Donald Trump Boosts Europe's Anti-Establishment Movement - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Donald Trump's electoral victory has come as a shock to Europe's political and media establishment, which fears that the political sea change underway in the United States will energize populist parties in Europe.

• "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!" — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), and now on trial in the Netherlands for free speech.
• "2016 is, by the looks of it, going to be the year of two great political revolutions. I thought Brexit was big but boy this looks like it is going to be even bigger." — Nigel Farage, MEP and leader of the UK Independence Party.
• "The political class is reviled across much of the West, the polling industry is bankrupt and the press just hasn't woken up to what's going on in the world." — Nigel Farage.
• "In a democracy, when the people feel ignored and despised, they will find a way to be heard. This vote is the consequence of a revolt of the middle class against a ruling elite that wants to impose what they should think." — Laurent Wauquiez, leader of the French opposition party The Republicans.

Donald Trump's electoral victory has come as a shock to Europe's political and media establishment, which fears that the political sea change underway in the United States will energize populist parties in Europe.

Anti-establishment politicians, many of whom are polling well in a number of upcoming European elections, are hoping Trump's rise will inspire European voters to turn out to vote for them in record numbers.

Commenting on Trump's victory, Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, wrote: "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"

More than a dozen elections will be held in Europe during the next twelve months, beginning with a re-run of the Austrian presidential election scheduled for December 4. Polls show that Norbert Hofer, of the anti-immigration Austrian Freedom Party, is on track to win that race.

Also on December 4, Italians will vote in a referendum on reforming the constitution. Observers say Trump's victory will make it more difficult for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, one the few world leaders publicly to endorse Hillary Clinton, to prevail. They say Renzi's open support for Clinton will hurt Italy's relations with the United States. Renzi has said he will resign if he loses the referendum, which calls for curbing the role of the Senate. Most opinion polls show the "no" camp ahead. Renzi says the move will simplify decision-making, but opponents say it will reduce checks and balances.

General elections are scheduled in 2017 for the Czech Republic, France, Germany and the Netherlands, EU countries where anti-establishment candidates are challenging the established order.

Mainstream politicians and the media have sought to discredit populist leaders by branding them as neo-Nazi and xenophobic for their opposition to mass migration, multiculturalism and the rise of Islam in Europe. If Donald Trump can demonstrate that he is able to govern the United States and produce tangible results, especially by growing the economy and curbing illegal immigration, Europe's political establishment will have a much harder time stigmatizing dissenters.

Anti-establishment politicians in Europe, such as Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders (left) in the Netherlands and UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage (right), have embraced Donald Trump and hope his rise will inspire European voters to turn out to vote for them in record numbers.

What follows is a selection of official European reactions to Trump's election victory. Anti-establishment politicians have embraced Trump, while establishment politicians have mostly issued pro forma congratulatory statements that are polite but formal and distant.

Austria. The leader of the Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, congratulated Trump on Facebook. He wrote:

"Little by little, the political left and the out-of-touch and corrupt establishment is being punished by voters and driven from power. This is a good thing, because the law comes from the people. The Austrian mainstream media, which has been campaigning against Trump for weeks and prematurely declared Hillary Clinton the victor, were embarrassed by the voting public."

Belgium. The populist Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party congratulated Trump and said his unexpected election victory could be repeated in Europe. Party chairman Tom Van Grieken tweeted: "U.S. election shows again how far politicians are from the people." In another tweet, he wrote: "The rise of Trump is not an isolated phenomenon. In Europe too, more and more voters want real change."

Britain. Prime Minister Theresa May said:

"I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on being elected the next President of the United States, following a hard-fought campaign. Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise. We are, and will remain, strong and close partners on trade, security and defense."

The leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, who successfully campaigned for the "Brexit" referendum for Britain to leave the European Union, said Trump's victory did not surprise him. He tweeted:

"2016 is, by the looks of it, going to be the year of two great political revolutions. I thought Brexit was big but boy this looks like it is going to be even bigger."

He also tweeted: "I hand over the mantle to @RealDonaldTrump! Many congratulations. You have fought a brave campaign."

Speaking to ITV, Farage said: "The political class is reviled across much of the West, the polling industry is bankrupt and the press just hasn't woken up to what's going on in the world."

Czech Republic. President Milos Zeman said Trump's election was a victory over "media manipulation." He said:

"I would like to cordially congratulate Donald Trump. I had, as one of few European politicians, declared public support for this candidate because I agree with his opinions on migration as well as the fight against Islamic terrorism. I appreciate Donald Trump's public demeanor. He speaks clearly, sometimes roughly, but understandably, and avoids what is sometimes called political correctness."

European Union. European Council President Donald Tusk wrote:

"Europe and the United States simply have no option but to cooperate as closely as possible. I listened with attention to President-elect Trump's call for American unity. And I, in turn, would like to call for European and transatlantic unity. I do not believe that any country today can be great in isolation. But I do believe that America and Europe can, should and will work together. It is in our common interest. We have to recognise that this will take major efforts from both sides. The EU is a strong and reliable partner and will remain so. We expect the same from America and its new President."

