Friday, May 25, 2018

Trump says North Korea summit still ‘possible’ after pullout, but warns US military ‘ready if necessary’ - Brooke Singman

by Brooke Singman

“Nobody should be anxious. We have to get it right.”

Minutes after pulling out of a highly anticipated summit with North Korea, President Trump said Thursday that the U.S. would continue its "maximum pressure campaign," and warned that the military was "ready if necessary" -- but made clear that a summit could still go forward if Kim Jong Un is willing to engage constructively.

“Our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world ... is ready if necessary,” Trump said.

“Likewise, I’ve spoken with South Korea and Japan, and they are not only ready should foolish or reckless acts be taken by North Korea, but they’re willing to shoulder much of the costs associated by operations if such an unfortunate situation is forced upon us,” he added.

He said that the “very strong sanctions” and the “maximum pressure campaign will continue.”

However, the president clearly left open the possibility of the scheduled summit taking place, despite his letter to Kim Jong Un canceling talks following threats of nuclear action from the rogue regime.

“Hopefully," he said, "everything is going to work out well with North Korea. A lot of things can happen, including the fact—it’s possible the existing summit could take place, or a summit at a later date.”

 Trump added: “Nobody should be anxious. We have to get it right.” 

The move to pull out of the summit, which had been slated to take place in Singapore on June 12, came after threats from Kim to call off the talks. In a letter to Kim on Thursday, Trump said the world, and North Korea, had lost a "great opportunity for lasting peace and great prosperity." 

“Based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote in a letter to Kim on Thursday. “Therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place.” 

North Korea has for days questioned whether the summit would proceed as planned. 
On Thursday, Vice Minister of the North Korean Foreign Ministry Choe Son Hui said that whether the U.S. "will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States," South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported. 

The official also insulted Vice President Pence after he said North Korea had asked for the meeting. "As a person involved in the U.S. affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the U.S. vice president," Choe reportedly said.

But officials told Fox News it was the threat of nuclear war -- not the insult to Pence -- that had led to the summit pullout.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who met with Trump at the White House on Monday, convened an emergency meeting with top security aides on Thursday following Trump's announcement, and expressed “deep regret” over the canceled U.S.-North Korea summit. 

According to Yonhap, Moon urged the two leaders to engage in direct talks.

We "are trying to figure out what President Trump's intention is and the exact meaning of it," presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom reportedly said. 

Moon said the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should not be delayed.

The Trump-Kim summit was set to come on the heels of a “historic meeting” between North and South Korea last month, when the leaders from those two nations pledged to clear the peninsula of nuclear weapons.

Moon and Kim announced they would work to achieve a “nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” and also expressed hope to officially end the 1950-53 Korean War by the end of the year, though it is not clear at this point what steps the leaders might take to achieve denuclearization.

“KOREAN WAR TO END! The United States, and all of its GREAT people, should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!” Trump tweeted last month.

The leaders had agreed that by May 1, the loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts that had been blaring from each side of the heavily armed border would be suspended. They agreed to also dismantle broadcasting equipment and stop flying propaganda leaflets across their border.

Kim also promised Moon that he “won’t interrupt” his “early morning sleep anymore,” referring to missile tests, South Korea said.

But Kim’s tune changed last week; he canceled a high-level summit with Moon following U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which the state-run Korean media outlet suggested were a rehearsal for a potential invasion of the North.

Brooke Singman


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

VIDEO -- Behind the Smokescreen II: The Great Deception - Pierre Rehov

by Pierre Rehov

"Hamas tell themselves, Instead of having people revolt and turn against us, we'll send them to the fence and let them revolt there freely."

Pierre Rehov


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Report: Satellite images reveal secret Iranian missile development site - Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff 

Images suggest Tehran is developing long-range ballistic missiles at remote desert facility in country's northeast, New York Times reports

The Sharhud facility, where Iran is suspected of secretly 
developing ballistic missile technology
Photo: David Schmerler/Center for Nonproliferation Studies

New satellite images indicate Tehran is developing long-range ballistic missiles at a remote desert facility in the country's northeast, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

In 2011, an explosion nearly razed Iran's long-range missile research facility and killed the military scientist who ran it, Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam. Many Western intelligence analysts regarded the incident as a devastating setback to Tehran's technological ambitions.

