political class that seems to consider the Embassy of Qatar in Paris some sort of automatic teller machine (ATM), as has been showed by renowned journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot in their book, Nos très chers émirs (Our Very Dear Emirs) and deplored by the new ambassador of Qatar in France, Meshaal al-Thani.
  5. Since 2008, a state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, has benefited from a huge tax break in France: the exemption of profits on property sales. In France, profits on property sales are not only taxed at 19%, they are subject to a further CSG/CRDS and social tax (15.5%), resulting in a combined total minimum tax rate of 34.5%. The rule is the same for everyone, whether a person or a corporation. Everyone, that is, but the State of Qatar, when the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy decided to exempt it from the tax. As a result, Qatar's royal family and sovereign fund have since built up a huge portfolio of assets in France, one that dwarfs the portfolio of a state such as Saudi Arabia. Qatar's portfolio ranges from a Champs-Élysées mall to the Lido Cabaret. "Our deficit has destroyed our freedom," said Nathalie Goulet, a centrist senator from Lower Normandy, in 2013. "The Qataris are here to buy, while we are selling our family jewels." Which they did. [1]
Qatar and other Gulf states try to benefit from tax exemptions everywhere in the world, but this convergence of facts -- the selling of assets, sports clubs, defense companies and governmental representatives -- is unique to France. It is through these tax breaks -- this is only one of them -- that the Qataris are buying the "jewels" of France. Of course, the U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris -- the U.S. has a military base in Al Udeid -- but the U.S. is not selling its defense companies to Qatar.

We therefore probably do not even have to wait for the results of the latest investigations to note that France, particularly but not exclusively under the auspices of Nicolas Sarkozy, has literally been bought by a state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar.

At the same time, Islam in France has been spreading. France has been deeply infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization, which is not categorized in France -- unlike the UK -- as a sponsor of terror. This organization, since it was overthrown by Egypt's current president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is now the darling of Qatar. Without Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood would be without a home-base. Given its huge financial, corporate and political dependence on Qatar, it is clear that France -- in the name of "stability" -- would not do anything to displease its darling.

Although France is a member of NATO and a nuclear power, nowhere else in the West is Islamism so deeply embedded in the fabric of the institutions, mind and zeitgeist of a country as it is there. Even in the UK, you still find very powerful counter-powers (see the governmental report on the Muslim Brotherhood). Not in France.

Consider the case of the Palestinian official Jabril Rajoub -- sentenced to life in prison in 1970 for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army vehicle, but released, along with others, in exchange for three Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Rajoub is now chairman of the Palestinian Football Association -- another illustration of the deep infiltration of FIFA by Islamists and Jew-haters sponsored by Gulf States, beginning with Qatar. Would that position even be thinkable without France's sponsorship of Qatar in FIFA? Probably not.

It is true that Qatar is buying assets from around the world, including politicians, not only in France. And it is true that the U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris, as are many other countries. It is one thing, however, to sell arms, but another to sell your defense companies. It is one thing to be open to foreign investment, but another to give huge tax breaks to a state sponsor of terror so it can acquire the "jewels" of your country.

It is also not an accident that the main face of Islamism in Europe, the Muslim Brother Tariq Ramadan (from his base in Oxford, England) now sees France as the future of Islam in Europe, and not the UK (still number 2 on the list).

The U.S. and other countries may be selling things, but France is selling herself.

[1] The 6th of December 2014, Nicolas Sarkozy was invited and paid by the "Qatar National Bank" to give a lecture in Doha. Subject? Investment opportunities in France.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Universities finally discovering that tolerating progressive violence and intimidation will cost them dearly - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Turns out, being nationally recognized for unhinged Progressive students who are allowed by cowardly administrators to run amok doesn’t pay off.

I am shedding no tears over this announcement made by the administration of The Evergreen State College in Washington. Jennifer Kabbany writes in The College Fix:
Administrators at The Evergreen State College have announced that the embattled school faces a massive $2.1 million budget shortfall due in part to a drop in enrollment, and the institution has already handed out some temporary layoff notices as officials grapple with balancing the books.
In an Aug. 28 memo to the campus community titled “Enrollment and Budget Update,” officials report that fall 2017-18 registration is down about 5 percent, from 3,922 students to 3,713. But the problem is nearly all of the students they lost are nonresidents, who traditionally pay a much higher tuition to attend, officials explained in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix.
Jason Rantz summarizes why the layoffs are coming:
Turns out, being nationally recognized for unhinged Progressive students who are allowed by cowardly administrators to run amok doesn’t pay off, as Evergreen State College is learning. (snip)
I hope this serves as a wake up call. The behavior we saw on the Evergreen campus surrounding Professor Bret Weinstein has consequences. Evergreen administrators seem to hate being criticized and rather than change their behavior, they lash out. It wouldn’t surprise me if the reason for some of the drop off is their notoriety as a bastion of political correct lunatics.
But as much as the school wants to placate childish and dangerous behavior of campus activists who are offended when someone doesn’t agree with every one of their tactics, they do so at their own peril (and budget shortfall).
Progressives have already done significant damage to the values that once animated scholarship and higher education, putting political goals above the disinterested search for the truth and open consideration of the facts. But this damage is for the most part welcomed by the left, as they see it paving the way for their political dominance.