France. President François Hollande tweeted: "The American people have expressed themselves. They elected Donald Trump. I congratulate him. I am also thinking of Hillary Clinton."

The French Ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, tweeted: "This is the end of an epoch. After Brexit and this vote anything is possible. The world is crumbling in front of our eyes." He later deleted the tweet.

Former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said: "What's happening in the US could happen in France."

Former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said: "The boundaries of reason disappeared with Brexit, the main lesson for France is that Le Pen can win."

Laurent Wauquiez, leader of the opposition party The Republicans, said: "In a democracy, when the people feel ignored and despised, they will find a way to be heard. This vote is the consequence of a revolt of the middle class against a ruling elite that wants to impose what they should think."

The leader of the National Front party, Marine Le Pen, tweeted: "Congratulations to the new president of the United States Donald Trump and the free American people!"

Le Pen's father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, tweeted: "Today the United States, tomorrow France."

Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who did not mention Trump by name, lectured the president-elect on values:

"Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. I offer the next president of the United States close cooperation on the basis of these values."

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was less gracious. He said:

"Trump is the harbinger of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. He is also a warning for us. Our country and Europe must change if we want to counter the authoritarian international movement."

Foreign Minister Foreign Frank-Walter Steinmeier said:

"We hope that we are not facing greater instability in international politics. During his campaign, Trump was critical not just of Europe, but also of Germany. I believe we must prepare for American foreign policy becoming less predictable. We must prepare for a situation in which America will be tempted to make decisions on its own more often.
"I do not want to sugarcoat it: Nothing will be easier and much will be more difficult. Just as we Germans learned a lot in the past from our American friends, we should now encourage our American friends to stay true to past partnerships and to us."

Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Trump's victory was "a big shock" and "not a vote for him but rather against Washington, against the establishment." She added:

"Of course we Europeans, as a NATO ally, know that if Donald Trump becomes president, he'll ask: What are you contributing to this alliance? But we're also wondering, what's your position on this alliance?"

Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: "The world won't end. But it will get crazier."

The leader of the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, Frauke Petry, predicted that Trump's victory would result in a political change in Europe too. On Facebook, she wrote:

"It was high time that in the United States of America, people who feel disaffected withdrew their vote for the political establishment. While 93% of voters in Washington, DC voted for Clinton in order to retain their own power structures, the majority of voters across the country want a political new beginning, an economic recovery for the stricken middle class and an end of division in what is still the most powerful country in the world.
"This election result is encouraging for Germany and for Europe, because Trump really has the cards for political sea-change in his hand. I congratulate Donald Trump on his election victory and on this historic chance....
"Like Americans, citizens of Germany must have the courage to put a tick in the ballot box and not remain complacent. Their opinion counts, even if political correctness would appear to have elevated the decreed consensus to the level of a new doctrine."

Beatrix von Storch, an AfD Member of the European Parliament, wrote:

"Donald Trump's victory is a clear signal that citizens of the Western world want political change. This is a surprise only to the establishment. In the USA as well as Germany, citizens wish for secure borders, less globalism, and politics that focus with common sense on issues in their own country."

Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wrote on Facebook: "What great news. Democracy is still alive."

Italy. The founder of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, hailed Trump's victory. He wrote:

"This is proof that these millions of demagogues are not the people, they are journalists, intellectuals, anchored to a world that no longer exists. There are similarities between these events in America and our movement.... We are going to govern and they will ask: 'But how did they do it?' They channelled the collective anger."

The Netherlands. Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders said:

"America regained its national sovereignty, its identity, it reclaimed its own democracy, that's why I call it a revolution.
"Now there is a leader, despite all the negativity spread about him by the political elite and the press, that has only one concern, and that is the national interest of the voters of America who are concerned about immigration, who are concerned about the job loss as a result of globalization, who are concerned about the Islamization of their society. And he tends to say the truth and convince people that if they start moving, anything is possible, and I believe the historical event of yesterday will have an enormous effect on European politics as well.
"The lesson for Europe is, what America can do we can do as well."

In an essay published by Breitbart, Wilders wrote:

"Yesterday, the American people made it quite clear that they do not want to follow in Western Europe's footsteps. They do not want to give their country away. They want to preserve their nation, their freedoms, their prosperity. They felt the time for liberation had come.
"The American voters no longer want to be represented by politicians who do not take their concerns seriously. They felt Donald Trump was the only one who listens to them....
"America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9309/trump-europe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

'People Have to Die': Unhinged Leftist Protests Greeted by Media Silence - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Awaiting the condemnations of anti-Trump protesters' culture of extremism and violence.

Leftist groups wasted no time organizing protests in cities and campuses across the country, with marchers cursing the election of Donald Trump and yelling slogans such as “Not my President.” In some cases, the protesters went beyond mere strident rhetoric. They turned into mobs, threatening and assaulting people whom they thought were Trump supporters. They threw bottles at police. They set fires and defaced property.

While President Obama and Hillary Clinton have made general calls for unity in the wake of the election, they have not personally condemned the out-of-control mob rule popping up across the country. Mainstream media has also largely downplayed the violence and threats. They have mostly reported the protests as peaceful, spontaneous expressions of dissent, even though there was nothing spontaneous about these protests. Far left groups such as Black Lives Matter and Socialist Alternative used social media to rally their faithful into the streets.