In recent months, however, weapons researchers from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California stumbled on a series of clues that led them to a startling conclusion: Shortly before his death, Moghaddam oversaw the development of a secret, second facility in the remote Iranian desert, which they say is still very much operational.

For weeks, The New York Times reported, the researchers picked through satellite photos of the so-called Shahrud facility. They discovered, they say, that work at the site now appears to focus on advanced rocket engines and rocket fuel and is often conducted under cover of night.

It is possible that the Shahrud facility is developing only medium-range missiles, which Iran already possesses, or perhaps an unusually sophisticated space program, according to the report.

However, analysis of structures and ground markings at the facility strongly suggests, although it does not prove, that Iran is indeed developing the technology for long-range missiles. Five outside experts who independently reviewed the findings agreed there was compelling evidence that Iran is developing long-range missile technology.

Missile engine tests, when conducted in desert landscapes like those around Shahrud, can burn ground scars, shaped like candle flames, into the terrain, the report continued.

In their analysis of the satellite photos of the area around Shahrud, researchers say, they found two tell-tale ground scars in a crater a few miles away – larger than those at Moghaddam's publicly known facility.

The scars were recent. One appeared in 2016, the other in June 2017.

Such a program, if it indeed exists, would not violate the nuclear deal struck between Iran and world powers in 2015. If completed, however, it could threaten Europe and potentially the United States. If Iran is found to be conducting long-range missile work, it would certainly add to the tensions between Tehran and the U.S.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the Trump administration will work with as many allies as possible to reach a new deal to halt "all of Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear threats."

"We will apply unprecedented financial pressure, coordinate with [the military] on deterrence efforts, support the Iranian people … and hold out the prospects for a new deal with Iran," Pompeo said.

"It [Iran] simply needs to change its behavior," Pompeo continued. "In the almost three years of the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal], the Iranians marched across the Middle East. We're simply asking Iran to be a normal country."

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian military, said: "Iranian armed forces are now, thank God, more prepared than ever and will not wait for the permission or approval of any foreign power to develop defense capabilities."

He slammed the U.S. as "a criminal and oppressor, isolated and angry with corrupted and oath-breaker leaders who are mercenaries of the Israeli regime."

"This enemy, while afraid of facing Iran head-on in battle, is trying instead to exert pressure on Iran in the economic sector and through psychological warfare," he added.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif dismissed as "untrue" Pompeo's charges against the Islamic republic.

"Pompeo and other U.S. officials are trapped in old illusions. … They are taken hostage by corrupt pressure groups," he told state television.

Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

UNRWA's "Palestinian Refugee" Fraud? - Ruthie Blum

by Ruthie Blum

[UNRWA is] a self-serving political body that has bolstered Arab/Palestinian rejectionism and perpetuated Palestinian suffering

  • It is no wonder, then, that the classified State Department report's findings -- showing that billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled over the years into an organization that has seems to have been perpetuating a fraud -- that the Obama administration kept its content a secret from the American public.
  • UNRWA is anything but a humanitarian organization interested in the welfare of the Palestinians whom it claims to have spent the past nearly 70 years assisting. It is, rather, a self-serving political body that has bolstered Arab/Palestinian rejectionism and perpetuated Palestinian suffering, thereby preventing peace and prosperity.
  • Its dissolution is long overdue.
In early 2018, President Donald Trump froze a large portion of the funding that the United States provides annually for UNRWA (the United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees a in the Near East). Prior to imposing the $125 million freeze, Trump tweeted: "[W]e pay the Palestinians HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect."