However, the reflexive backing of (or failure to discipline) radical students who attack or intimidate conservatives, is staring to hurt those institutions whose surrender to the left becomes widely known. The significant financial impact of surrender to the left even has a name, “the Mizzou effect,” after the serious decline experienced by the University of Missouri after it caved in to radical demands from black students. Jillian Kay Melchior reported in the Wall Street Journal on the layoffs, cuts, and seven mothballed dormitories at the University of Missouri following the administration’s apparent surrender to the left.
As classes begin this week, freshmen enrollment is down 35% since the protests, according to the latest numbers the university has publicly released. Mizzou is beginning the year with the smallest incoming class since 1999. Overall enrollment is down by more than 2,000 students, to 33,200. The campus has taken seven dormitories out of service.
The plummeting support has also cost jobs. In May, Mizzou announced it would lay off as many as 100 people and eliminate 300 more positions through retirement and attrition. Last year the university reduced its library staff and cut 50 cleaning and maintenance jobs.
Mizzou’s 2016 football season drew almost 13,000 fewer attendees than in 2015, local media reported. During basketball games, one-third of the seats in the Mizzou Arena sat empty.
The university says its teams’ losing streaks have driven away fans, state budget cuts have strained its finances, and competition from other nearby universities has contributed to its lowered enrollment. But the protests were the truly catastrophic factor, compounding the other difficulties. Administrators saw it coming during the crisis, when they fretted in emails about “a PR nightmare” and “the middle of the road people we’re losing.” The past three semesters have validated their worst fears.
Even the mighty University of California, Berkeley, which touts itself as the leading public university in the world, is feeling the effects of toxic progressivism in the wake of violence and intimidation forcing the cancellation of talks by conservatives speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro. It turns out that the most lucrative students, those who apply from out of state and overseas and pay roughly triple the tuition that California students pay, have stopped applying to Cal Berkeley in the numbers they used to. I found this information in an editorial from Colorado, which celebrates the relative sanity at the University of Colorado as compared to Berkeley. The Colorado Springs Gazette editorializes:
University of Colorado President Bruce Benson spoke Saturday about Berkeley's flattering imitation, before presenting an award at the Steamboat Institute's ninth annual Freedom Conference & Festival in Steamboat Springs. Benson had no idea another violent left-wing melee would erupt the next day just three blocks from the Berkeley campus.
The Steamboat Institute honored Benson with its "Courage in Education Award" last year, and he was on hand to give this year's award to Lafayette College Assistant Prof. Brandon Van Dyck. (snip)
CU has seen soaring application rates, after years of expanding intellectual diversity. The university has countered dwindling tax support by partnering with industries that need well-prepared graduates who think for themselves.
Benson and Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano welcome free speech and peaceable assembly, but do not tolerate lawlessness. They ended the university's annual April 20 pot party, which had become an embarrassing brand for the campus, in part by spreading foul-smelling fish fertilizer on the Norlin Quad and ordering riot police to keep the peace. Contrast that with UC-Berkeley's orders for cops to stand down as activists destroy property, cause bodily harm and otherwise break the law.
Universities known as circus arenas for radical activism struggle with declining enrollments. (snip)
The Daily Californian reported in April that UC-Berkeley's international applications declined this year for the first time in more than a decade, as well as out-of-state domestic applications. (snip)
Writing for USA Today, University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds said universities harm their brands by accommodating unreasonable demands of activists.
As Professor Reynolds has been writing for years, higher education is being kept aloft by vast government subsidies, and by entrapping students in debt as the price of obtaining a credential believed essential to well-compensated careers. This is an unsustainable bubble.

Colleges and universities must compete for students in order to keep paying their professors, administrators, and support staff. Sure, a relative handful of well-endowed institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are so financially secure and still have residual prestige sufficient to attract full enrollments, but they account for less than one percent of total enrollment.

For the rest, sooner or later even the well-educated fools on campus will realize that caving in to progressives will cost them jobs. And sooner or later, Burlington College, which closed its doors after Bernie Sanders’s wife drove it into insolvency with her reckless and possibly fraudulent real estate deals, will be joined in its suicide by other colleges that cannot attract enough students to stay afloat. Tenure does a professor no good when the college goes bankrupt and closes its doors.