Socialist Alternative, which considers itself aligned with Black Lives Matter, wrote on its website that a “wave of demonstrations is being organized across the country to fight back against Trump.” They promised “huge nationwide protests around Trump’s inauguration on January 20th and 21^st,”as well as “mass protests and civil disobedience” after Trump takes office. Socialist Alternative considers itself to be in political solidarity with the Committee for a Workers’ International, an organization that believes “the ‘October revolution’ in Russia in 1917 is still regarded by socialists as the greatest event in human history.”

Both Black Lives Matter and Socialist Alternative fundamentally reject our capitalist, democratic system. Black Lives Matter regularly attacks what they describe as systemic racism in America and “white privilege.” Socialist Alternative is avowedly anti-capitalist. Put Black Lives Matter and Social Alternative together as co-organizers of the anti-Trump protests and inciteful rhetoric leading to violence is virtually inevitable. It didn’t take long for this to happen.

An anti-Trump protester in California declared on CNN that “people have to die to make a change in this world.” Oakland California witnessed violence by angry mobs who set fires, threw bottles at police officers, torched a police car and defaced an office building with graffiti such as “Kill Trump.” Mobs in Los Angeles took over a freeway and lit fires near City Hall.

In New Orleans, a mob of protesters defaced a famous monument, shattered glass in a nearby bank and wrote graffiti such as “DIE WHITES DIE.”

In another case, several black protesters beat and robbed a white man in Chicago, whom they assumed had voted for Trump. Others surrounding and filming the assault yelled out “This is what happens when you vote Trump, dummy,” “You voted Trump? You voted Trump?? Yeah, he voted Trump,” and “Beat his ass.” One of the attackers drove away in the victim’s car, dragging the victim along while his hand remained stuck in one of the car windows.

In Portland, Oregon, a Trump supporter seeking to express his point of view had shown up at a protest against Trump that was blocking streets and highways.  However, the Left does not engage in a rational exchange of views. The Trump supporter was chased away and hit in the back of his head with a skateboard.

When they are not out in the streets, the Trump haters are tweeting assassination threats. Here is one doozie: “Trump ain't president 'til inauguration day lmao you guys still have time to assassinate BOTH Trump and Pence.”

On college campuses, administrators and faculty are encouraging their students to wallow in self-pity as they absorb the election results. For those students not out burning or defacing the American flag or getting into confrontations with the few Trump supporters who dared to voice their opinions, colleges have provided so-called “safe spaces” to which “grieving” students can retreat.

For example, the New York Post reported that “New York University distributed a memo to its students that offered various counseling and mental health hotlines for those feeling ‘scared, hopeless, or just in need of someone to talk to.’”

Professors are letting their students skip or postpone midterm tests so that they can recover from the shock of Trump’s victory. A Yale economics professor, for example, chose to make his midterm exam optional after “getting many heartfelt notes from students who are in shock over the election returns.”

A history professor at Cornell and a member of Black Lives Matter, which had organized an anti-Trump rally in the Ithaca, New York area, said that Trump’s election “was a victory for racism, xenophobia and misogyny.”

The principal organizers of the anti-Trump protests traffic in incendiary, hate-filled rhetoric that has led to violence. Those whom answer their siren call in the belief that they are engaging in some sort of peaceful "revolution" are being used.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264806/people-have-die-unhinged-leftist-protests-greeted-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump's Arab world challenge - Prof. Eyal Zisser

by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Obama has left Trump a chaotic Middle East, where the U.S.'s role has been continuously eroded and has taken a back seat to Russia.

The unprecedented slump in the United States' position in the Middle East during President Barack Obama's eight-year term was such that the only way is up. This is perhaps the only bright spot President-elect Donald Trump can hold on to when examining the complex regional realities ahead of formulating new Middle East policies. 

The majority of Middle East leaders welcomed Trump's election. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even Syria, all hope to turn over a new leaf in their relations with the American administration, and it seems they would also welcome different policies, they kind that would restore Washington's active involvement in the region. 

When Obama took office in 2008, the Bush administration left him a stable Middle East, where the U.S. was a key player -- the only player, to be honest.

President George W. Bush's fight against the axis of evil stretching from Tehran to Damascus and involving Hezbollah and Hamas, may not have yielded the desired results, but it generated considerable deterrence opposite Iran and its allies, and stopped them from threatening Washington's allies in the region.

Obama has left Trump a chaotic Middle East, where the U.S.'s role has been continuously eroded and has taken a back seat to Russia. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made Iran a key partner in his efforts to cement Moscow's foothold in the region, and in exchange, Tehran has been given free rein in areas Putin cannot reach. The ones paying the price for this regional shift are, naturally, Washington's allies.

Upon taking office, Obama set out to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab public, and chose to do to so by turning his back on Arab rulers, as well as on Israel. Simultaneously, Obama sought to appease U.S. enemies in the Middle East, primarily Iran, in an effort to reach an understanding that would guarantee his administration smooth regional sailing. 