The president's move came in response to the fact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his henchmen yet again were rejecting American and Israeli peace overtures. Yet it was both welcome and necessary for reasons well beyond Palestinian intransigence. UNRWA not only has an abominable record of ties to terrorism, which makes a mockery of its mandate to " provide relief, human development and protection services;" but its entire existence is based on a false premise -- a special UN definition of "refugee" for Palestinians that sets them apart from other people in the world categorized as such. It thus has been able for decades to keep cash flowing freely into its coffers, providing "humanitarian services" for millions of Palestinians who are not refugees by any measure. As the ZOA's Morton Klein and Daniel Mandel recently wrote:
"All this stands in stark contrast to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the international body that deals with all refugee problems other than the Palestinian Arabs. UNHRC observes a universal definition of refugee status, one that applies solely to those who actually fled their country during hostilities, civil war, natural disaster, or other disturbances. UNHCR works to resettle refugees quickly and dismantle the temporary refugee camps housing them. Nor does it count descendants as refugees.
"This has immense practical ramifications: in literally all other cases other than the Palestinian Arabs, the number of refugees shrinks over time — chiefly through successful resettlement. In contrast, in the Palestinian Arab case, their numbers continue to expand ceaselessly.
"Thus, instead of the living original refugees officially numbering 30,000, UNRWA now services some 5.3 million Palestinian Arabs."
The actual number of Palestinian refugees is likely even lower than that cited by the authors: a classified State Department report, delivered to Congress in 2015, reveals it to be closer to 20,000. The report showed that billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled over the years into an organization that seems to have been perpetuating a fraud. It is no wonder, then, that the Obama administration kept the report's contents a secret from the American public. More surprising is the fact that, since the report was first submitted to Congress in 2015 -- and subsequently exposed by the Washington Free Beacon in January, 2018 -- it has yet to be made public. To rectify this situation, fifty-one members of the House of Representatives signed a letter on April 18 -- spurred by the Middle East Forum -- calling on Trump to declassify the report.

The letter reads, in part:
"We commend your leadership in guiding the U.S.-Israel relationship to its best years in recent history, and also for finally recognizing that Jerusalem is the capital of important step in reaching a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We have tremendous confidence that you will continue taking such steps to resolve the conflict, and encourage you to next address the so-called 'Palestinian refugee' population
"America has provided $1 billion to ...UNRWA over the last four fiscal years, and nearly $6 billion since UNRWA's inception in 1950. We are concerned that American taxpayer dollars are not being used properly. Your withholding of funds from UNRWA in January on the condition that they reform was a tremendous first step. American taxpayers deserve to know how they tax dollars are spent on Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
"In order to investigate the matter, the Senate Report 112-172 to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, And Related Programs Appropriations bill in 2012 directed the Department of State to issue a report to Congress detailing 'the approximate number of people who, in the past year, have received UNRWA services: (1) whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who were displaces as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict; and (2) who are [their] descendants...
"...Finally, in 2015, the Obama State Department delivered the mandated report to Congress in classified form despite no apparent national security threat or known historical precedent...We believe this classification was inappropriate and a deliberate attempt to conceal information from American taxpayers...
"We respectfully request that you instruct the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration to declassify this report. The issue of the so-called Palestinian 'right of return' of 5.3 million refugees to Israel as part of any 'peace deal' is an unrealistic demand, and we do not believe it accurately reflects the number of actual Palestinian refugees..."
UNRWA is anything but a humanitarian organization interested in the welfare of the Palestinians whom it claims to have spent the past nearly 70 years assisting. It is, rather, a self-serving political body that has bolstered Arab/Palestinian rejectionism and perpetuated Palestinian suffering, thereby preventing peace and prosperity. Its dissolution is long overdue.

Pictured: Ann Dismorr (right), the Director of UNRWA in Lebanon, poses with a map that erases the State of Israel and presents all of it as "Palestine." (Image source: Palestinian Authority TV via Palestinian Media Watch)
Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

France: Macron Buries Plan to Rehabilitate 'No-Go Zones' - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Back in Paris, Macron admitted that France has "lost the battle over drug trafficking in many cities." He promised to announce a new plan to combat drug trafficking "by July."

  • Initial reaction to Macron's speech was one of nearly unanimous disappointment over a missed opportunity. "We were expecting concrete policies," said the mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois, Bruno Beschizza. "For now, there is nothing practical. I came out empty-handed."
  • An estimated six million people — around one-tenth of France's population — live in 1,500 neighborhoods classified by the government as Sensitive Urban Zones (zones urbaines sensibles, ZUS), priority targets for urban renewal.
  • Back in Paris, Macron admitted that France has "lost the battle over drug trafficking in many cities." He promised to announce a new plan to combat drug trafficking "by July."
President Emmanuel Macron has substantially scaled back plans to rehabilitate France's banlieues — poverty-ridden and crime-infested neighborhoods with large Muslim populations — and has instead called on local mayors and civil society groups to find solutions at the grassroots level.