Voltaire’s ironic commentary from Candide can be transposed to academia, and applies well to the survival of colleges: "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US envoy: PA must resume its role in Gaza's administration - Shlomo Cesana and Lilach Shoval

by Shlomo Cesana and Lilach Shoval

Hamas has severely harmed enclave's residents and has failed to meet their most basic needs, he says during tour of the Israel-Gaza Strip border.

Special U.S. envoy Jason Greenblatt at Kibbutz Nahal Oz, near the Israel-Gaza Strip border, Wednesday
|Photo credit: Reuters

Shlomo Cesana and Lilach Shoval


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump’s Presidential Grace and Class in Texas - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Yet Fake News critics pounce on his every step -- as if each one is an impeachable offense.

President Trump’s visit to flooded parts of southern Texas went off without a hitch yet he has been besieged with scathing attacks by rabid left-wingers and their media allies desperate to find fault with him and treat his every action as a crazed assault on the time-honored political norms of the country.

Despite what you may have seen on CNN or heard on NPR, from this writer’s perch, Trump did more or less everything right. The trip, which didn’t take Trump into devastated Houston proper, was ordinary and comforting. In a word it was presidential. The president wasn’t there to rescue babies or house pets from flood zones – he was there to reassure the victims of Hurricane Harvey and let the nation know that the dire situation there was being handled properly, which, apparently, it is. Federal aid is flowing to the region, he said.

The visit to stricken areas was what one political junky called Trump’s first “natural disaster test.” He passed.

Before boarding Air Force One, the president hailed the "incredible" spirit of the people of Texas. "Things are being handled really well, the spirit is incredible," he said at the White House. "It's a historic amount of water, never been anything like it. The people are handling it amazingly well."

Trump spoke an undeniable truth when he added that "tragic times such as these bring out the best in America's character."

In recent days Trump’s Twitter feed has been filled with the usual, otherwise unremarkable expressions of hope and optimism that Americans have come to expect from their president in times of crisis.

“First responders have been doing heroic work. Their courage & devotion has saved countless lives – they represent the very best of America,” read one tweet.

“Texas & Louisiana: We are w[ith] you today, we are w[ith] you tomorrow, & we will be w[ith] you EVERY SINGLE DAY AFTER, to restore, recover, & REBUILD!” read another.

“After witnessing first hand the horror & devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, my heart goes out even more so to the great people of Texas!” read another tweet.

Another read, “I will be going to Texas as soon as that trip can be made without causing disruption. The focus must be life and safety.”

“Many people are now saying that this is the worst storm/hurricane they have ever seen. Good news is that we have great talent on the ground,” read a tweet.

This is what a president in modern times is expected to do. He is supposed to comfort the afflicted, promise things will get better, and reassure a worried populace.

But no matter what Trump did or didn’t do in coastal Texas, the media would have found an excuse to whine about him. Shouting obnoxiously and exploding with haughty indignation has worked for these people ever since the president declared his candidacy at Trump Tower. Trump’s presidency is an abomination to these people and his every action an impeachable offense.

So naturally, on cue the media set to bitching and moaning about Trump supposedly not acting presidential and being out of his depth.

These journalists are willing to tolerate a Republican president if they have to, but they won’t put up with one who is bold, assertive, and who dares to defend himself and relentlessly promotes his agenda. But when Obama did the same, even at times and in circumstances when it made reasonable people wince, he was given a pass.

Take the Washington Post’s Jenna Johnson, for example. “Even in visiting hurricane-ravaged Texas, Trump keeps the focus on himself,” shrieked her biased, subjective headline.

“With his wife at his side, he sounded as if he were addressing a political rally instead of a state struggling to start to recover – but it was a tone that matched the screaming crowd,” she wrote.

Trump is a showman. That’s what he does and that’s what helped him vanquish umpteen challengers for the GOP nod and Democrat Hillary Clinton, something just about nobody thought he could pull off.

Johnson’s sentence could have been used to describe at least every second or third day when Barack Obama was Narcissist-in-Chief, whether he was speaking to a large, worshipful audience in a venue with a conspicuous echo effect, complaining that Cambridge, Mass., police “acted stupidly,” rhapsodizing about dead street thug Trayvon Martin as the son he never had, proselytizing before the whole world that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” or informing Dallas, Texas, cops’ widows that a Black Lives Matter sniper gave their husbands exactly what they had coming.

President Obama, whose fondness for the first person singular pronoun was unprecedented in the annals of presidential history, was nothing if not a persistent salesman, and this drive to persuade people in itself is not a bad thing.

And Donald Trump, real-estate developer billionaire turned Chief Executive, is also a consummate salesman. His critics need to get over it.

But they can’t.