Once the Arab Spring erupted in full force, Obama distanced himself from the region, focusing only on promoting the nuclear deal with Iran, despite knowing it will eventually enable Iran to realize its nuclear ambitions. The only other regional issue to garner his interest was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- an issue that barely holds any regional significance anymore -- but even here, his involvement was little more than lip service. 

Trump has inherited a region where crises may appear to be contained locally, with little to no bearing on American interests, but in the long run, these issues could prove dangerous and have far-reaching implications.

While Trump has the option of carrying on with Obama's policies in the Middle East, the president-elect will have to deal with several dilemmas. The first question involves the ramifications of the U.S.'s weakness in the Middle East, especially opposite Russia, in respect to American interests in other areas, such as Eastern Europe or central and southeastern Asia. The second issue is the question of whether the policy of noninterference at any cost does indeed spare American soldiers' lives as well as the lives of the people of the region, or whether the opposite true, and a more aggressive policy would meet the challenges U.S. interests in the region are facing.

Trump could leave Russia and Iran to clobber Islamic State and the Syrian rebels, and effectively establish a joint Iranian-Russian hegemony in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. He could ignore the plight of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and push them into Russia's or Iran's arms. In one respect, however, Trump should adopt Putin's conclusions: to fight against radical Islam and undermine Iran's regional aspirations on Middle East soil, not U.S. soil.

 

Prof. Eyal Zisser

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17633

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran Breaches Nuclear Deal - Again. What's Next? - Majid Rafizadeh

by Majid Rafizadeh

Although the nuclear agreement heavily favors Iran and the main UN Security Council sanctions against Iran have already been lifted, Tehran continues to cheat and violate the terms of this weak nuclear pact.

• President Obama is ignoring Iran's latest violations, and the UN and IAEA reports as well.
• In fact, the administration, and State Department spokesman Mark Toner, are defending Iran on this issue, and appear willing to give critical concessions to Iran in the next round of talks in Baghdad this week.
• In other words, Iranian leaders would be capable of more freely continuing their nuclear ambition without probing from the IAEA or the international community.
• Iran has not yet allowed the IAEA "probes of various high-profile Iranian sites. The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano is investigating whether Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear weapons.
• Turning a blind eye to Iran's violations will only further empower and embolden Tehran to pursue its nuclear and hegemonic ambitions; ignore UN resolutions and international laws; scuttle US foreign policy objectives, and damage security interests.

One of the terms of the JCPOA accord, which never had any legal legitimacy and which Iran never signed, is that Iran should restrict the amount of specific nuclear materials it possesses during the nuclear deal. According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, Iran has violated the deal by holding more heavy water, used to produce nuclear weapons, than it is supposed to have.

This is not the first time Iran has violated the terms of the flimsy nuclear agreement with no consequences. In February 2016, Iran exceeded its threshold for heavy water as well. In a previous article, other violations and reports of Iran's recent cheating and breaches of the nuclear agreement are laid out.

U.S. President Barack Obama is nevertheless ignoring these latest violations, and the UN and IAEA reports as well. In fact, the administration, and State Department spokesman Mark Toner, are defending Iran on this issue, and appear willing to give critical concessions to Iran in the next round of talks in Baghdad this week.

One of the critical concessions concerns the military dimension of Iran's nuclear program, designed to develop nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano is investigating whether Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear weapons.

The head of the UN nuclear agency flew to Iran to finally put an end to the idea that Iran has plans of developing nuclear arms. Amano pointed out that "I really think this is the right time to reach agreement." However, the IAEA and President Obama appear more than willing to close this investigation.

Closing this investigation means that there would be no monitoring of Iran's nuclear research and development, or of Iran's nuclear facilities, which have long been suspected of being used to develop nuclear weapons. In other words, Iranian leaders would be capable of more freely continuing their nuclear ambitions without probing from the IAEA or the international community.

The closure of this case will also strengthen the hold on power of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the senior cadre of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iran's intelligence agencies.

This is all happening while Iran has not yet allowed the IAEA "probes of various high-profile Iranian sites, including the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran, where the agency believes Iran in 2003 ran explosive tests needed to set off a nuclear charge."

"The suspected blasts took place inside a pressure chamber. Iran has never said whether the chamber existed, but describes Parchin as a conventional military site. Iran, however, has blocked IAEA inspection requests for more than four years. A deal on Parchin could give Iran some leverage going into the Baghdad talks".

Iran is also again masterfully using hardball tactics to get more concessions. The semiofficial Fars news agency, which spreads the IRGC's agenda, said that Amano should "avoid playing for others ground."

In addition, the success of this mission in closing the investigation means that Iran's position will be significantly strengthened against the six world powers (known as P5+1: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany) in the next round of meetings, in Baghdad. Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator said after arriving in Baghdad late Monday: "We had an agreement in Istanbul. That is the basis for the beginning of a new cooperation. We hope that the talks in Baghdad will be a kind of dialogue that will give shape to such cooperation."

Such an agreement means that despite Iran's significant clandestine nuclear activities and violations, the world powers would be announcing the nonsense that Iran's nuclear program is officially a civilian, not a military one, and that Iran's nuclear program is built for supplying power and medical applications, not developing nuclear weapons.