The policy reversal follows weeks of internal debate about whether a top-down or bottom-up approach is the best way to improve life in the troubled banlieues, which are breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and are often referred to as no-go zones because of the dangerous conditions there for police and other representatives of state authority.

In a much-anticipated speech at the Élysée Palace on May 22, Macron announced only modest, non-budgeted, initiatives for the banlieues, including a plan to hire more police officers, a crackdown on drug trafficking and a corporate internship program for underprivileged youths.

Addressing 600 guests, including lawmakers, entrepreneurs, community leaders and residents, Macron said that he would not be announcing yet another "Marshall Plan for the suburbs," as a 2008 plan for urban renewal was called, because at least ten previous such strategies all have failed:
"I will not announce a city plan or a suburban plan because this strategy is as old as me. The first plan was presented by [former French prime minister] Raymond Barre about the time I was born... we are at the end of what this method is able to produce."
Macron called for "a general mobilization" to lay the foundations for "a policy of emancipation and dignity" based on "a philosophy of action" and "a change of method" to get residents of poor neighborhoods out of "house arrest." In terms of security, Macron called for "a vigilance society" built with prefects, elected officials and residents where "everyone is an actor of collective security."

Macron also called on the top 120 companies in France to "do their part" in the fight against discrimination against Africans, Arabs and Muslims: "We are going to expand testing to check behaviors and make sure that there is no discrimination in hiring practices."

Macron's proposals are a far cry from an ambitious plan announced less than a month ago by former cabinet minister Jean-Louis Borloo, who had been tasked by Macron to devise a grand strategy for the banlieues.

The 164-page report — "Living Together, Living Well: Toward a National Reconciliation" ("Vivre ensemble, vivre en grand: Pour une réconciliation nationale") — unveiled on April 26 after nine months of work, listed 19 proposals aimed at bringing about "radical change." They included a focus on education, employment and renovation of decaying buildings and infrastructure. The plan would cost €38 billion ($45 billion) to implement.

"I want the face of our neighborhoods changed by the end of my five-year term, not because we have invested a certain amount of money, but because we will have changed our methods," Macron said. "It makes no sense that two white males who do not live in these districts exchanged one report. That no longer works."

Initial reaction to Macron's speech was one of nearly unanimous disappointment over a missed opportunity. "We were expecting concrete policies," said the mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois, Bruno Beschizza. "For now, there is nothing practical. I came out empty-handed."

Stéphanie Daumin, mayor of Chevilly-Larue, a commune in the southern suburbs of Paris, tweeted:
"We expected strong acts and commitments and we were only treated to words. Cold shower for those who worked on #RapportBorloo and who want to rebalance the territories and the return of Republican equality."
The leader of the center-right Republicans, Laurent Wauquiez, described Macron's speech a "talk-and-do-nothing political show" and a "photo opportunity."

Éric Coquerel, MP for the far-left party La France Insoumise, accused Macron of "burying" the Borloo report and "humiliating" those who worked on it. He added that Macron had "proposed a series of measures without funding, investment or novelty."

Stéphane Le Foll, a former spokesman for the Socialist government of President François Hollande, tweeted: "We are witnessing the liquidation of the Borloo plan."

Marine Le Pen, President of the National Front, noted that Macron had failed to address the issues of immigration and Islamism:
"Barely a word on immigration, barely a word on Islamic fundamentalism. We know perfectly well that these problems are partly the source of the difficulties in the suburbs. Refusing to see the reality is to condemn oneself to failure."
An estimated six million people — around one-tenth of France's population — live in 1,500 neighborhoods classified by the government as Sensitive Urban Zones (zones urbaines sensibles, ZUS), priority targets for urban renewal.

In October 2011, a landmark 2,200-page report, "Suburbs of the Republic" ("Banlieue de la République") found that many French suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the French state, and where Islamic law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report said that Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and instead are immersing themselves in radical Islam.

The report, commissioned by the influential French think tank, L'Institut Montaigne, was directed by Gilles Kepel, a respected political scientist and specialist in Islam, together with five other French researchers.

The authors of the report showed that France — which now has 6.5 million Muslims (the largest Muslim population in European Union) — is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

The research was primarily carried out in the Seine-Saint-Denis townships of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two suburbs that were ground zero for Muslim riots in the fall of 2005, when Muslim mobs torched more than 9,000 cars.

