Friday, March 11, 2022

Saudi Arabia, UAE leaders not returning Biden's calls, disappointed with US - report - Tal Spungin

 

​ by Tal Spungin

The two Mideast countries are disappointed with the Iran nuclear deal, as well as the American response to Houthi terrorist attacks in recent weeks.

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud deliver remarks to reporters before meeting at the State Department in Washington, US, October 14, 2021 (photo credit: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST)
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud deliver remarks to reporters before meeting at the State Department in Washington, US, October 14, 2021
(photo credit: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST)

The leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been declining calls from US President Joe Biden for several weeks, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing officials in the Middle East and the United States.

The messages of dissatisfaction sent by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Emirati Shiekh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan come as the two leaders share concerns over the American response to recent missile and drone strikes from Yemen, claimed by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

The two nations are also reportedly disappointed with the state of negotiations in the ever-nearing Iran nuclear deal, according to the WSJ.

The deal, which IAEA chief Rafael Grossi called "very complex," does not account for Saudi and Emirati security interests, they claimed.

The US has been pushing to repair its relations with the two nations as it looks to stifle an oil crisis. Biden announced a ban on Russian oil imports on Tuesday as gas prices reach all-time highs globally.

"There was some expectation of a phone call [between Biden and MBS], but it didn’t happen," an American source told WSJ, adding that the call was intended to focus on "turning on the spigot [of Saudi oil]."

In addition, support from the Middle Eastern oil giants is increasingly important to the US in order to create a united front against Russia due to its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

US PRESIDENT Joe Biden holds a news conference in the East Room of the White House, on Wednesday. (credit: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS) US PRESIDENT Joe Biden holds a news conference in the East Room of the White House, on Wednesday. (credit: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS)

Saudi Arabia has long been disappointed with its reportedly deteriorating relationship with the US since Biden was sworn in, according to the report. Along with more support in Yemen, the Saudis are reportedly seeking assistance with their own civilian nuclear program, in addition to clarification on the legal position of MBS in the US due to lawsuits filed over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

In an interview with The Atlantic earlier this month, the Saudi crown prince commented on his relationship with Biden, stating he "does not care whether Biden misunderstood things about him."

The president should be "focusing on America's interests," MBS said, adding that he "does not have the right to lecture America and the same goes the other way."

The crown prince also reiterated, however, that Riyadh's objective was to maintain and strengthen its "long, historical" relationship with the US. 

 

Tal Spungin

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-700734

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Confirmed: There Was No January 6 ‘Insurrection’ - Robert Spencer

 

​ by Robert Spencer

A Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times reporter spills the truth on an undercover Project Veritas video.

 


The real journalists today aren’t working in propaganda mills such as the New York Times and CNN. The real journalists, the indefatigable hunters for truth of myth and legend, live on today in groups such as James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. Feared and hated by the establishment media that it exposes for what it really is (and really isn’t, i.e., a genuine news source), Project Veritas scores coup after coup by getting establishment “journalists” talking, and recording what they say. This time, New York Times National Security Correspondent Matthew Rosenberg has inadvertently blown the cover off the entire January 6 “insurrection” hoax, confirming what we knew all along, but couldn’t say over the din of media lies: there was no “insurrection.” There was hardly even a disturbance. The entire January 6 narrative is a Democrat Party/media fiction.

Rosenberg was caught on video saying everything that patriots have long suspected about January 6, and much more. He acknowledges that “there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.” In these days of a rogue, partisan FBI that aided in efforts to frame a duly elected president of the United States for collusion with Russia when no collusion took place, that isn’t at all hard to believe. The entire Washington establishment was dead set against Donald Trump and determined to destroy his presidency, and the FBI is an integral cog in that Washington machine.

As Project Veritas notes, in acknowledging this, Rosenberg contradicted his own report, in which he dismissed the idea that FBI informants were among the protestors as a “reimagining of Jan. 6.”

Project Veritas also caught Rosenberg saying that January 6 was “not a big deal as they [media] are making it, because they were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.” However, as recently as January 6, 2022, the first anniversary of the insurrection that wasn’t, Rosenberg was one of three Times writers credited with an article entitled: “The Next Big Lies: Jan. 6 Was No Big Deal, or a Left-Wing Plot.”

In that piece, Rosenberg, along with fellow propagandists Jim Rutenberg and Matthew M. Grynbaum, wrote: “Over the last year, that same self-nourishing loop — connecting the extremely online Trumpian grass roots to close Trump allies with national soapboxes and finally to the former president himself, plotting his comeback from Palm Beach exile — has circulated a furious array of rumor, innuendo, partial facts and outright lies to fill the right-wing media with alternative narratives of the first interruption in the peaceful transfer of power in American history.” Rumor, innuendo, partial facts and outright lies such as the assertion that January 6 wasn’t really an insurrection, which Rosenberg is now on record admitting.

According to O’Keefe, this Times article “was written around the same time as he was making contradictory statements to a Project Veritas undercover reporter.” In his conversation with the undercover Project Veritas operative, Rosenberg dismissed the idea that January 6 was the terrorist rampage of Leftist myth, saying: “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there outside and we were just having fun. I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building, and are like, ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’” He adds, “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind of place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’ These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”

They’re worse than that. They’re authoritarian propagandists who embody David Horowitz’s adage, “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” They’re engaged in a large-scale attempt to stigmatize and ultimately criminalize all dissent from the Leftist agenda. That, in fact, makes them the real “insurrectionists,” and if future free people write the history of the United States, they will be recognized as such. Matthew Rosenberg himself would have been among them, but now, with one unguarded conversation, he has done a great deal to blow their cover and destroy their whole endeavor. We can only hope.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/confirmed-there-was-no-january-6-insurrection-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinians: US Weakness Facilitates the Rise of Jihad and Fundamentalism - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

Washington's image in the Arab world has been battered to the point at which even its allies are beginning to challenge its policies and decisions, Atallah said.

  • "America is unable to decide on war against Russia, and therefore the US will not be a decision-maker in international politics." — Musa Abu Marzouk, member of the Hamas "politburo," Twitter, February 26, 2022.

  • As far as Hamas is concerned, the weaker the US the greater are their chances of fulfilling their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic state.

  • Articles 13 of the Hamas Charter states "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."

  • Washington's image in the Arab world has been battered to the point at which even its allies are beginning to challenge its policies and decisions, Atallah said.