More importantly, it is unfathomable that despite significant evidence of Iran's clandestine activities over the last decade, and despite many revelations of Iran's secret nuclear activities which were not detected by the IAEA, the IAEA and world powers, in addition to giving more concessions to Tehran, appear willing to reach a fictional agreement that Iran never even desired to develop nuclear weapons.

If an agreement is reached in Baghdad, the remaining sanctions on some sectors of Iran's oil industry and Iranian high-level officials will be lifted. Such a move would allow Iran more easily to use the international banking system while there would be no restrictions on, or investigations of, Iran's high-profile officials who are (or were) engaged in nuclear or non-nuclear violations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against concessions, saying that the P5+1 should make "clear and unequivocal demands" that Iran halt all of its nuclear activities. Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem, he added:

"Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfill that goal... Against this malicious intention, leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness. They should not make any concessions to Iran."

Although the nuclear agreement heavily favors Iran, and the main UN Security Council sanctions against Iran have already been lifted, Tehran continues to cheat and violate the terms of this weak nuclear pact. Turning a blind eye -- by President Obama and other organizations and powers -- to Iran's violations will only further empower and embolden Tehran and its Revolutionary Guards to pursue their nuclear and hegemonic ambitions; ignore UN resolutions and international laws; scuttle US foreign policy objectives, and damage security interests.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9312/iran-breaches-nuclear-deal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump Must Change US Defense Policy for Taiwan - Stephen Bryen

by Stephen Bryen

If he can prevail over the established litany, there is a chance that Taiwan can stay independent.

United States defense policy toward Taiwan must change. Now there is a rare opportunity to make that happen with the election of Donald Trump. But everyone knows he lacks experience in foreign affairs, although he is a man with great instincts. If he can prevail over the established litany, there is a chance that Taiwan can stay independent. But if he follows the "party line" from the State Department and their supporting chorus in parts of the Pentagon, Taiwan is a goner. It is only a question of time.

Taiwan is an island that lives next to a behemoth in the form of China. It is a democracy and, with its new government with a very strong domestic mandate, intent on maintaining its independence and democratic system. For China, democracy is the enemy as they have just demonstrated again in Hong Kong where they blocked two elected officials from taking office. Democracy threatens the Communist party dictatorship, and China is yearning for it. That is what happened before at Tiananmen, where democratic dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. And across China that is happening every day, and China's government knows it. For them, the big thumb in their eye is Taiwan. They would take any opportunity to knock it off, and China has been building up forces to make it hard for the United States to come to Taiwan's defense. When China's forces reach a tipping point, and when they think America might back off, they will strike.

The question is not whether but when. America should be following a defense policy that pushes the "when" back to "whether" and puts a price on the "whether" decision that would make it hard for China's leaders to act, if they were unsure of the outcome.

Unfortunately, America's support of Taiwan has played directly into China's hands and put Taiwan at considerable risk.

Consider for example that Taiwan has been allowed to have only half an air force and half a navy.

What is meant by "half"?

A modern air force must be able to defeat an enemy air force before its planes and missiles bring death and destruction to its people. That means it must have strike capability.

Taiwan's air force does not have strike capability because Washington will not sell Taiwan strike aircraft such as the F-15 or advanced F-16s. Even the F-16s Taiwan was granted by George H. W. Bush are hobbled. The more modern multi-role models of the F-16 were not provided to Taiwan, and F-16 upgrades the Obama administration reluctantly approved for Taiwan do not include strike capability, meaning they are not multi-role and can't take the fight to China.

The result is that the Taiwan's air force (officially known as the Republic of China Air Force or ROCAF) lacks beyond visual range weapons and can only function as an interceptor against Chinese forces invading the island. The ROCAF F-16s have very limited value against a Chinese main force invasion of the island because their F-16s can't interdict their bases or zap them before they cross the Taiwan Strait.

There is also half a navy made up primarily of old rejected U.S. frigates. These Carter-administration FFG tubs are thin-skinned, slow and poor sea fighters. On the other hand, China has been rapidly expanding its blue water navy and its submarine force. Taiwan has two usable submarines and two post World War II Guppy boats that are museum pieces. Its usable submarines are badly in need of an upgrade and they are no match for China's nuclear and Kilo-class submarines that threaten the Island.

What all this means is that any fight that happens takes place in and over Taiwan, a great danger when one sees that most Taiwanese live near the coast and are exposed to attack. Taiwan has almost 24 million people but given that they are concentrated in narrow spaces and surrounded otherwise by mountains, any attack on Taiwan cities and towns will be highly destabilizing.

Which is why the right defense strategy for Taiwan is to give it the ability to take the fight to the enemy and not wait to get crushed at home. Could you imagine a U.S. Air Force that waited until Russian airplanes were over New York, Washington DC, or Chicago? It will never happen, because the U.S. Air Force is designed to strike at the enemy, liquidate his bases, and destroy his fighting capability. While Taiwan is a pinprick in size compared to China, an offensive capability is the only way to set back China's invasion plans.