The report described Seine-Saint-Denis as a "wasteland of de-industrialization" and said that in some areas, "a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity."

Pictured: A residential street in the French township of Clichy-sous-Bois, part of the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, which was described in a recent report as a "wasteland of de-industrialization" where "a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity." (Image source: Marianna/Wikimedia Commons)

Another township of Seine-Saint-Denis is Aubervilliers. Sometimes referred to as one of the "lost territories of the French Republic," it's population is more than 70% Muslim. Three quarters of young people under 18 in the township are foreign or French of foreign origin, mainly from the Maghreb or sub-Saharan Africa. French police are said to rarely venture into some of the most dangerous parts of the township.

A day before Macron's speech, French television channels broadcast images of masked gunmen opening fire in broad daylight in the southern port city of Marseille. The assailants, dressed in black and carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles, kidnapped one individual, placed him in a car and drove away while police helplessly stood by. The gangsters, who are thought to be involved in a turf war for control of the drug trade in the city, "fear neither the police nor justice," according to an officer, who said that the police "had no chance" because they were outgunned and outmaneuvered.

Back in Paris, Macron admitted that France has "lost the battle over drug trafficking in many cities." He promised to announce a new plan to combat drug trafficking "by July."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Deep State on the Defensive - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

James Clapper and complicit media push the narrative that FBI spying on Trump was a "good thing."

When candidate Donald Trump claimed his 2016 campaign had been the target of a spying campaign, the old-line establishment media reacted with derision.  Since Trump’s 2016 victory, it has become more apparent that the spying was real, and part of an intelligence operation to exonerate Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton, frame the victorious president on fake charges of colluding with Russia, and ultimately drive him from office.  

A key player for the previous administration is former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, who now holds forth on MSNBC. On Tuesday, Joy Behar asked Clapper if the FBI had been spying on the Trump campaign. 

“No, they were not,” said Clapper, DNI from 2010-2017. “They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence — which is what they do.”

Clapper also said, “With the informant business, well, the point here is the Russians. Not spying on the campaign but what are the Russians doing? And in a sense, unfortunately, what they were trying to do is protect our political system and protect the campaign.” 

“Well,” Behar wondered, “why doesn't he like that? He should be happy.”

Clapper agreed that “he should be,” but the president didn’t think so. 

“No, James Clapper, I am not happy,” tweeted President Trump, who has been citing “confidential informants” in his campaign and saying “this is bigger than Watergate.” 

The notion that the spying was to “protect” Trump’s campaign and the nation was hardly the only whopper from Clapper. He was also a bust as Director of National Intelligence, an office with a short and curious history. 

After 9/11 the first response should have been military but instead it was bureaucratic, bulking up an “intelligence community” already boasting 16 agencies.  In February 2005, President Bush nominated John D. Negroponte, ambassador to Iraq, as the first director of national intelligence, followed by John McConnell and Dennis Blair. What value the DNI might have contributed to the war on terror was not apparent. When Blaire stepped down POTUS 44 picked Clapper, a former Air Force general, but even liberal Democrats had reservations. 

“I believe the best thing for the U.S. Intelligence Community is to have someone with a civilian background in charge,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein told reporters. Clapper, a big supporter of drones, got the job anyway. He had previously headed the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, but as DNI he came across as agent 00$6.98.

In 2010, ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked Clapper about the arrest of 12 terrorist suspects in London. That drew a blank from the baffled Clapper, who knew nothing about the major anti-terrorist operation that nabbed suspects with ties to Pakistan and Bangladesh. John Brennan, then a homeland security advisor, twice said Clapper should have been briefed, but defended him as the “consummate DNI.” 

The next year, Clapper told the House Intelligence Committee that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular.” The Brotherhood “has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam” and “have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt.” Clapper also said the Muslim Brotherhood has “no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.” It was appalling nonsense that should have prompted Clapper’s dismissal, but the “consummate DNI” had not yet reached his peak performance. 

 In 2013 Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, asked Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied “No, sir,” then added, “not wittingly.” So like the DNI his own self, the mighty NSA didn’t know what it was doing. 