No doubt Johnson would have griped about President George W. Bush leading a crowd of first-responders and a shaken nation in chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” at Ground Zero days after 9/11.

“I can hear you!” the 43rd president said at the time. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

Johnson at least had enough of a sense of fairness to quote Barton Swaim, an opinion editor at the Weekly Standard who used to write then-South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R) speeches. Swaim said, politically speaking, Trump can’t win. No matter what the president says, his critics will construe it in “the worst possible way.”

“I’ve always thought that these kinds of deals are a no-win situation for politicians,” he said. “There’s no good response. If you insert yourself, you look opportunistic … If you don’t, you look aloof and disconnected.”

Over at the New York Times, Frank Bruni wrote a column headlined, “The waters swell. So does Trump’s ego.” He began the piece with this smart-alecky drivel:
I would like to believe that what fascinated Donald Trump about the floodwaters of Texas and pulled him to the state on Tuesday were the scenes of human suffering. I would also like to believe that I’m a dead ring for Brad Pitt. But what Trump saw in Hurricane Harvey was a mirror of his own majesty. A storm worthy of a stud like him. A meteorological complement to one of his resorts, rallies or steaks. Something really, really big.
So because Trump was being Trump, talking big, being flamboyant and upbeat, telling Texans how much they matter to him and the rest of the country on his visit to the disaster zone, he was guilty in Bruni’s words of “opportunism and narcissism.”

Headlines in the barely-operating rag Newsweek screamed disapproval of Trump.
“Will Harvey sink the Trump presidency?”

“Trump still hasn’t responded to Mexico’s offer of Hurricane Harvey relief.” (Actually, the nation’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, is working with the Mexicans.)

The flood in Houston is Trump’s fault, one headline targeting low-information voters implies: “Trump rescinded Obama’s flood-risk rule weeks before Hurricane Harvey hit.” The rule, signed by President Obama in 2015, aimed “to make infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and flooding,” but hadn’t yet taken effect. But Trump ditched the costly pork-barrel giveaway “in an attempt to speed up the time it takes for infrastructure projects to be approved.”

So Trump is to blame for rivers spilling their banks, and by extension, because he hasn’t solved the phony climate crisis in his seven months in office, he’s responsible for the hurricane that caused the greater Houston region to be inundated, too.

As NewsBusters reported, MSNBC has painted Trump as an unfeeling money-grubber because he unrolled his tax reform agenda while Texans were still suffering, as if all the business of the federal government must grind to a halt because one part of the country is suffering the effects of a natural disaster.

An MSNBC graphic smeared the president: “Trump talks taxes as Gulf death toll climbs.”

MSNBC’s resident dingbat Joy Reid falsely claimed Trump had not hired a FEMA director and suggested his response to the disaster was evidence of sociopathy. The president cannot “understand” the “misery” of hurricane victims, she said, adding, bizarrely, that he viewed the hurricane as an “accomplishment.”

On “This Morning” on CBS, those on camera stopped just short of saying they hoped the disaster would derail Trump’s plan on taxes and the construction of a wall on the nation’s southern border. According to NewsBusters, the show also featured a segment that included an interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist representing Vermont.
The journalists continued the hypocritical 180 they have done on Republican presidents and visiting disaster relief areas. For George W. Bush, they complained the President took too long. With Trump he is going too quickly.
Then there was the extraordinarily idiotic, petty commentary on first lady Melania Trump’s choice of footwear. Before her journey to Texas got underway, she was wearing fashionable black stiletto heels. By the time she arrived in the Lone Star State, she was wearing white sneakers. Apparently, this is a serious subject worthy of journalistic inquiry.

The catty Christina Cauterucci savaged these sartorial choices at the increasingly irrelevant Mrs. Trump “would risk an ankle sprain by merely stepping out of a climate-controlled limousine in those shoes,” Cauterucci wrote, referring to the shoes FLOTUS did not actually wear in Texas, “never mind walking through mud and debris to comfort evacuees recouping in shelters.”

Of her understated attire on the ground – white blouse, black pants – the writer added that “the rest of her outfit was just as obnoxious.” If Melania had wrapped herself in something from Old Navy and donned boots, then this mewling reporter would no doubt have scolded the first lady for dressing beneath the dignity of a president’s wife – or something. Any excuse to bash a Trump.

Mrs. Trump’s black-nationalist predecessor, who wasn’t proud of her country until voters made the catastrophic mistake of electing her husband president, went on haute couture sprees that paralyzed Manhattan and various international capitals and that would have made Marie Antoinette blush. But Michelle Obama was a left-wing Democrat, and that makes all the difference.

Donald Trump is doing what Americans put him in the Oval Office to do, and Melania Trump has been serving in a supporting role, which is what first ladies are supposed to do.

But that’s not good enough for Trump-haters. Nothing is.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.