The usual suspects in the State Department will say that China will object if the United States gave Taiwan a real defense capability. American companies and financial institutions will complain they will lose business if China gets mad at us. China may stop buying Treasury bonds. But we have ways to counteract China. Anyway, Mr. Trump is not so happy about American companies shifting their manufacturing and technology to China, so maybe this will be part of his planned wakeup call.

China's complaints can be managed because in the end China needs our market for China's regime to stay in power. No matter how excited they may get, that is the real bottom line.

Over the last twenty-five years America's support for Taiwan has been a lot of comforting words but also a dumping off place for a lot of military junk when the U.S. administration sells some hardware to keep Congress off its back. That policy has to be jettisoned because it is not in Taiwan's interest or in the interest of the United States.

Taiwan needs the other "half" of its air force, navy, and army in order to deter China. America needs Taiwan to stay safe and free or we lose all of our credibility in Asia.

It is one thing to blindly pursue a policy, but when the policy is ultimately self-defeating and ill suited, it needs to be changed. And soon.

It is inevitable that China will invade Taiwan because it is part of its strategic plan. But if China is forced to continually revise its schedule, then China will have to put its plan on hold or even give it up. That is exactly what America's strategic goal should be.

America needs a containment policy for China's rising power, and Taiwan is the right place to start implementing it.

President-elect Trump has a real opportunity to show China that America is not sleeping anymore.

Stephen Bryen served as a senior Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, He is the author of Technology and Security: Winners and Losers (Transaction Publishers, 2015)

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/trump_must_change_us_defense_policy_for_taiwan_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hillary supporters and the pain of delusion - John L. Hancock

by John L. Hancock

The silencing of opposing opinions in schools, colleges, and universities has been well documented. Any opinions that run contrary to progressive dogma is oppressed on the grounds that they may be "offensive" to some individuals.

Today it appears that I once again have been unfriended by one of the few Hillary-supporting "friends" I still have on Facebook. She was sharing posts, which showed up in my news stream, promoting the narrative that Donald Trump was elected president solely because America is racist. I calmly shared with her exit polls conducted by CNN and the Washington Post after the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.

The exit polls clearly show that the demographics for all three presidential elections are almost identical. The big difference is that a higher percentage of people without college education turned out to vote for Trump than they did for McCain or Romney. (In those elections, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.) I also noted that nearly one in three Latinos voted for Trump and that – while still a small number – the percentage of blacks voting Republican has doubled since McCain. These results indicate that it wasn't people motivated by racism who gave Trump his victory; rather, it was a lack of inspiration for Hillary that led to her defeat.

The response from the progressive on Facebook was one that we conservatives are not unfamiliar with. She chastised me for intruding on her Facebook space, and if I could not resist from doing so, I should "unfriend" her. I responded that I do not unfriend people for disagreeing with me. This resulted in her unfriending me.

This exchange enlightened me to the small and distorted world Hillary supporters (and progressive in general) have created for themselves over the last decade.

The silencing of opposing opinions in schools, colleges, and universities has been well documented. Any opinions that run contrary to progressive dogma is oppressed on the grounds that they may be "offensive" to some individuals.

In the workplace, expressing conservative opinions – whether political or religious – is likewise oppressed, since such opinions create a "hostile work environment."

A business or business owner risks financial ruin by expressing views that progressives do not approve of.

And of course, in the media and pop culture, not toeing the ideological line is a kiss of death for the careers of all but the most established personalities, and sometimes even they are not immune.

Having spent nearly a decade eliminating all "hurtful and offensive" opinions from their lives – including the unfriending of friends and family on social media – Hillary supporters have created for themselves small worlds completely disconnected from the sentiments of many of their fellow Americans. In fact, living in such self-imposed isolation gave them the false belief that the majority of Americans agree with them. After all, everybody they know thinks just as they do.

While the expression of opposing views can be suppressed throughout society, Americans can still freely express themselves when it counts most: during an election.

With Trump's defeat of Hillary, the self-imposed delusion of her supporters was ripped apart by the hard reality that the majority of the American people do not share their worldview.

Regrettably, even a delusional reality is extremely hard to give up. It is much easier to find other reasons to explain why the election went so painfully wrong. For these people, the only explanation for Trump's victory is that a significant number of Americans are still racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and xenophobic. It could not be because many Americans saw Hillary and the ideology she represents as being more dangerous and detrimental to the nation than that of Donald Trump.

As the saying goes, "reality sucks."

This is especially true when you have spent the better part of a decade isolating yourself from reality. The pain, the emotional anguish, and the general confusion these people must be feeling is probably beyond our understanding. But it is a self-inflicted pain that results from the delusion that avoiding "harmful and offensive" opinions produces.


John L. Hancock is the bestselling author of Liberty Inherited and Liberty & Prosperity. He is also a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance in Los Angeles.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_supporters_and_the_pain_of_delusion.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump Blows Up Received Political Wisdom - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

But political roadblocks may be ahead.

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

Donald Trump’s improbable victory on June 8 exploded much of the received political wisdom, especially political correctness, that many Republicans had considered an immutable inhibitor of policy reform. Now we will see if the deeper structural changes of the past decades created by political correctness can be corrected.