  • "Biden [in his State of the Union speech] ignored the Afghanistan issue, especially in light of the confused [US] withdrawal. He was also cautious not to talk about relations with China so as not to provoke it. Biden's speech confirms with full clarity the loss of a consistent strategic vision with regard to central issues globally. This is a sign of the loss of the prestige of the great country [the US]. Biden's speech was a message of a historical recognition of the upcoming political defeat and the beginning of the birth of a new international order." — Hassan Asfour, former Palestinian Authority minister, Khbrpress.ps, March 2, 2022.

  • "When two Gulf countries refuse to support the US, this means the image of America in the region is deeply tarnished, and that there is a changing mood." — Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas official, Khbrpress.ps, March 4, 2022.

  • The Americans need to understand that no matter how many gifts they give to the Palestinians, that will not stop Hamas and many others from continuing to hate the US and look at it as an enemy.

  • Some Arabs hate the US because of its support for corrupt Arab dictatorships and its war against Islamist terrorist groups. Others see the US as a country that represents the anti-Muslim "infidels" in the West.

  • The only way for the Americans to deal with these Muslim extremists is by not showing any sign of weakness or appeasement. The weaker you are and the more you try to appease them, the bigger their appetite becomes to fight against the US.

  • Such voices coming from the Palestinians corroborate claims of the erosion of the US standing, especially among the Arabs. They are responding to an anemic US under the Biden administration that has forfeited its credibility as well as its capacity to stand behind its allies and friends. This US approach does not bode well for the future of the region. The pattern of weakness and inaction are being interpreted as a sign of cowardice posing as "caution," and as a green light to pursue jihadi and terrorist schemes and establish yet another Islamic fundamentalist state.

The Iranian-backed Hamas movement that controls the Gaza Strip sees the Russia-Ukraine war as evidence of the weakness of the Biden administration and the end of the status of the US as the world's sole superpower. "America is unable to decide on war against Russia, and therefore the US will not be a decision-maker in international politics," said Musa Abu Marzouk (pictured), a member of the Hamas "politburo." (Photo by Khaled Desouki/AFP via Getty Images)

Like many Palestinians and Arabs, the Iranian-backed Hamas movement that controls the Gaza Strip sees the Russia-Ukraine war as evidence of the weakness of the Biden administration and the end of the status of the US as the world's sole superpower.

The timidity of the Biden administration and the perceived decline of the US in the international arena are good news for Hamas, whose leaders are hoping that this will pave the way for them to achieve their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic fundamentalist state.

Musa Abu Marzouk, a member of the Hamas "politburo," said recently:

"The Russia-Ukraine war indicates that the era of America's unipolar role has ended. America is unable to decide on war against Russia, and therefore the US will not be a decision-maker in international politics..."

The Hamas leader seems predictably optimistic about the prospects of killing Jews and eliminating Israel under a weakened US. Abu Marzouk is so excited about the perceived decline of the US that he believes that now Hamas and the Palestinians can start talking about the "future" of the Middle East.

What future does Hamas and many Palestinians foresee?

The Hamas leaders deserve credit for being transparent about their ambitions and for reminding the world that Hamas remains committed to its 1988 Charter, which explicitly and unambiguously calls on Muslims to wage jihad (holy war) to displace both Israel and the Jews.

The charter expresses hatred of Jews by quoting a hadith (saying) attributed to the prophet Mohammed:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7).

In the charter, Hamas defines its slogan as follows:

"Allah is its goal, the prophet (Mohammed) its model, the Koran its constitution, jihad its path and death for the sake of Allah as the loftiest of its wishes." (Article 8).

The charter lays out the strategies and methods of Hamas as follows:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection. No one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it." (Article 11)

Articles 13 of the Hamas Charter states "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."

Last year, Hamas leaders celebrated the US "defeat" in Afghanistan and said it too was a sign of the weakness of the Americans in general and the Biden administration in particular.

In a phone call to congratulate the Taliban "foreign minister" on the "victory" after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Haniyeh, the Hamas leader who is currently based in Qatar, expressed hope that the Taliban will support the Palestinians in their war on Israel.

Another Hamas official, Sami Abu Zuhri, also expressed joy over the US "retreat" in Afghanistan.

The statements of the Hamas leaders show that they see the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and failure to take tough measures against Russia as signs of weakness and retreat. As far as Hamas is concerned, the weaker the US the greater are their chances of fulfilling their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic state.

Palestinian political analyst Akram Atallah also appears to comprehend the perception that the standing of the US has dramatically diminished as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. Washington's image in the Arab world has been battered to the point at which even its allies are beginning to challenge its policies and decisions, Atallah said.

He pointed out that the United Arab Emirates abstained on a US-led resolution to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations Security Council, due to the Gulf state's frustrations over the Biden administration's weak response to recent drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi by Yemen's Iranian-backed Houthi militia. Atallah also pointed out that Saudi Arabia recently rejected requests from the US to increase its production of oil in order to reduce prices.

"This reflects the self-confidence of the two [Arab] countries and their ability to challenge and contradict the demands and interests of the US... When two Gulf countries refuse to support the US, this means the image of America in the region is deeply tarnished, and that there is a changing mood. We are not only facing countries that may rediscover their strength, but also rediscover American weakness. Does America understand that the world is changing and that the wings of an eagle are weakened by factors of natural erosion and time?"

Hassan Asfour, a former Palestinian Authority minister, wrote that he too believes that the US has lost its "central" role in the Middle East. Asfour pointed out that Biden, in his State of the Union speech, did not make any reference to the Iranian nuclear issue and the negotiations in Vienna about reviving the 2015 nuclear deal. "It did not stop here," Asfour added.

"Biden [in his speech] ignored the Afghanistan issue, especially in light of the confused [US] withdrawal. He was also cautious not to talk about relations with China so as not to provoke it. Biden's speech confirms with full clarity the loss of a consistent strategic vision with regard to central issues globally. This is a sign of the loss of the prestige of the great country [the US]. Biden's speech was a message of a historical recognition of the upcoming political defeat and the beginning of the birth of a new international order." (Khbrpress.ps, March 2, 2022)

Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, wrote that America's "retreat can be seen in several areas in the world, such as what happened in the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan and its quest to reach an agreement with Iran."

Ahmed Issa, former Director General of the Palestine Institute for National Security Research, said that the current war shows that Israel can no longer rely on the US to play an influential role in the international arena.

The Americans need to understand that no matter how many gifts they give to the Palestinians, that will not stop Hamas and many others from continuing to hate the US, looking on it as an enemy and chanting, "America is the Great Satan!"

Some Arabs hate the US because of its support for corrupt Arab dictatorships and its war against Islamist terrorist groups. Others see the US as a country that represents the anti-Muslim "infidels" in the West.

The only way for the Americans to deal with these Muslim extremists is by not showing any sign of weakness or appeasement. The weaker you are and the more you try to appease them, the bigger their appetite becomes to fight against the US.