Clapper’s performance earned the DNI the ninth annual Rosemary Award, named for the Nixon secretary who erased some 18 minutes of a Watergate tape. The left-leaning National Security Archive at George Washington University gives the award for the worst open-government performance. To be fair, that year the award also acknowledged FBI boss Robert Mueller and the Justice Department’s national security division for wiretap issues, and POTUS 44 for repeated misrepresentations about the bulk collection program

As DNI for seven years, Clapper knew full well what was going on but wasn’t exactly up front about it. His exchange with Wyden came up again on Tuesday, when Meghan McCain told Clapper “In 2013 when you were asked about it, you said ‘no,’ So that is a lie.”

“I made a mistake,” Clapper said. “I didn’t lie. I was thinking about something else, another program.” And after further obfuscation he repeated, “So I made a mistake, but I didn’t lie.”
Actually, Clapper did lie, and he lied about his lies. That should rank him with Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Comey, and all those highly paid prevaricators in the DOJ and FBI. 

Donald Trump was right that his campaign had been targeted for spying. He is also right that this is a national disgrace, and a scandal bigger than Watergate. The president should do everything in his power to get out the full truth. Those who committed crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of the new crime book, Lethal Injections: Elizabeth Tracy Mae Wettlaufer, Canada’s Serial Killer Nurse, and the recently updated Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The rise of the Islamocrats - Amil Imani

by Amil Imani

Democrats have no problem trampling the Constitution for the sake of Muslim support.

Muslims are embraced by the left as a natural ally, as illegal aliens and blacks have been for decades.  More than 90 Muslims, nearly all of them Democrats, are running for public office across the country this year.  Many are young and politically inexperienced, and most are long shots.
According to the Pew report, fully two thirds of U.S. Muslims identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (66%).  Far fewer say they are Republican or lean Republican (13%), while one in five say they prefer another party or are politically independent and do not lean toward either major party.  Muslim Americans' partisan composition is little changed over the last decade, and they remain much more strongly Democratic than the public as a whole.

Well, our leftist politicians, hungry for votes and devoted to the practice of political correctness, bend over backwards to accede to Islamists' demands.  At the same time, Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self-defense and sane social policies are kept out of office.  Money that was once used to build mosques will now be used to buy politicians.

Progressives have been rallying behind jihadist Linda Sarsour, an American-born Arab native, who was calling to wage jihad, a terrorist threat against the president of the United States and the White House staff.  In reality, Sarsour has declared jihad (holy war) on the United States government and its people. That's the kind of people the current Democrat Party is cheering for.

The Democrats have shown by both words and actions that they despise the U.S. Constitution.  When it comes to the support of Muslims, they will not hesitate to hold the Bill of Rights over anyone who dares to accuse Islam and Muslims of wrongdoing.  While crime and threats skyrocket, Islamized citizens will ignore the wrongdoing.  They will look the other way for fear of retribution, honor killings, and punishments from those who uphold the Islamic requirement to seek revenge on anyone who dishonors or disagrees with Islam.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam.  It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and apolitical.

Our liberal professors and universities claim that Islam is inherently good; the majority of Muslims are good; and only a small minority has hijacked the good faith of Muhammad by engaging in acts of intolerance, hatred, and violence.  I agree: it is not uncommon to observe Muslims, anywhere in the world, who are indeed exemplary in many ways.  They are kind, generous, and much more.  But these are cultural Muslims who are, in effect, only part Muslim.  The question is, why is it that the good Islam is not ruling in the world and the bad Islam is engulfing it in fire?

Most Americans are bewildered as to why Democrats back Islamic ideology; honor their holidays and customs; and promote them as the religion of peace, knowing that Islam is not a religion of peace.  In fact, it is an ideology of war.  The answer is quite simple: the Democratic Party stands with anyone who hates America and the Republican party.  History has proven that once Muslims have the majority, they institute sharia law and adopt their own legal system.  A government within a government.

Sharia is Islamic law – the disciplines and principles that govern the behavior of a Muslim individual toward himself and his family, neighbors, community, city, nation, and the Muslim polity as a whole, the Ummah.  Similarly, sharia governs the interactions among communities, groups, and social and economic organizations.  Sharia establishes the criteria by which all social actions are classified, categorized, and administered within the overall governance of the state.

We are on a precarious path to lose our freedom and the American values we cherish.  The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Kennedy.  It has become the greatest threat to our national security and our survival as a nation.