As the rhetoric of the NeverTrumpers revealed, identity politics ideology about various subgroups in America had been accepted as truth. Many so-called conservatives endorsed dubious victim-narratives and group identities as realities that Republicans had to accept and adapt to. “Hispanics,” we were told, are the fastest growing minority, a demographic time-bomb that will shatter the Republican party unless it acknowledged their grievances and proposed remedies. Rhetoric criticizing illegal aliens was counterproductive and “insensitive,” if not racist. Hence in 2013 the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” put forth a “comprehensive” immigration bill that set a low bar for illegal aliens to become citizens, without first ensuring that the border be controlled or putting in place stringent mechanism for vetting applicants. Yet despite those drawbacks, many Republicans, believed that such legislation would create good will and future votes among “Hispanics.”

For obvious reasons, these efforts did nothing to increase the Republican share of these voters in 2014 and help Mitt Romney. The first problem is that “Hispanics” don’t exist. In reality there is a complex diversity of peoples from various ethnicities and national cultures. A recent Mexican-Indian immigrant from Oaxaca who picks grapes has little in common with a third-generation Mexican-American who speaks little if any Spanish and works for the DMV. A Honduran Indian dishwasher has no solidarity with a Caucasian Cuban lawyer.
Like everybody else, these groups have diverse interests that may overlap, such as wanting government to provide more social welfare transfers, and give them a similar interest in voting for Democrats. But, as the cliché goes, thinking that bringing illegal aliens “out of the shadows”  was the prime concern of these diverse millions was dubious at best, and contrary to most polling data that put this issue low on the list of concern for Hispanics. That may be why for all Trump’s allegedly “racist” and “xenophobic” rhetoric about illegal aliens, he did slightly better among Hispanic voters than did Mitt Romney.

More important, this Republican dogma ignored the concerns of millions of ordinary Republican voters who worried about a porous border, increased crime, cheap labor undercutting wages, the fiscal strain on public services and state budgets, and the disorder caused by bringing into their communities peoples with radically different mores and cultural practices. And these ordinary Americans resented the accusations leveled by some Republican pundits and politicians that such concerns reflected nativism, xenophobia, or even racism.

Trump’s rise to the presidency began with a loud and blunt criticisms of the costs of uncontrolled illegal immigration enabled by the federal government’s lax border control, and by insane progressive policies like “sanctuary cities.” His promise to build a wall to keep out the “rapists” and “drug dealers” and to deport illegal aliens excited those denigrated victims of bad federal policy, and made them feel like they had a champion who heard their cries for change. And these same forgotten voters were angered by the Republican establishment’s politicians and pundits attacking Trump––and necessarily themselves––with the question-begging “racist” epithet straight from the Orwellian progressive playbook.

Furthermore, these forgotten Republican men and women understood that this is a progressive tactic used to emasculate their Republican counterparts and marginalize their concerns. Hence they were furious when Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called Trump’s identification of a judge as a “Mexican”–– a judge who belonged to a professional organization that used the racist “La Raza” tag in its name––“textbook racism,” sounding more like an MSNBC commentator than a principled conservative who respects the integrity of language.

This Republican establishment obeisance to progressive politically correct shibboleths had long angered millions of Republicans. It became particularly egregious in 2008 and 2012, when fear of appearing “racist” inhibited John McCain and Mitt Romney from vigorously attacking and exposing Barack Obama’s hard-left ideology, sinister friends and associates, bogus biography, and divisive race-baiting. For many angry voters, that squeamishness explained the Republican Senate’s mystifying confirmation of Eric Holder clone Loretta Lynch, a decision whose stupidity became obvious this year when Lynch’s politicized DOJ in order to protect Hillary Clinton, and obstructed and gamed the investigation into Clinton’s home-brew server by the FBI.

The readiness of some Republicans to throw around, like Paul Ryan, the question-begging epithets used by the left to enforce political correctness disgusted voters. They could see it was a reflex of the Republicans’ habitual “preemptive cringe” in the face of progressive attacks. Such cowardice likewise sickened the base and made Trump’s brash and vulgar rhetoric seem like a breath of fresh air. When “conservative” pundits like Bret Stephens writes of Trump’s “irrepressible bigotry, misogyny, bullying,” as Stephens whined after the election, normal people see rank hypocrisy. These pundits seldom got so passionate over Obama’s blatant race-baiting and his support for racist outfits like Black Lives Matter that incite riots and assassinations of police officers.

So now what? The political correctness so many nominal conservatives observe has burrowed deep into our culture and educational system, not just in curricula but in administrative offices and practices. It permeates federal laws like Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which puts the coercive power of the state behind the various speech codes that enforce censorship and punish offenders. We are now in the third generation of students who have been marinated in this ideology from kindergarten to university. Like the vicious rhetoric used to attack Trump’s policy proscriptions on immigration, this political correctness will inhibit politicians and make it more difficult to reform immigration, step-up deportations, and increase border protections.

This means Trump may find it difficult to follow through on the promises he made during the campaign. Congressional and Senate Republicans might prove less than cooperative. Will they pass legislation to strip federal funds from sanctuary cities that break federal law? Appropriate funds for improving border barriers and hiring more border patrol agents? Seriously crack down on employers of illegal aliens? All these measures would unleash a barrage of charges they are racists, nativists, and xenophobes, and anger some business interests that find cheap labor worth some illegality. Will they have the fortitude to take the abuse and vigorously repudiate it?