Fayez Abu Shamala, a political analyst from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, also sounded optimistic regarding the growing weakness of the US and its allies. He wrote:

"Today, NATO stands unable to protect its allies and is facing a rising Russian power. Some NATO countries want to be liberated from American hegemony. The coming days will bring many surprises. We, the Arabs and Palestinians, have nothing to do but watch events with great caution and ponder how to exploit the developments."

Such voices coming from the Palestinians corroborate claims of the erosion of the US standing, especially among the Arabs. They are responding to an anemic US under the Biden administration that has forfeited its credibility as well as its capacity to stand behind its allies and friends. This US approach does not bode well for the future of the region. The pattern of weakness and inaction are being interpreted as a sign of cowardice posing as "caution," and as a green light to pursue jihadi and terrorist schemes and establish yet another Islamic fundamentalist state.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18310/palestinians-jihad-fundamentalism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biolabs or Bioweapons Labs? - Pete Hoekstra

 

​ by Pete Hoekstra

[T]he major world powers must become more transparent and forthright regarding biomedical research

  • As for the biolabs in Ukraine, the U.S. has its own explanations. After the fall of the Soviet Union, according to PolitiFact, the U.S. Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has provided technical support to public health labs in Ukraine similar to our CDC. The labs are run by the host countries, contrary to claims, and the people quoted by PolitiFact say the accusations are pure propaganda from Russia and China without any basis.

  • Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party has been clear about its own intentions to develop and potentially use bioweapons... Chinese military scientists even suggest that World War III will be fought with biological weapons.

  • [T]he major world powers must become more transparent and forthright regarding biomedical research.... A simple misstep or miscalculation, however, could subject the world to a frightening pandemic that may create much greater damage than the COVID-19 virus or the current war in Ukraine. Now is the time for world leaders to respond to this emerging threat with greater transparency. Tomorrow may be too late.

The major world powers must become more transparent and forthright regarding biomedical research. A simple misstep or miscalculation could subject the world to a frightening pandemic that may create much greater damage than the COVID-19 virus or the current war in Ukraine. Pictured: Virologist Shi Zhengli (left) in a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on February 23, 2017. (Photo by Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)

Is there a clear distinction between biolabs and bioweapons laboratories? Here is how paper, written by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology student, discussed the issue:

"The argument isn't uncommon, referring to the fine line walked by scientists that can slide (and very occasionally has) from the helpful biological countermeasures to the deceitful biological weapons. The creation of the latter while claiming the former is known as dual-use research. In the 1950s, scientists were accused of this behavior when they developed a novel version of the polio virus, used to create the polio vaccine. Critics argued the release of this virus could decimate an unprepared population while the scientists tried to reassure them it was only for the beneficial cause of a miracle treatment."

In 2002, following the September 11 attacks and the anthrax letters, the United States allocated money to build two maximum containment biology labs. Called Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facilities, these labs were built to research new vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for emerging infectious diseases, potential biological weapons, and to contribute to the nation's biodefense. These labs were not the first dramatic reaction to the threat of biowarfare, and are in fact, one product of a long history of the country's contentious relationship with biological weapons.

This discussion was outlined in a thesis written in 2013 about a BSL-4 facility being considered for construction in the heart of Boston. These labs can be controversial even when governments are being fully transparent, and will certainly be controversial when governments are secretive -- because whether designed and intended for the public good, these labs can be converted easily for nefarious, dual-use purposes.

It is what many of us believe about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in China, where COVID-19 might have originated and leaked. The Wuhan laboratory was likely doing some scientific research, but a part of the facility also was under the control of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), doing bioweapons research.

The bottom line is that biomedical research, as indicated above, can provide tremendous benefits, but also can produce horrific pathogens that may kill millions. How do you distinguish when you suspect one country may be developing bioweapons and you want to be able to prevent them from being successful? That is the exact dilemma that the world finds itself in today.

The discussion about biolabs and bioweapons has become such a hot topic that it has become part of what one could call the propaganda war between Russia, China, and the U.S. The issue is so potent, that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, rightly warned that Russia could be setting a pretext for a "false flag" attack, after Russia recently alleged Ukraine was working with the U.S. on a secret bioweapons program.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made the claim that one of the reasons Russia needed to invade Ukraine was because of dangerous biolabs located in the country with potential stockpiles of bioweapons. It is not the first time Russia has made such a claim. It made the same accusation about a lab in the Republic of Georgia in 2018. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party has pointed to the U.S. Army biomedical research facility at Fort Dietrick in Maryland, claiming it was a potential source of the COVID-19 virus.

For its part, the U.S. has highlighted the work being done with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as one of the potential sources of the COVID-19 virus. This admission has led to an ongoing and vigorous debate about whether the virus was engineered or developed naturally.

It is ironic that the war in Ukraine has resulted in the calls by the Chinese government through its foreign ministry to clarify what American biolabs are doing and allow for multilateral inspections. The Chinese Communist government describes the work in these facilities as biological militarization. It is also ironic because in the case of Covid 19, the Chinese Communist Party government has restricted access to the Wuhan laboratory, destroyed information, and delayed the sharing of information on the virus with the world community. The Wuhan laboratory has never been opened to a multilateral, independent inspection team despite the world having experienced more than six million COVID-19 deaths.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party has been clear about its own intentions to develop and potentially use bioweapons. Colonel Guo Ji-wei and other PLA scientific researchers have promoted biological weapons and "bio-based" war in Chinese military journals. In "The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as genetic Bioweapons," Chinese military scientists even suggest that World War III will be fought with biological weapons.

As for the biolabs in Ukraine, the U.S. has its own explanations. After the fall of the Soviet Union, according to PolitiFact, the U.S. Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has provided technical support to public health labs in Ukraine similar to our CDC. The labs are run by the host countries, contrary to claims, and the people quoted by PolitiFact say the accusations are pure propaganda from Russia and China without any basis.

In fact, the Biden administration was so unconcerned with these claims that Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, gave an awkward answer to a simple question about the program in testimony before the Senate. Her response was seized upon immediately by Russia's state-controlled Russia Today and Glenn Greenwald, who is a major critic of support for Ukraine.

With COVID-19, the Wuhan lab, a hot war in Europe, and growing discussion about bioweapons -- whether it is propaganda or has some elements of truth -- the major world powers must become more transparent and forthright regarding biomedical research. Current medical breakthroughs are revolutionizing health care treatments available to everyone around the world. A simple misstep or miscalculation, however, could subject the world to a frightening pandemic that may create much greater damage than the COVID-19 virus or the current war in Ukraine. Now is the time for world leaders to respond to this emerging threat with greater transparency. Tomorrow may be too late.