Appeared in The American Thinker.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the USA against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at and wrote the book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new thriller Operation Persian Gulf


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canada’s Beach Jihad - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Has the “Islamic Revolutionary Force” been planting glass and needles on Canada’s beaches?

Brad Hammond lives on the waterfront at Kirby’s Beach in Ontario, and he had never seen anything like it: glass shards and sewing needles had been deliberately planted at intervals along the beach, leading to the beach being closed for the first time in his memory. Another beach area, Bracebridge Bay Park, was closed as well. For the first time, but not likely the last, jihad had come to the beaches of Ontario.

There is no doubt that the glass and needles had been placed on the beach deliberately. “It was pretty much the width of the beach but it was in clumps, so you could tell it had been seeded in different areas,” Hammond said. Global News added that “Bracebridge Mayor Graydon Smith said the discovery of the needles and glass goes beyond what municipal staff would typically encounter after a spring melt.” 

But who did this? Global News professed not to know, saying: “What remains unclear is who is responsible.” However, several weeks ago, Toronto-area media outlets received a letter purporting to be from a group called the Islamic Revolutionary Force, vowing to  “destroy your beaches from Toronto to North Bay.”

The letter explained: “We do this because you reject Islam and follow the Great Satan. Infidels you allow your women to disgracefully, shamelessly parade around your beaches all but naked!” The letter writer claimed that the group had already begun to target the beaches: “We have started with the Muskoka’s and other tourist destinations. Your Northern towns are extremely easy targets, unlike cities.” Kirby’s Beach and Bracebridge Bay Park are in Muskoka. The letter says: “Yes we have destroyed your beaches over the winter months with snowmobiles, making them unsafe and all but unusable.”

The letter added: “Yes we cannot pull off anything like 9-11. But we can destroy your tourist industry, hurt your people, de-rail your trains, poison your water supply, start devastating forest fires….”

The Islamic Revolutionary Force has not been heard from before, and no one has ever been identified as a member. There are several possibilities here. One is that there are Muslims who threatened jihad violence against the beach, and who then planted glass shards and sewing needles all across it. Another is that non-Muslim hoaxers wrote the “Islamic Revolutionary Force” threat letter, and then planted the glass and needles on the beach. A third possibility is that one group, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, issued the “Islamic Revolutionary Force” letter, and another saw it and thought they would have some fun by putting the glass and needles on the beach.

Bracebridge Mayor Graydon Smith said that Ontario Provincial Police were examining the letter and investigating the incidents. He said about the letter: “I don’t know the legitimacy of it and it’s not my place to figure that out. It’s theirs. So it’s in the right hands, so we’ll work with them to make sure that they get everything they need to make a determination of its legitimacy or if it’s just a hoax.”

One thing is certain, however: this kind of thing never happened before jihad terror became a commonplace feature of life in the West. The beaches have been strewn with glass either by jihadis or by pranksters who admire the jihadis and want to “strike terror” into people’s hearts (cf. Qur’an 8:60), as jihadis do. Osama bin Laden once said: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse.”

We are seeing people in the West demonstrating their admiration for the “strong horse” by converting to Islam in nations (particularly Britain) where the government shows anxious solicitude for Muslims and Islam but ill-concealed disdain for the native population. If the Islamic Revolutionary Force is a hoax perpetrated by non-Muslims, it is another example of how the jihadis have captured the imagination of the world, looking younger, stronger, and more confident than any force arrayed against them.

Or, the glass and needles on the beaches could really have been placed there by Muslims who hate Canada, the West, and its mores. Either way, jihad has come to Ontario’s beaches.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Progressives on the Brink - Jeffrey Folks

by Jeffrey Folks

Liberalism is not the "party of the people," as it has long claimed to be: it is, rather, a despotic philosophy that because of its intention of imposing "advanced" thinking on the masses can govern only through deceit and force.

The Trump era has exposed the dark, vindictive, and oppressive side of liberalism, but that side has always existed. "Progressives," as they prefer to be known, have a long history of extremism going back to Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918 and FDR's many power-grabbing activities, including the 1937 attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Progressive thinking, because it attempts to impose an extreme vision of society on a public that resists its measures, is by its very nature authoritarian, antidemocratic, and elitist. Liberalism is not the "party of the people," as it has long claimed to be: it is, rather, a despotic philosophy that because of its intention of imposing "advanced" thinking on the masses can govern only through deceit and force. 

Because President Trump is reversing many Obama-era initiatives, the left's hostility toward him is unprecedented. Progressives are becoming increasingly rigid in their thinking – and increasingly aggressive toward any who disagree with them. The left's opinion of the president, echoed in every left-leaning corner of the media, is that he is illegitimate; incompetent; racist; sexist; and, in some vague and inchoate sense, "fascist."

Because they view President Trump in these extreme terms, progressives view themselves not as violent extremists, but as "the resistance." But resistance implies that there exists something worthy of resisting. The progressive resistance began just seconds after Trump was declared the victor on election night. The resistance was not engendered by anything Trump had actually done. It was just a refusal to accept any candidate who varied from the left's own line of thinking.

That sort of reaction, reminiscent of what happened with the election of George W. Bush, is a dangerous turn in American politics. It implies that the left refuses to accept any political action that does not accord with their own ideology. The left now demands the right to govern permanently and without opposition, regardless of the outcome of elections. This is evidence that the left today has lost respect for democratic institutions and that, if they were ever to find themselves firmly in control of government, leftists would not willingly relinquish power, even if voted out in a fair election.

The behavior of Obama partisans within the FBI and Justice Department, and of the Mueller probe that grew out of it, is precisely what one might expect of a radicalized opposition. It appears that under President Obama, high officials undertook to spy on the Trump campaign with the intent to throw the election to Hillary Clinton. In other words, the left sought to ensure that it retained control regardless of the will of the people. When Clinton lost, it appears that the left sought, through the unwarranted appointment of a special prosecutor, to discover grounds for impeachment. That probe is still underway, and it has employed unprecedented means such as the seizure of communication records between the president and his personal attorney. If it is willing to raid the office and home of one's personal attorney, place spies within an opponent's campaign, and file false documents in support of a FISA request, as alleged, how far is the left willing to go to retain power? It is not a large step from these actions to other, more forceful sorts of intimidation and outright election-rigging.

President Trump has responded to these attacks with admirable restraint. Wisely, he has refrained from firing Mueller or Rosenstein, despite apparent cause, even as he has seen one individual after another "retire" from FBI and Justice just as incriminating evidence was about to be revealed. Now the most serious revelations are about to come out.

As Gregg Jarrett reports, there is "strong circumstantial evidence" to suspect that high officials colluded to undermine the Trump campaign and the presidency, and that they employed criminal means to do so. If true, this amounts to nothing less than "an insidious plot unprecedented in American history" – one that would, if successful, have destroyed American democracy and replaced it with what would amount to the beginnings of a permanent leftist dictatorship. 

No American, regardless of party preference, should fail to see the seriousness of these events. The Watergate break-in and the cover-up that followed made for a serious crime, but it was nothing compared to what is now alleged on the part of members of the Obama administration or on the part of Obama himself. Disclosures are at last moving forward, with House committees pressing for FBI and Justice documents and Sen. Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, requesting communications among Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, and others relating to the anti-Trump dossier.

If it is true that President Obama ordered Attorney General Lynch and Director Comey to avoid bringing charges against candidate Clinton and to spy on the Trump campaign with the intention of throwing the election to Clinton, and if high officials at the FBI knowingly requested a FISA warrant on the basis of evidence known to be false, these actions will represent the most serious political crimes in the history of the country.

The present-day atmosphere of political division does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of members of either party. Yet the Democratic Party has been radicalized to the extent that illegal behavior now seems to be an everyday reality. Hopefully, leaders within that party will realize the dangerous ground they are on and pull back before further crimes take place. If not, America will suffer even more division – in effect, a political civil war – with great damage to our republic.

As the extent of criminal activities of progressives within the FBI and Justice Department becomes known, the American people must understand the seriousness of what has taken place. It's possible that the result will be a massive "red wave" in the fall elections with the Democratic Party marginalized for years to come, or until it returns to civil political discourse. That would be a positive outcome and a just one, considering the seriousness of the alleged crimes.

It's also possible, and more likely, that progressives will dismiss the seriousness of whatever crimes have been committed and engage in even more desperate measures. If that happens, only the political will of the American people will stand in their way. 

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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