As this election has shown, populism can be a powerful force. But disappointed populism can be even more disruptive. If Trump’s actions cannot fulfill his promises, if the Republican Congress slips back into its bad habit of accommodation and timidity, then the current Republican revival will be short-lived.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264808/trump-blows-received-political-wisdom-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Plea for civility toward our fellow citizens - Sally Zahav, Dr. Carolyn Tal

by Sally Zahav

"I am concerned by the number of people suggesting Trump is not their president or that the country is no longer democratic".

One of the most prominent features of the election of last Tuesday, besides Trump's surprising victory, has been the reaction to the result. Any gentle person daring to venture into the world of social networks is liable to suffer a trauma from the blind hatred expressed toward Trump voters and the apocalyptic expressions centering around the writer's opinion of the president-elect. The irony is so thick it's almost palpable. These "liberals", who define themselves as being open-minded, tolerant and especially, "inclusive", prove very demonstrably that they are anything but.

A friend, Dr. Carolyn Tal, wrote to me today in dismay after having been exposed to the social network posts of a professional group.  She and I are both American ex-pats living in Israel. Here is what she wrote:

I debated whether to respond; I have not read all the posts on the election results as I am mainly an inactive member of the list. But the little I did read compelled me to address the issue of inclusion, my inclusion.

I feel that too many of the postings regarding the election do not include me, have low interest in including my views, and seem to have low interest in understanding much less including the anger of many of the people that voted for Trump - some while holding their noses and swallowing their bile.

For the first time since age 18 I did not vote in this presidential election. I agreed with most negative things I heard regarding both Clinton and Trump. I believed both were unqualified to be president of the US, for very different reasons. And yet while I was disgusted and embarrassed that Trump was elected president of the US, I was slightly relieved that Clinton was not. And I believe that there are many like me.

I am saddened by the existence of hard-core supporters of Trump, but I can appreciate that their anger may be deeper than mine, or that they have other reasons to judge a man so differently than I do. But I am tired of their and my voice not being included among those who see themselves as being so inclusive. And I thoroughly appreciate that the US is in fact a democratic country, where when enough of its citizens are unhappy they can have an influence one vote at a time into a large collective vote.

I understand Clinton supporters being terribly upset, and frightened. There were many people feeling exactly that way when Obama was elected by less than 50% of voting citizens, and this latter group of Americans is breathing a huge sigh of relief that Obama and his ideological successor are gone. But I am concerned by the number of people suggesting Trump is not their president or that the country is no longer democratic. If someone truly feels that way then they have the right to renounce their citizenship (as opposed to being tortured or killed for suggesting such a thing); otherwise accept the results of a democratic election, done according to the rules of our democratic country. And perhaps consider why so many people were against the very thing you were for. You may never agree with them, but IMHO it would be extremely important for all of us to see each other as disagreeing FELLOW citizens.

And, I am not blue-collar. I am a PhD psychologist and consultant educated at an Ivy League school, with educated and white-collar parents; and I know many others like me with similar political sentiments.

Dr. Carolyn Tal

Sally Zahav

Source: from personal correspondence 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

The post-election demonstrations against Trump are being orchestrated by socialists and Marxists.

Ever since Donald Trump's election victory Tuesday night, the media have been abuzz with stories about massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests breaking out in cities all across the country. We've been told that ordinary Americans everywhere are so frightened and angered by the prospect of a Trump presidency—as opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency—that they're taking to the streets to express their grave concerns for the future of the country.

In Chicago, for instance, thousands of people held an “emergency protest” outside a Trump hotel, chanting: “No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

In New York, some 5,000 people (including the political oracle Lady Gaga) demonstrated outside Trump Tower. “Their concerns,” said CNN, “ranged from policies, such as Trump's proposed plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that they say stoked xenophobic fears.”

In Oakland, some of the 7,000+ demonstrators damaged police cars, vandalized businesses, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at law-enforcement officers, and started at least 40 separate fires.

And in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people filled the streets, burned Trump in effigy, and sang John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance. “Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office,” said CNN.

From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.

But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”

And, lo and behold, many components of Socialist Alternative's agenda mesh seamlessly with Hillary Clinton's political priorities. For instance, Socialist Alternative seeks to: (a) “raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, as a step toward a living wage for all”; (b) provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; (c) create “a publicly funded single-payer [healthcare] system as a step towards fully socialized medicine”; (d) impose absolutely “no budget cuts [on] education and social services”; and (e) legislate “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business.”

In short, the anti-Trump protests that are currently making headlines are 100% contrived, fake, phony exhibitions of street theater, orchestrated entirely by radicals and revolutionaries whose chief objective is to push America ever farther to the political left. Moreover, they seek to utterly demoralize conservatives into believing that public opposition to their own (conservative) political and social values is growing more powerful, more passionate, and more widespread with each passing day.

The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton's famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.... The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.

John Perazzo

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264805/communists-behind-anti-trump-protests-john-perazzo

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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