 

Pete Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18313/biolabs-bioweapons-labs

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why the bid to destroy the fossil fuel industry when past predictions of doom have been completely wrong? - Jack Hellner

 

​ by Jack Hellner

They just don't stop, despite not having facts on their side.

News break: The Arctic ice in February was 5.64 million square miles, or 266,000 square miles below the average of 1981–1990.  That is 95.5% of the average

In February 2022, temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) ranged from 1 to over 8 degrees Celsius (2 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2010 average along the Eurasian coast and across the central Arctic Ocean (Figure 2a). However, cool conditions prevailed over much of Canada and Baffin Bay; temperatures were generally 2 to 7 degrees Celsius (4 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) below average.

So much for the greenie predictions that it would be gone soon.  It is not melting fast, nor gone.

Since temperatures were up a possible 14 degrees in one area of the Arctic and lower by as much as 13 degrees in another area, that shows there is no correlation among temperatures, fossil fuels, and CO2.  The climate is and has always been cyclical.

We've seen a lot of stories like this lately:

South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world

The average temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September, a frigid minus-78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average.

It is not possible that the entire continent of Antarctica would hit a six-month record cold in 2021, which also happened, if humans, fossil fuels, CO2, methane, and all the other things we are told cause global warming, or climate change were true.

Shouldn't government policies be based on factual scientific data instead of easily manipulated computer models, especially policies that remake or destroy so much that improves are quality and length of life?

No, the plan is political.

John Kerry said, inexplicably, that he hoped Putin would focus on climate change as he attacks Ukraine.

John Kerry blasted for saying he hopes Putin will focus on climate change as Russia attacks Ukraine

Kerry also has said climate change is a bigger worry in China than other things like genocide.

U.S. envoy John Kerry's diplomatic quest to stave off the worst scenarios of global warming is meeting resistance from China, the world's biggest climate polluter, which is adamant that the United States ease confrontation over other matters if it wants Beijing to speed up its climate efforts.

Anyone who believes that China, Russia, or Iran cares about its carbon footprint or complying with the Paris climate accord should have his head examined to see if his brain has been removed.

Anyone who believes that John Kerry, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, or others who have multiple mansions, fly in private jets, and have yachts care about their carbon footprint is extremely gullible.

I understand why teenage Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg believes what she believes — because she has been indoctrinated with the talking points every day of her life.

I do not understand how supposedly educated adults, like journalists, just repeat talking points pushing the agenda instead of doing actual research or asking questions.

Politicians in America and Europe who are actively seeking to destroy the fossil fuel industry are the reason why Vladimir Putin and the Russia he rules are powerful — and wealthy enough — to attack Ukraine. 

Biden is catering to tyrants in Iran and Venezuela instead of reversing his disastrous policies in the U.S.

Putin didn't attack anyone while Trump was in office, and Trump punished tyrants in Iran and Venezuela.

Trump's policies of lower taxes, fewer regulations, enforcing the border, and energy independence gave America great results.  His overriding goals were to transfer money, power, and freedom back to the people from the greedy government.

Data released by the Census Bureau today show that 2019 was a historic year for raising Americans' living standards. Real median household income reached a record high, and poverty reached a record low. Improvements in income and poverty were the largest in over 50 years. Minority groups — including black, Hispanic and Asian Americans — experienced the largest gains.

Real median household income increased by $4,400 in 2019, reaching an all-time record high of $68,700. This represents a 6.8 percent one-year increase, which is the largest one-year increase in median income on record. Since 2016, real median household income has increased by 9.7 percent (after adjusting for a Census survey redesign in 2017).

Income gains in 2019 were largest for minority groups. Real median income grew by 7.9 percent for black Americans, 7.1 percent for Hispanic Americans, and 10.6 percent for Asian Americans (see Figure 1). These one-year increases were all record highs, and the new income levels reached in 2019 were all record highs, as well.

Think of how much better Trump's results could have been if journalists and other Democrats hadn't fought him every step of the way as they sought to destroy him.  They resorted to peddling fictional conspiracies like the Russian collusion story to intentionally mislead the public and interfere in elections.

Biden's and other Democrats' overriding goal is to transfer as much money and power to the government and to make as many people dependent on the government as possible.

The disastrous policies to destroy the fossil fuel industry are decimating the poor, the middle class, and small business, and it is all based on computer models, not facts.

The harm, both short-term and long-term, is immeasurable, just like the mask and other mandates.

The solution Biden Cabinet members keep coming up with to solve the high gas prices: that the poor and middle class should just replace their gasoline cars with expensive, impractical electric vehicles powered by the flammable pollutant lithium.

It is not a serious suggestion.

Let's go Brandon!

 

Jack Hellner

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/why_the_bid_to_destroy_the_fossil_fuel_industry_when_past_predictions_of_doom_have_been_completely_wrong.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Putin, Biden, Iran, and Nuclear War - William Kilpatrick

 

​ by William Kilpatrick

How real is the threat?

 


One of the ironies of our times is that while Vladimir Putin threatens nuclear war, the Biden administration is anxious to enter into a nuclear deal with Iran which, critics say, will only serve to hasten Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

As the world contemplates the awful possibility of a Russian-inflicted nuclear holocaust, Biden is facilitating the emergence of a similar threat from a country that regards America as the “Great Satan.”

Would Putin actually carry through on his threat?  Some experts, such as Russia analyst Fiona Hill say that he would.  She points to what he has already done—in Syria, Chechnya, and now in Ukraine.  And she cites his obsession with returning Russia to its former greatness.

By contrast, other analysts maintain that although Putin cultivates a “madman” image—someone who might do anything—he is actually quite calculating.  He adds up the odds of what he can get away with, and adjusts his moves accordingly.

It’s difficult to say if Putin will use nukes. Maybe he’s bluffing, but it wouldn’t be wise to count on it.

But how about Iran?  If they had a supply of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would they use them?  No one can know for sure, of course, but my guess is that they would.

Why?  Because Iran’s clerical leaders would consider it a religious duty.  Fighting and dying for Allah is, for a religious Muslim, life’s highest calling.  That’s why martyrs are the most highly honored individuals in the Islamic world.  That’s why Palestinian youth are taught from an early age to emulate the martyrs.

The martyrs reward?  According to Koran 78: 31-33, “Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens for companions.”  The maidens are described in numerous passages in the Koran—sometimes as “bashful virgins”, sometimes as “dark-eyed virgins, sometimes as “dark-eyed houris.”  They recline on soft couches and dwell in shaded gardens surrounded by fruit trees, fountains, and running water.

How many “brides” are assigned to each martyr?  The Koran doesn’t say.  But according to Islamic tradition the number is 72.  Raymond Ibrahim notes that jihadi organizations regularly invoke the following saying which they attribute to Muhammad:

“The martyr is special to Allah.  He is forgiven from the first drop of blood [that he sheds].  He sees his throne in paradise…And he will copulate with seventy-two houris.”

Hmm… to the Western ear it sounds like an adolescent daydream.  But the Muslim mindset is quite different.  The promise of a harem-like paradise is taken quite seriously—if not by every Muslim, then by many.  It is, perhaps the main motivation for joining the jihad.

But if young men can be lured into battle by the allures of paradise, how about older men?  How about the aging mullahs of Iran who will decide if and when to use nuclear weapons?  Well, Islamic tradition maintains that jihadist of whatever age will enjoy almost supernatural sexual power in paradise.  And the mullahs will almost certainly be familiar with those traditions.

Moreover, waging jihad does not necessarily entail combat on the battlefield.  Pressing the nuclear button will do just fine.  And it might even be considered more meritorious since it will result in the death of many more of Allah’s enemies. 

And if the mullahs also die in a nuclear holocaust?  Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?  As jihadists like to say, “we love death more than you love life.”  Death means that you are immediately brought into the company of your 72 brides.

Death in the service of Allah also means that you are forgiven all your sins, and thus saved from the fires of hell.  That, of course, is another motive—for both young and old—to join the jihad.  On a per page basis, descriptions of hell are far more frequent in the Koran than in the ‘Bible.  And the descriptions of hell in the Koran are as appalling as the descriptions of paradise are appealing.

In short, there are good reasons to believe that Islamic states which develop nuclear weapons will have a strong incentive to use them.  Fortunately, the only Islamic state which does possess nuclear weapons has never used them.  Although there is much tension between Pakistan and neighboring India, and although Pakistan has possessed nuclear weapons for over two decades, it has had the good sense not to use them.

One possible explanation is that the leadership in Pakistan (at least until recently) has always been more moderate than the general populace.  Unfortunately, the reverse is true in Iran.  Ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran has been controlled by true believers—men who are more radical in their outlook than the people they rule.  Men, in short, who might be willing to risk all for the sake of Allah and for their heavenly reward.

Which brings us back to Vladimir Putin.  Theoretically, Putin’s Christian faith should act as a restraint on his conduct of the war in Ukraine.  Yet, Putin’s army attacks civilians, and targets them with cluster bombs and devastating hyperbaric “vacuum” bombs.  And he is responsible for similar—if not worse—atrocities in Syria, Chechnya and Georgia.  According to many observers, he is simply an evil madman.

But there’s another side to the story.  Many, both inside and outside Russia look upon Putin as a savior—a man who will resist the decadence of the West and restore Christendom to its rightful place.  And many of Putin’s statements and actions suggest that he shares this vision of his role.

It’s tempting to think that Putin is faking it—that he only puts on a show of religion in order to win the support of the Orthodox Church in Russia and of conservative Christians abroad.  But that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Putin does go to church, does confess himself to priests, and does receive communion, but he doesn’t advertise his faith in the way that other politicians—such as Joe Biden—do. In addition, Putin has done a great deal to reconstruct churches, monasteries, and shrines throughout Russia.  Moreover, his support for traditional families and his rejection of the LGBT movement seems genuine.  One of his complaints against Ukrainian leaders is that they are decadent “Nazis.”

At first glance it looks as though we have to choose between two possibilities—either Putin the evil madman or Putin the Christian hero.

But there is another possibility—namely, that Putin, ‘though a Christian, has a poor understanding of his faith. As with other Christians, it’s probable that he has adopted a pick and choose approach to his faith. In his case, that means a focus on the militant aspect of Christianity and a neglect of the peaceful. In other words, he seems to have compartmentalized his faith.  We can assume, for instance, that he assents to the Gospel injunction to “love your neighbor.”  However, based on his actions, we can also assume that he’s not going to let the injunction interfere with his ambitions for himself and Russia.

Putin may hardly be aware of the inconsistency, or else, like many Christians, he has learned to rationalize his behavior.  Or worse, perhaps he mistakes his own will for God’s will.  Such a mistake is not at all uncommon in leaders who possess absolute power.

In short, though Christian belief often does act to put a brake on evil impulses, there is no guarantee that it will always have that effect.  Given Putin’s record of invading and brutalizing other countries, and his seeming conflation of Christianity and Russian nationalism, it would be unwise to assume that his nuclear threat is nothing more than a bluff.

Of course, it would be equally unwise to assume that the Islamic Republic of Iran wouldn’t use nuclear weapons once it had acquired enough of them.  One might think that the certainty of a devastating counter-attack from Israel (or the U.S.) would give them pause.  But the Cold War theory that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will deter nuclear war doesn’t apply to cultures that look upon death in combat as the prelude to entering an eternal garden of delights.

The other party whose religious beliefs should be a matter of concern to all is President Joe Biden. ‘Though ostensibly a Catholic, Biden has a habit of interpreting Catholic teachings to suit his own interests and inclinations. It wouldn’t be surprising if he mistakenly thinks that “love your enemy” means “trust your enemy.” Thus far, in his dealings with tyrants and state-controlled corporations, Biden’s trust in their good will has enriched him personally. But it seems fair to say that the rest of us have only been put in greater danger.

 

William Kilpatrick is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  His books include Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West (Ignatius Press), What Catholics Need to Know About Islam (Sophia Press), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/putin-biden-iran-and-nuclear-war-william-kilpatrick/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

This Invasion Is Brought to You by ... Western Environmentalists - Dennis Prager

 

​ by Dennis Prager

What do environmentalists and Putin have in common?

 

 

For more than 40 years, the environmentalist movement has been warning that global warming is the result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and poses an "existential threat" to human and other biological life.

This is one of the many grandiose lies the Left uses to reshape, if not destroy, Western civilization. Other grandiose lies used to achieve that result include America being systemically racist; that violent crime is the result of racism and poverty; men give birth; sex and gender are "nonbinary"; and that former President Donald Trump was a Russian asset.

It should now be obvious that the "Greens," the environmentalist movement — not global warming — pose an existential threat to humanity. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the world faces the possibility of a nuclear war. Russia is explicitly threatening use of nuclear weapons should the West come to the defense of Ukraine and has put its military on nuclear alert. Given the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin is deranged, the threat is far more real than it was in 1962 when Nikita Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union. Putin believes he embodies Russia (just as Hitler believed he embodied Germany). Khrushchev did not believe he embodied Russia.

Were it not for the green movement, Putin would not have been confident that he could get away with invading Ukraine. During Trump's presidency, and due to his policies, the United States became independent of foreign oil for the first time. Within months of assuming power, the Democratic Party, an extension of the environmentalist movement, forced America to revert to dependence on foreign oil, including Russian oil. Beholden to the environmentalists, candidate Joe Biden made promise after promise to curtail oil and gas production: no new fracking on government land, no drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, and shutting down the Keystone pipeline.

Putin got the message.

So, thanks to environmentalists, not only is America once again dependent on foreign oil, Germany is dependent on Russian oil. Angela Merkel, another in a long line of foolish Germans, even shut down Germany's nuclear reactors — which the greens in Germany applauded. They applauded it — despite the fact that nuclear energy is the only viable non-carbon energy that can sustain a country — because the environmentalist movement is not nearly as interested in the environment as it is in restructuring society. The environmentalist movement is as interested in protecting the environment as the communist movement was in protecting workers or the defund-the-police movement is in protecting blacks.

The Democrats came into power in 2021. The average closing price of oil in 2020 was $39.68 a barrel; the closing price of oil in 2019 was $56.99 a barrel. As of this writing it is $138.00 a barrel. The extremely high price of energy — a direct result of the environmentalist policies of the Democratic Party and the liberal and Left parties in Europe — is one of the two primary reasons for the ever-increasing rate of inflation. (The other reason is the result of another Democrat policy: the printing of trillions of dollars.)

Serious inflation leads to very bad things. The Nazis did not come to power because of their antisemitism or even because of the Versailles Treaty as much as they did because of the terrible inflation under the Weimar Republic.

And any day now, the Biden administration will announce an agreement with Iran that will enable Iran to take in billions of dollars for its oil. Yet another victory for Biden, the Democrats and the environmentalists. This agreement, brokered — incredibly — by Russian diplomats, will enable Iran to sponsor worldwide terror, resuscitate Iran's economy and continue its quest for nuclear bombs.

But none of this matters to Biden, the Democratic Party, The New York Times or any other left-wing institution — so strong is the grip of the environmentalist cult and so influential are the uber-wealthy environmentalists who support the Left. They would rather see Ukraine destroyed, the potential for a nuclear war and the decimation of the world economy than allow fracking, drilling or even an oil pipeline between Canada and the United States.

Concern for the environment is a good thing, but the environmentalist movement is not.

Environmentalists use the environment to create a social revolution just as communists used workers to create a social revolution.

Its activists are fanatics.

Its consequences are nihilism.

Environmentalists are, intentionally or not, in collusion with Putin to undermine America and the West.

 

Dennis Prager

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/invasion-brought-you-western-environmentalists-dennis-prager/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Robert Spencer vs. Joseph Puder: How Much Should We Get Involved in Ukraine? - Frontpagemag.com

 

​ by Frontpagemag.com

A Frontpage Mag exchange.

 


Frontpagemag Editors' note: Below is an exchange between Frontpage contributors Robert Spencer and Joseph Puder on Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- and what America and the West must do about it. We hope our readers will find this dialogue/debate between two of Frontpage's finest to be thought-provoking and enlightening.

Joseph Puder: The West Has Not Learned The Lessons of World War II.

We need a Churchill in the White House, not a feeble Chamberlain.

The scenes of the Russian invasion into Ukraine are reminiscent of 81 years ago when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in what was called “Operation Barbarossa.” Nazi troops stormed the Ukraine fields with thousands of tanks and Stuka dive bombers. Behind them was Hitler’s Einsatzgruppen, SS murderers set out to murder every Jew in the territories of Ukraine that the Nazi army occupied.  

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, has copied the same tactics. Claiming his armies were merely on military maneuvers and that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he ordered his armies with thousands of soldiers, tanks, and jets to invade Ukraine. In 1939, Adolf Hitler, who had committed Germany not to attack the Soviet Union under the Treaty of Non-Aggression known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, broke the treaty and invaded the Soviet Union with massive force. And, like the murderous Nazi Einsatzgruppen, Putin sent a similar group of Chechen murderers to assassinate Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and members of his government.   

Hitler, in the summer of 1941, already had Europe almost entirely under his brutal boot, but his “lebensraum” or living space concept, which he specified in his book, “Mein Kampf,” and speeches, required him, in his mind to remove the Slavic and other so-called non-Aryan peoples in Eastern Europe from their land and populate them with German people. So naturally, Hitler was not going to stop anywhere ‘while the going was good.’    

Let us be clear, Putin is not Hitler, he is not the sadist, and antisemitic murderer that Hitler was. Nevertheless, he too has a dream of restoring to Russia the title of the super-power that the Soviet Union became after World War II. He is a Russian nationalist whose formative years in the Soviet Union were spent absorbing Soviet propaganda, and subsequently becoming a KGB officer. It made him a staunch believer in Russian power. His father fought with the Red Army in WWII, and his native Leningrad suffered enormously during World War II. He also learned from the example that Hitler had provided, that when your potential enemies are weak, it is time to strike.  

Hitler had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to deal with. An appeaser who desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs, and indeed, the costs were much higher for Britain and the world for not recognizing that evil can only be stopped by force and not by appeasement. Had the allies stopped Hitler early on in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland, World War II would never have occurred. Even in 1938, before Hitler annexed by force the Czechoslovakian territory of the Sudetenland under the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Chamberlain sold out the Czechs, and got in return World War II. Had the western powers used the military option, the German military High Command (the Wehrmacht) would have removed Hitler from power, as was revealed in later years.   

Putin, like Hitler, views US President Joe Biden as weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain. A person who refuses to use the military option with the radical regime of the Ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and would certainly not dare to challenge Russia’s military might. Putin figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia. Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.  

It is apparent to Putin that President Biden and the other major western leaders fear him enough not to challenge his actions other than with words and economic sanctions that hitherto have had little impact on Putin and his regime. He took Crimea in March, 2014 from Ukraine, and the Obama administration’s reaction was so anemic that it only encouraged him to go further and initiate the separatist violent rebellion against the Ukrainian government in the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine), less than a month later. As the case of the US imposed sanctions on Iran has proven, sanctions cannot alter the behavior of a radical authoritarian regime, and only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course.   

There was a time when the US did just that, used the military option. President John F. Kennedy did it during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; he took military action after diplomacy failed. True, the Soviet missiles in Cuba posed an existential threat to the US… And yet, President Lyndon Johnson did it in the Middle East, when the Soviet Union threatened to send its troops to aid Syria against Israel during the Six Day War of June 1967.  

Uri Bar-Noi, in a report for the Wilson Center dealing with the Soviet Union and the Six Day War had written his article based on revelations from the Polish government archives, “The Soviet Union military took practical steps to assist Syria in stopping the advance of Israeli troops into Syrian territory toward the end of the war. These steps included a naval landing, airborne reinforcement, and air support for ground operations. Military operations were, however, eventually aborted for fear of American retaliation.” President Johnson responded by putting American forces on standby, ready to respond to the Soviet’s moves.   

In today’s climate of near pacifism in the US and the western world, there are no Churchills to be found. There is however one inspiring Churchill-like person and that is the leader of Ukraine – President Volodymyr Zelensky. He alone has stood up to the bullying of Vladimir Putin with the determination of David facing Goliath, and that in spite of the odds facing him. He inspired his people and the world by taking on a nuclear superpower with its enormous military machine and an abundance of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. He alone put into deeds what it means to fight for freedom, and human dignity. 

While Biden and others filled the airwaves with platitudes, they fear facing the Russian bear. Fortunately for Winston Churchill, he was able to, after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) enjoy the benefits of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Zelensky and Ukraine remain alone in fighting an unrestrained aggressor. Sadly, never has America needed a Churchill more in the White House than now. Instead, we have a feeble Chamberlain. 

*

Robert Spencer Responds: What Are the Real Lessons of World War II?
It’s true: we need a Churchill, but we don’t need a world war.

It’s interesting that Joseph Puder begins his article calling for the U.S. to stand up much more firmly to Putin than it is doing now by likening the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine to the German army’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Puder doesn’t mention the fact that many Ukrainians fought tenaciously on the side of the Nazis in that conflict; nor does he mention that fighting in Ukraine now against the Russians is the Azov Battalion, a gang of actual neo-Nazis, not the kind the establishment media sees whenever a guy goes out wearing a MAGA hat. Nor are they some outliers: in 2014, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called them “our best warriors.”

This is not to say that Russia’s invasion is justified, or that Americans should not support Ukraine’s resistance; it’s only meant to illustrate that sometimes matters are much more complicated than meets the eye, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a quintessential example of that.

Puder is correct that Neville Chamberlain “desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs,” and appeasement failed before World War II and will fail to stop Putin. He is also correct that Putin, like everyone else on the face of the earth, sees Old Joe Biden as “weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain.” According to Puder, Putin “figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia.” He sees Putin’s statement that this would be considered an act of war as an empty threat: “Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.”

It is undoubtedly true that Putin sees Biden as weak. It is less certain that if the U.S. sets up a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the Russians will not see it as a casus belli and start World War III. And as odious as Putin’s actions in Ukraine are, they aren’t our fight. Volodymyr Zelensky, for all his heroism, is tied into the World Economic Forum cabal. Ukraine is a corrupt kleptocracy with still-unexplained ties to the Biden family; it was a Ukrainian energy firm that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job for which he was completely unqualified, in an obvious case of buying influence. Except for brief periods, Ukraine was part of Russia for a thousand years, until 1991. Putin may go on from Ukraine to menace NATO states, and that could be a legitimate casus belli, but Ukraine is no hill to die on, or to start a world war on. It is not actually the United States’ responsibility to solve the problems of all the people in the world, and there will always be tyrants, and invasions, and occupations. We can’t fix them all, especially with our woke military spending time on gender theory that it could be spending on learning to fight.

In this connection it is important to recall that even as the Nazis stormed across Europe in 1939, 1940, and 1941, swiftly conquering Poland, Norway, France and more, the United States did not enter the war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted very much to get into the war, but he could not sell to the American people the idea that it was the responsibility of the American people to fight for Poland, or Norway, or France. It was much more widely understood then than it is now that the United States of America is not the world’s policeman or repair man, and will only expend its resources fruitlessly when it tries to act as such (see, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Roosevelt didn’t enter the war, in fact, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11. It was at that point, and not before then, that World War II became our fight. Roosevelt had given all manner of aid to the British before Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Biden’s handlers, if they have any spine at all, should do the same in this case, but the idea that, as Puder says, “only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course” runs the risk of provoking a real war, one that could be far more catastrophic than any war the planet has seen up to now.   

There is no doubt that Puder is right: America needs a Churchill in the White House. But when Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain, the war in Europe had already been raging for eight months. He didn’t start the war by reckless actions in a conflict that did not involve his country. We need a prudent leader of his type now, one who will know how much is enough and how much is too much in dealing with Putin. As it is, our feckless State Department and dementia-ridden president are foolishly writing checks their woke military can’t cash.

*

Joseph Puder Responds: Evil, If Not Stopped, Will Swallow Us All.

If Vladimir Putin wants a global nuclear war, he could choose multiple reasons to serve as a casus belli and wage war. If pressed hard by western sanctions, including the cutting off of his oil and gas revenues, he is as likely to consider it a casus belli, and turn against the NATO allies. Putin, I have no doubt, feels just as intensely about his economic strangulation as he does about a no-fly zone in and around Lviv, to protect the fleeing Ukrainian refugees, should the US and NATO allies consider imposing it.

Robert Spencer is correct about Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and I should add the rabid antisemitism on the part of many Ukrainians during WWII, and even to some extent today. Naturally, there were some Ukrainians who saved Jews as well. My own parents escaped being murdered by Ukrainians during WWII. My mother’s courage and Russian troops nearby saved them from certain death. Modern Ukraine is different, it seeks to be democratic, and share western values, and Volodymyr Zelensky is not Petro Poroshenko. In the late 1930’s or 1940’s, the thought of a Jewish president in Ukraine would have been impossible. Today, Ukraine looks to the west – not to the east, and it should be embraced.

Spencer isn’t exactly accurate when asserting that “the Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years.” In fact, Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital. The Kievan state existed until the year 1240, when the Mongol hordes crushed it. Actually, Putin has claimed Ukraine for historical and religious (Russian Orthodoxy) reasons. He forgets however that Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia. Kiev originated the Cyrillic alphabet, and Russian Orthodoxy.

Let’s be clear, I am not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia; understandably, such a conflict could lead to World War III and an end to life as we know it. We must however understand that Putin is not some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west, and his Mother Russia. He is though, succeeding in intimidating the west. When he took Crimea and effectively tore the Donbas region out of Ukraine, the Obama administration and its western allies whimpered, and condemned, but did nothing. And when Obama set up a “red line” against the Syrian dictator upon his use of chemical weapons on his people, he pathetically let it slide…President Joe Biden’s responses to foreign aggression is even more pathetic, as we have seen last year in the Afghanistan debacle.  

Putin believes that Russia has some justified reasons to fear the expansion of NATO eastward, and at the same time, he seeks to recreate the former Soviet Union. A child of Soviet propaganda, Putin envisions a superpower Russia with all the natural resources of its former republics such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. In a 2014 interview with the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, he (Gorbachev) stated that he thought that the NATO enlargement and incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries was a “big mistake,” and a “violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made in 1990.

All of the above notwithstanding, Ukraine held democratic elections, and elected Volodymyr Zelensky as president. The Ukrainian people, moreover, have the right to determine their future, a right Putin does not have. And, if the people of Ukraine choose to join NATO, or the EU, as a sovereign state they have the right to do so.

The real question is where will Putin stop? Will he be satisfied with subjugating Ukraine against the will of most of its people? Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary, all of them border Ukraine; will he push further into these states to punish them for supporting Ukraine? Putin is obviously not deterred by the likes of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emanuel Macron, or Olaf Scholz. He recognizes the near pacifism in the western world, and he is not frightened by western economic sanctions, since they have not hitherto impacted him personally, or for that matter, Russia.  

Spencer is correct about FDR wanting to fight Nazi Germany but he could not sell the American people on entering the war to save Poland, France, or other conquered nations. There is a difference however this time around. Article 5 of the NATO charter specifies that the US is committed to fight against any aggression committed against a fellow NATO member. True, Ukraine is not yet a NATO member, and therefore the US has no legal obligation to protect it. But the American people today are far less isolationist than in the 1930’s or the period just before Pearl Harbor. Most Americans see it as a moral obligation to defend innocent civilians, and they are aghast by Russia’s naked aggression. I agree with Spencer that “America is not the world’s policeman,” but we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.

While acknowledging Joe Biden's desire for world peace and avoidance of war is understandable, warning Putin with a credible military option against further Russian expansion is essential. At some point a no-fly-zone will become an imperative. Sadly, America needs a Churchill in the White House right now. Instead, it seems, we have a Chamberlain.

*

Robert Spencer Responds: There's a Fine Line Between Strength and Provocation.

Joseph Puder is certainly correct that if Vladimir Putin wants war with the United States, he could start it now, trumpeting any number of actions by the U.S. and its allies, from expanding NATO ever eastward to arming Ukraine and more, as the reasons why he had no choice but to declare war. It is clear by now that he doesn’t want a world war, which would almost certainly be a nuclear war of unimaginable devastation, any more than Joe Biden and his handlers do. But Puder believes, not without reason, that Biden’s handlers can and should present a much stronger front to Putin, and that doing so would deter the Russian from continuing to pursue his expansionist goals. While strength is always to be preferred to appeasement of a tyrant, however, the current regime of socialist internationalists and spineless dreamers cannot be trusted to know what constitute a reasonable show of strength and what constitutes an unwarranted provocation.

Take, for example, that expansion of NATO. In his February 24 speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine, Putin said: “In December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us, continuing to pursue their own goals and disregarding our interests.”

If this is true, it is not hard to imagine Antony Blinken and his team too concerned with making sure the State Department had the right number of racial minorities and proper instruction in Critical Race Theory to concern themselves with Putin’s overtures. They could have and should have known that Russia considers the expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics to be an unacceptable attempt to encircle Russia, as Putin explained in his speech: “I am referring to the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies, or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders.”

One doesn’t have to accept Putin’s argument or consider his invasion of Ukraine justified to see that his characterization of Biden’s imperious, elitist State Department is entirely plausible. It is important to point this out now, after the invasion, because the same ham-handed, blinkered, pseudo-intellectual Leftists whose short-sightedness and wrongheadedness let the invasion happen in the first place are still in charge. If a show of strength to Putin can be bungled, they can be counted upon to bungle it.

As for Puder’s claim that it is not accurate to say that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years,” he actually demonstrates that it is accurate by noting that “Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital.” One may quibble over whether Kievan Rus was Russian or Ukrainian, but the telling fact is that it was both, and that throughout history the two have been more one people than two. The fact that, as Puder claims I forgot but which was actually the basis of my argument, it is true that “Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia,” and that is precisely why Putin believes he has a claim to it. This is not to say that Ukraine should not be independent, unless one wishes also to argue that Austria and Germany should be one state, a proposition I am not at all disposed to favor.

Puder says that he is “not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia,” but the weak and feckless socialist policy wonks who inhabit Biden’s State Department and entire administration have never demonstrated anything comparable to the judiciousness and wisdom of Churchill or anyone else who ever brought a major war to a successful conclusion. Puder is in effect asking that Biden’s gang of arrogant, miseducated children, with no understanding of history, culture, religion, or economics stand up to a canny, unscrupulous, utterly ruthless authoritarian. The consequences of their miscalculation, and the hopeless Blinken is certain to miscalculate, would be, as Puder says “World War III and an end to life as we know it.” Putin may not be, as Puder says, “some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west,” but the foreign policy establishment is a bunch of self-infatuated grad students with no understanding of how the world works; he can and would take advantage of their attempts to draw some “red line” that both he and they would know from the outset was spurious.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is a corrupt kleptocracy that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job in a field in which he had no experience, in an obvious attempt to curry favor with Joe Biden. It was a phone call with Zelensky that got Trump impeached, in an obvious partisan witch-hunt, the first time. This is not to say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, or that Putin is not a scoundrel, or that the Ukrainians are not noble in resistance, or that Zelensky is not courageous. But once again, this is not our fight, and making it our fight could so easily spiral out of control that it is imperative that we keep a cool head amid all the prevailing war fever. Haven’t we learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan yet?

Puder admits that Ukraine is not in NATO and so we have no obligation to defend it, but thinks that we should anyway, for “we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.” Well, yes. But that’s why NATO has members and non-members. We are bound, for better or worse, to defend NATO’s members. If this means that we have an obligation to fight evil anywhere else in the world that it may appear, we might as well bring every country in the world into NATO, so that it is clear that we are obligated to fight for them all and to combat evil wherever and whenever it may break out.

That may be a wonderful sentiment, but it is utterly impracticable. Our resources are not infinite, and our self-serving, corrupt leaders are already pouring out our substance for all manner of boondoggles that benefit the American people not a whit. At some point, the gravy train is going to run out. What we really need is a strong America-First president, who would have made clear to Putin from the outset that his adventurism would have terrible consequences, and who would have always acted in the best interests of the American people. If only there were someone on the scene like that.

*

Joseph Puder is a regular Frontpage Mag contributor. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Frontpagemag.com

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/03/spencer-vs-puder-should-we-go-war-over-ukraine-frontpagemagcom/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter