Trump-Putin deal on Syria bears on Israel security - debkaFile

by debkaFile

 -- when the Israeli premier travels to the White House next month, he will have to address four pressing concerns, all relating to the fast-moving Syrian scene

It would be a mistake to take it for granted that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talks with President Donald Trump in Washington early next month will be plain sailing or produce an automatic shower of benefits for the Jewish state. It is understood in Jerusalem that a new order is unfolding close to Israel’s borders, which is not yet fully in the sights of its government, military and intelligence leaders. This process is going forward at dizzying speed in Syria, currently the central Middle East arena, where Presidents Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Tayyip Erdogan have agreed to cooperate.

The British Prime Minister Theresa May picked up fast on the new power equation. After standing before the media with the US President Friday, Jan. 27, and declaring hopefully, “Britain and the US can once again lead the world together,” she decided to fly straight from Washington to Ankara Saturday, before returning home.

The outcome of her first meeting with President Erdogan was one of the fastest defense collaboration pacts ever negotiated for trade and the war on terror. The British leader lost no time in getting down to brass tacks on how British military and intelligence can be integrated in the joint US-Russian-Turkish military steps for Syria. Erdogan did not exactly receive her with open arms. He did not afford his visitor the courtesy of placing a British flag in the reception room in his palace.

Israel is in much the same position. Israel stayed out of military involvement in the Syrian civil war, according to a policy led by Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and OC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Avivi Kochavi (then Direct of Military Intelligence). This policy has left Israel out of today’s decision-making loop on Syria’s future.

Towards the end of 2015, shortly after Russia embarked on its massive military intervention in the Syrian conflict, Netanyahu took steps for safeguarding Israel’s security interests by setting up a direct line with the Russian president. It was translated into a military coordination mechanism between the Russian air force command in Syria and the Israeli air force, with Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s Chief of General Staff, and
Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, Israel’s Deputy Chief of Staff, in charge of this direct military link.

Any problems that could not be solved at the military level were promptly turned over to be addressed at meetings or in phone calls between Netanyahu and Putin.

In one example, the prime minister obtained an undertaking from the Russian president to keep Iranian forces and Iran’s Shiite surrogates, including the Lebanese Hizballah, away from the Syrian-Israeli border, or allow them to use borderlands to send terrorists into Israel.

Shortly after Trump’s election victory (Nov. 8, 2016), the spadework on his collaboration with Putin was quietly begun by their national security advisers, Michael Flynn, in New York and Nikiolai Platonovich Patrushev in Moscow.

Jerusalem knew what was going on, but was taken aback by the speed at which those close understandings ripened into US-Russian deals on the ground. Before Trump had finished his first week in the White House, US warplanes had escorted a Russian air strike against ISIS in Syria.

This rush of events injects further urgency into Netanyahu forthcoming talks with the US president.  Whereas in the second term of the Obama presidency, the Israeli leader was wont to travel to Moscow or Sochi to sort out security problems relating to Syria, henceforth he must directly engage Donald Trump as the lead player.

So when the Israeli premier travels to the White House next month, he will have to address four pressing concerns, all relating to the fast-moving Syrian scene:

1. Will Washington and Moscow go through with the expulsion from Syria of Iranian forces and their proxies, including Hizballah - and take it all the way until it is accomplished?

2. After they are gone, who will take over the areas they evacuate?

3. Will Bashar Assad stay on as president, or has his successor been nominated?

4. The most burning question of all is the level of Hizballah’s armament. Not only must Hizballah forces be pushed out of Syria, but it is essential to strip them of their sophisticated new weaponry, including missiles. Israel’s military and security chiefs assess Hizballah’s arsenal as having been upgraded in recent weeks to a level that directly impinges on Israel’s security.


debkaFile

Source: http://debka.com/article/25907/Trump-Putin-deal-on-Syria-bears-on-Israel-security

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Turkey: Erdogan's Grab for Absolute Power - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

Erdogan will effectively consolidate the power of three legislative bodies into one powerful executive office: himself.

• Erdogan will effectively consolidate the power of three legislative bodies into one powerful executive office: himself.
• Erdogan's "Turkish-style presidency" is already a presidency with too much power held by one man. If approved at the referendum, the changes will make Erdogan head of government, head of state and head of the ruling party -- all at the same time.
• It would transfer powers traditionally held by parliament to the presidency, thereby rendering the parliament merely a ceremonial, advisory body.
• The opposition looks fragmented and helpless in telling the masses that reforms would concentrate excessive powers in the hands of a leader who has increasingly displayed authoritarian tendencies.
• At the moment, Erdogan is effectively the absolute ruler. If he wins the vote he becomes the absolute ruler. If he loses, he remains effectively the absolute ruler until he tries again to become the absolute ruler.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's one-man show goes on; he may soon progress from effectively having absolute authority to actually having absolute authority. He would apparently like to put an official seal on his increasingly autocratic regime. If a simple majority of Turks vote "yes" in a national referendum on proposed constitutional amendments in April, Erdogan will effectively consolidate the power of three legislative bodies into one powerful executive office: himself. He would then be installed as a leader with virtually unlimited authority.

Although the current constitution grants him largely symbolic powers, Erdogan has acted as the effective head of the executive branch since he became Turkey's first elected president in August 2014. He has explicitly -- and, it appears, happily -- violated the constitution by acting as an absolute head of government. In May 2016, he forced Ahmet Davutoglu, his own confidant and prime minister, out of office; Erdogan evidently suspected that the man was not working hard enough to push for the absolute executive presidential system Erdogan has evidently been craving. Only seven months ago, Davutoglu had won a parliamentary election with 49.5% of the national vote.

Erdogan replaced Davutoglu with Binali Yildirim, who has proven to be more enthusiastic about terminating the prime minister's office and transferring all powers to an all-powerful president. As Erdogan's (and Yildirim's) ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lacked the parliamentary majority to put any constitutional amendment to public vote, the proposed changes therefore required support from the opposition benches. (A minimum of 330 votes is required in the country's 550-member assembly, as opposed to 317 seats controlled by the AKP.)

A year ago, that would have looked unimaginable. But a nationalist opposition party, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), made a U-turn from its public pledges of "never letting Erdogan become the executive president," and decided to support the reform bill. Political observers are still trying to figure out what may have pushed the MHP from one extreme to the other; there is not yet a clear explanation.

Erdogan's "Turkish-style presidency" is already a presidency with too much power held by one man. If approved in the referendum, the changes will make Erdogan head of government, head of state and head of the ruling party -- all at the same time. Erdogan would have the power to appoint cabinet ministers without requiring a confidence vote from parliament, propose budgets and appoint more than half the members of the nation's highest judicial body. He would also have the power to dissolve parliament, impose states of emergency and issue decrees. Alarmingly, the proposed system lacks the safety mechanisms of checks and balances that exist in other countries such as the United States. It would transfer powers traditionally held by parliament to the presidency, thereby rendering the parliament merely a ceremonial, advisory body.

With support from MHP, the reform bill passed in parliament with 339 votes in favor -- nine more than required to put it to a national vote.

The way the Turkish parliament debated the bill looked like a prelude to the way Erdogan's totally autocratic presidency will fuel tensions in the months ahead. Several rounds of fist-fighting broke out. Brawls were daily scenes in parliamentary sessions. Screaming matches and physical altercations sent lawmakers to hospitals.

In one instance, an independent female lawmaker handcuffed herself to the microphone on the lectern for an hour to protest the presidential bill. Deputies from the government benches tried to remove her but opposition deputies sprang to her defense, while punches and kicks were exchanged. The assembly saw its first-ever brawl between female lawmakers who punched each other and pulled one another's hair. One female opposition deputy was thrown to the floor and her prosthetic artificial arm knocked off, injuring her severely.

Several brawls recently broke out in Turkey's parliament during debate on a bill for constitutional amendments. (Image source: CBS News)

Nevertheless, Erdogan is happy. He will soon launch his "yes" campaign together with the nationalists in the opposition (MHP). He is confident that he will win -- he has not lost a single election or referendum since he came to power in November 2002. Observers expect that a clear majority of his party loyalists (around 40% of 50%) will vote "yes" in addition to around half of the nationalists in opposition (around 6% of 12%). That makes a combined 46% of the vote. Some of the splinter Islamist parties and non-AKP voters who favor a presidential system, too, are expected to vote "yes," lifting the pro-Erdogan vote to a range of 50% to 55%. There is a sizeable group of "undecided" whose preferences may be influenced by Erdogan's huge propaganda machinery or by the argument that a strong president would strengthen Turkey as it confronts a broad array of internal and external security threats.

The opposition (Kurds and secular and liberal Turks), on the other hand, looks fragmented and helpless in telling the masses that reforms would concentrate excessive powers in the hands of a leader who has increasingly displayed authoritarian tendencies. There are concerns that the opposition, under the state of emergency Erdogan's government declared in 2016, may find it too difficult effectively and freely to campaign against the proposed amendments.

Even in the unlikely event of a win for the "no" campaign it will not be the end of the world for Erdogan. He would be bruised, perhaps badly. But he would play another card: a snap election. He would win new parliamentary elections and push for similar amendments, once again trying his chances. He would have nothing to lose. He appears to rely on a popular support keeping him afloat.

From a policy-making point of view, however, a "yes" or a "no" vote will not fundamentally change the dynamics under which Turkey is being ruled. At the moment, Erdogan is effectively the absolute ruler. If he wins the vote, he becomes the absolute ruler. If he loses he remains effectively the absolute ruler until he tries again to become the absolute ruler.

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9849/erdogan-absolute-power

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran Sabotages a Syrian Ceasefire - Heshmat Alavi

by Heshmat Alavi

-- the main obstacle [to bringing about an end to the war]  remains Iran, due to the fact that a true ceasefire in Syria should spell the end of its foothold

Despite the boasted rhetoric about the agreement reached in the Astana talks over the Syria ceasefire, this latest stage unveiled the limits involved parties face in bringing an end to the six-year war. Even Russia’s chief negotiator at the discussion reached the point of complaining, more than once, about diverse complications. And the main obstacle remains Iran, due to the fact that a true ceasefire in Syria should spell the end of its foothold.

The talks have even been dubbed a diplomatic coup, with all three sponsors, Moscow, Ankara, and Tehran accused of seeking separate objectives. The truth is there is no ceasefire thanks to Iran’s support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Despite the so-called “ceasefire pact” sealed on December 30th, pro-Assad forces backed by Iran -- including the Lebanese Hizb’allah -- have continued attacks on the besieged rebel-held area of Wadi Barada near Damascus.

The Syrian regime has resorted to the ridiculous excuse that al-Qaeda-affiliated “terrorist groups” are in control of Ain al-Fijeh, a small town in Wadi Barada. This despite locals reporting only a “tiny minority” of such elements being present. It is thus crystal clear that neither Assad, nor his Iranian masters, have ever sought a meaningful ceasefire in Syria.

In other areas, regime warplanes launched further airstrikes targeting rebel-controlled areas in west Syria, leaving 12 dead in one area alone, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The fact is that the Astana talks have left many loopholes, and this is exactly what Iran will exploit to plunge the entire process into utter failure.

• No details are available about a mechanism to monitor a supposed ceasefire.
• Political issues failed to achieve any tangible progress and the talks are described as narrowly focused.
• One senior Western diplomat criticized the entire initiative as “not very serious,” adding, “You don’t seal a ceasefire in two days.” There are no indications of any work on modalities, observers, mechanisms, maps, and so forth.
• No document has been signed by Syrian opposition or regime representatives, the two parties who actually have to reach an arrangement.
• While the agreement promises a separation of rebel forces into legitimate opposition and terrorists, no specific method is laid out over how, and according to what merits.

Russia may be considered the main benefactor of the talks, especially since the U.S. cited transition duties and participated only as an observer. Iran is amongst those tasked to monitor the ceasefire, while it is obvious Iran-backed Shiite militias, already accused of violating this ceasefire, will seek to exploit the numerous Astana agreement loopholes.

Even the next date set for future talks between Syrian opposition and regime delegations, Feb. 8 in Geneva, lacks firm confirmation. The Astana negotiations ultimately did not go as planned due to different interests pursued by all three sponsors, proving that Washington and the Gulf States must take part in any future effort.

Even such a goal encounters difficulty due to stark differences seen between Russia and Iran over the United States possibly taking part. Moscow is in favor of Washington, under the Trump administration, taking part, while Iran flatly rejects the proposal.

“They (the Russians) can now see how difficult their partners are,” one Western diplomat described, according to Reuters.

“They are finding a lot of obstacles from Hezbollah forces, Iran and the regime,” explained Mohammed Alloush, head of the Syrian opposition delegation.

Western diplomats have also voiced concerns, viewing Iran as a main obstacle to progress. Uncertainty is the least that can be said about Tehran’s commitment to what can hardly be described as a ceasefire.

At a time of concerns regarding Iran’s involvement in Syria, including a conglomerate of militias and Assad forces continuing to launch attacks on civilians in rebel-held areas, there are serious questions and doubts over Tehran’s legitimacy as a broker in this entire ordeal.

As seen over the past four decades, Tehran thrives on two pillars of domestic crackdown and provoking unrest across the Middle East. This leaves the international community lacking an obvious solution.

“The regime in Tehran is the source of crisis in the region and killings in Syria; it has played the greatest role in the expansion and continuation of ISIS. Peace and tranquility in the region can only be achieved by evicting this regime from the region,” said Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella group of dissidents including the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

Iran’s meddling report card in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen proves this is the sole solution that can render a lasting ceasefire and pave the path to genuine peace.


Heshmat Alavi is a political and rights activist. His writing focuses on Iran, ranging from human rights violations, social crackdown, the regime’s support for terrorism and meddling in foreign countries, and the controversial nuclear program.
He tweets at @HeshmatAlavi & blogs at IranCommentary

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/iran_sabotages_a_syrian_ceasefire.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The mouse that roars - JPost Editorial

by JPost Editorial

Hat tip:Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

This was achieved by Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, who threatened to downgrade the PA’s ties with the US if Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signs the Paris Agreement on climate change at UN headquarters in New York. (photo credit:REUTERS) 

As suspense builds over whether US President Donald Trump will fulfill his campaign promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital, the Palestinian leadership is pressing panic buttons daily, appealing to the world community to agree with its absurd policy that the Jewish people’s capital for 3,000 years is in occupied Palestinian territory.

The Palestinian Authority’s escalating campaign to delegitimize Israel accompanies its ongoing incitement of terrorism. But the PA last week exceeded previous attempts at bullying the world community with delusional threats of the consequences of the embassy move.

This was achieved by Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, who threatened to downgrade the PA’s ties with the US if Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas added that the Palestinian leadership would also declare that the US is no longer a broker in the Middle East peace process and “turn to the UN” – as if the Palestinian tail has not been wagging the UN dog for years.

“If that [the relocation of the embassy] takes place, the Palestinian side would have to sever its ties with the official staff of the illegal US Embassy in Jerusalem. In addition to that, there is the issue of the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington; it would also be necessary to close [it],” Kidwa told the Palestinian daily Al-Quds, adding that the Palestinians would have “no other choice.”

No other choice? How about continuing to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the US? More to the point, how about admitting that the Arab refusal of the UN’s original two-state solution in 1947 has resulted in decades of war and suffering by both peoples? Abbas’s continued refusal of Israeli offers to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state has made it clear that he is incapable of making a sincere effort to rectify that historic mistake.

Meanwhile, Abbas has sent letters to Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, UK Prime Minister Theresa May and many other world leaders – and held a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah – warning that moving the embassy would have “destructive” consequences for the region’s stability and the two-state solution.

Abbas has evidently failed to notice that the region is already far from stable due to the caliphate campaign of Islamic State, nor has he yet to internalize the fact that his previous sponsor is no longer in the White House.

Instead of dealing with reality, Kidwa said it would be necessary to close the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington. Obviously, after cutting off relations with the US, the PLO would no longer be able to afford a luxurious suite in the American capital.

Kidwa presented the novel idea that the PA may launch a complaint against the US at the UN Security Council.

Under President Trump, such a stunt would be squashed by a US veto, and would probably be as effective as Abbas threatening to hold his breath until he turned blue.

Saeb Erekat, another top PA official, last week offered his own “four-point solution” to the proposed embassy move.

First of all, the PLO would revoke its 1993 recognition of the State of Israel, “because under no circumstances shall we recognize Israel and the United States saying east Jerusalem is annexed,” he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

“No. 2, the agreements signed with Israel will be dead, because Netanyahu decided to kill it,” he said. “So he will be responsible for paying the salaries of teachers, doctors, garbage collection in the West Bank, the entirety of the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. The authority cannot be sustained – it will be destroyed, because he is destroying it.”

Third, the PLO would ask the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel “until it abides by international law” – namely, Resolution 2334, denying the Jewish people’s historic capital of Jerusalem. Finally, this would mean the abandonment of the two-state solution, because, as Erekat concluded, “We will be trying to accommodate ourselves in the one-state reality that was created by the dictation and settlements of Benjamin Netanyahu.”

It is time for the Palestinian leadership to wake up and realize that no president of the United States could endorse the PA’s ridiculous attempt to revise history as part of its campaign to destroy the Jewish state.


JPost Editorial

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Jerusalem-Post-Editorial-The-mouse-that-roars-479853

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump: Border wall with Mexico will work, as it did in Israel - Erez Linn, Daniel Siryoti and Shlomo Cesana

by Erez Linn, Daniel Siryoti and Shlomo Cesana

Trump, Mexican president, hold "very, very friendly" hour-long phone call over disagreement on who will pay for wall • Netanyahu: I built wall along southern border, stopped all illegal immigration • U.S.-Israel relations repaired, Trump says.

A border patrol drives along the U.S.-Mexico border in California, 

Thursday Photo credit: AFP

U.S. President Donald Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity in an interview Thursday that in light of Israel's successful southern border wall, he projects his ambitious plan to erect a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will succeed as well. 

"Look, the wall is necessary," Trump told Hannity. "That's not just politics, and yet it is good for the heart of the nation in a certain way because people want protection. And a wall protects. All you have to do is ask Israel. They were having a total disaster coming across, and they had a wall. It's 99.9% stoppage."

"I'm talking about a real wall. I'm talking about a wall that's got to be, like, serious. And even that, of course, you'll have people violate it. But we'll have people waiting for them when they do."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed with Trump's assessment on Facebook Saturday. "President Donald J. Trump is right," Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook account. "I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea," he wrote, followed by an Israeli and American flag. Trump was quick to share Netanyahu's post on his presidential page.

After Netanyahu's post, Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon tweeted an explanation clarifying the nature of the statement: "[Netanyahu] referred to our specific security experience which we are willing to share. We do not express a position on U.S.-Mexico relations." This was not an apology, according to sources on behalf of Netanyahu, rather an explanation, as some may misinterpret the message. 

Still, Netanyahu's comment was swiftly rejected by leaders of the Jewish community in Mexico, and prompted an unusually blunt statement from Mexico's Foreign Ministry.

"The Foreign Ministry expressed to the government of Israel, via its ambassador in Mexico, its profound astonishment, rejection and disappointment over Prime Minister Netanyahu's message on Twitter about the construction of a border wall," the ministry's statement said.

"Mexico is a friend of Israel and should be treated as such by its prime minister," it went on, noting that Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray expressed his deep affection for Israel in an event marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday.

At the same time, Trump's statements on the construction of a border wall have strained relations with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. On Thursday, Pena Nieto canceled a planned meeting with Trump -- a response to Trump's repeated insistence that Mexico will pay for the border wall.

The two spoke for around an hour on the phone on Friday, however, seeking to resolve the issue. Trump described the conversation as "very, very friendly." He also said that he has "great relationships" with Mexican people, and that he has "great respect for Mexico." Mexico described the conversation as fruitful and positive. The two countries released statements that said the two leaders would work to resolve their differences, and the Mexico emphasized that they decided to not make additional statements on funding the wall. 

Trump's interview with Hannity also described a fundamental shift in relations between Israel and the U.S. over the past week, following the strained relationship under former U.S. President Barack Obama.

"It's repaired," Trump told Hannity. "Got repaired as soon as I" was sworn in, he said.

"Within five minutes?" asked Hannity.

"Yes," Trump said, "It's repaired. We have a good relationship. Israel has been treated very badly. We have a good relationship with them."

Trump was careful, however, in his answer to the question of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. "I don't want to [talk] about it yet," he said.

This comes after a statement by White House press secretary Sean Spicer that said the Trump administration had already begun looking into the matter last week.

Trump also declined to speak about reports he would hold back money Obama gave the Palestinian Authority right before the end of his term. "We're going to see what happens. Yes, I don't want to talk about it," he said in the interview.

Erez Linn, Daniel Siryoti and Shlomo Cesana

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=39937

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

"Islam Strengthening in Europe with the Blessing of the Church" - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

"It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world...Islam, through the sharia, their law...allows violence against the infidels, such as Christians....And what is the most important achievement? Rome". – Cardinal Cardinal Raymond Burke, interview, Il Giornale

• There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church's blindess about the danger Europe is facing.
• "Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church.... the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot". - Laurent Dandrieu, cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles
• "It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world...Islam, through the sharia, their law...allows violence against the infidels, such as Christians....And what is the most important achievement? Rome". – Cardinal Cardinal Raymond Burke, interview, Il Giornale
• These concerns do not belong only to the Conservative wing of the Catholic Church.
• "[T]hey are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of 'Allahu Akbar', they want to take over". - Laszlo Kiss Rigo, head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community
• [François] Fillon published a book entitled, "Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism", and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: "We've got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum," Fillon said. "Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!".

Everyone in Italy and the rest of Europe will "soon be Muslim" because of our "stupidity", warned Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei. Liberati claimed that, thanks to the huge number of Muslim migrants alongside the increasing secularism of native Europeans, Islam will soon become the main religion of Europe. "All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam", Archbishop Liberati explained.

Décadence is also the title of a new book by the French philosopher Michel Onfray, in which he suggests that the Judeo-Christian era may have come to an end. He compares the West and Islam: "We have nihilism, they have fervor; we are exhausted, they have a great health; we have the past for us; they have the future for them".

Arcbishop Liberati belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe. They speak in open opposition to Pope Francis, who does not seem too impressed by the collapse of Christianity due to falling birth rates, accompanied by religious apathy and its replacement by Islam.

Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei (left) belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe, and who speak in open opposition to Pope Francis (right).

Pope Francis's official vision is personified by Bishop Nunzio Galantino, who was appointed by the Pointiff as the Secretary General of Italy's Bishops. Last December, Galantino gave an interview in which he dismissed any religious motivation behind jihadist attacks and claimed that, instead, "money" is what is behind them.

There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church's blindess about the danger Europe is facing. One is the cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles, Laurent Dandrieu, who writes:

"Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church. The Church is watching the establishment of millions of Muslims in Europe...and Muslim worship in our continent as an inescapable manifestation of religious freedom. But the civilization question is simply never asked .... By breaking away from the Europe's indigenous peoples and their legitimate concerns, the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot".

Dandrieu lists Pope Francis' gestures and speeches in favour of Islam and migrants:

"On October 1, 2014, the Pope received Eritrean survivors of a shipwreck off Lampedusa; on 8 February 2015, he made a surprise visit to a refugee camp in Ponte Mammolo, northeast of Rome; on April 18, he used the first official visit of the new Italian president, Sergio Mattarella, to demand 'a much larger commitment' for migrants; on 6 September 2015, at the conclusion of the Angelus in St Peter's Square, he called for 'every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary in Europe to host a family' of refugees; on March 24, 2016, he chose to celebrate the Holy Thursday in a structure housing 900 refugees, and to wash the feet to twelve asylum seekers; on May 28, he received children whose parents died in a boat that sank, filled with migrants; during the general audience of June 22, Francis went down to the crowd to bring back fifteen refugees".

But as Liberati's case demonstrates, resistance to Pope Francis' vision of Europe is growing inside the Catholic Church.

"It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world", Cardinal Raymond Burke said.

"Islam, through the sharia, their law, wants to rule the world and allows violence against the infidels, like Christians. But we find it hard to recognize this reality and to respond by defending the Christian faith (...) I have heard several times an Islamic idea: 'what we failed to do with the weapons in the past we are doing today with the birth rate and immigration'. The population is changing. If this keeps up, in countries such as Italy, the majority will be Muslim (...) Islam realizes itself in the conquest. And what is the most important achievement? Rome".

The first to denounce this dramatic trend was Italy's most important missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, who said that, due to falling fertility and Muslim fervor, "Islam would sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe". These concerns do not belong only to the Conservative wing of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and a candidate tipped to be the next Pope, is very close to Pope Francis and is a centrist. Last September, on the anniversary of the Siege of Vienna, when Turkey's Ottoman troops nearly conquered Europe, Schönborn delivered a dramatic appeal to save Europe's Christian roots. "Many Muslims want and say that 'Europe is finished'", Cardinal Schönborn said, before accusing Europe of "forgetting its Christian identity". He then denounced the possibility of "an Islamic conquest of Europe".

After a Tunisian who arrived among a flood of migrants into Germany killed 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin, the Catholic archbishop of the German capital, Heiner Koch, another "moderate" Catholic leader appointed by Pope Francis, also sounded a warning: "Perhaps we focused too much on the radiant image of humanity, on the good. Now in the last year, or perhaps also in recent years, we have seen: No, there is also evil".

The head of the Czech Roman Catholic Church, Miloslav Vlk, also warned about the threat of Islamization. "Muslims in Europe have many more children than Christian families, that is why demographers have been trying to come up with a time when Europe will become Muslim", Cardinal Vlk claimed. He also blamed Europe itself for the Islamic take over:

"Europe will pay dearly for having left its spiritual foundations; this is the last period that will not continue for decades when it may still have a chance to do something about it. Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society".

Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop of Prague and Primate of Bohemia, has also questioned Pope Francis' "welcoming culture".

Among the Eastern Catholic bishops there are many voices raising concerns about Europe's demographic and religious revolution. One belongs to the leader of the Catholics in Lebanon, who paid an extremely high price for the Islamization of their own country, including murder and exile, and now see the danger coming to Europe itself. "I have heard many times from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: faith and the birth rate", Cardinal Bechara Rai said.

Another voice belongs to the French-born Bishop Paul Desfarges, who heads the diocese of Constantine in Algeria: "It's no surprise that Islam has taken on such importance", Desfarges said. "It's an issue that concerns Europe". Sydney Cardinal George Pell then urged "a discussion of the consequences of the Islamic presence in the Western world". Pell was echoed by Laszlo Kiss Rigo, the head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community, who said that "they are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of 'Allahu Akbar', they want to take over".

On the political level there is another a tendency, that of strong Catholic leaders who challenge Pope Francis on the Islamic question and immigration. The most important is the French presidential candidate François Fillon, one of the first politicians who "doesn't hide the fact that he's Catholic". Fillon published a book entitled, Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism, and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: "We've got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum," Fillon said. "Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!".

These politicians, bishops and cardinals might convince Pope Francis not to abandon Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, to a looming dark fate. Michel Onfray wrote at the end of his book: "Judeo-Christianity ruled for two millennia. An honorable period for a civilization. The boat now sinks: we can only sink with elegance". It is urgent now to prevent that.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9835/church-strengthening-islam

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Austria: Does the Church Really Care about Terrorism? - Judith Bergman

by Judith Bergman

"Will there be an Islamic conquest of Europe? Many Muslims want that and say: Europe is at the end." — Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna

• The Austrian Military Intelligence Service has predicted that up to 15 million migrants from Africa could arrive in the EU by 2020.
• Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, recently admitted on Austrian television that he had come to "rethink" his approach to the migrant crisis: Instead of accepting all the refugees, aid should be given in the Middle East and Africa, so that migrants could stay there.
• "Will there be an Islamic conquest of Europe? Many Muslims want that and say: Europe is at the end." — Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, Festival of the 'Holy Name of Mary', September, 2016.
• Cardinal Schönborn subsequently backtracked, saying that his words had been misinterpreted as an attack against Muslims and refugees: "Europe's Christian legacy is in danger, because we Europeans have squandered it. That has absolutely nothing to do with Islam nor with the refugees. It is clear that many Islamists would like to take advantage of our weakness, but they are not responsible for it. We are."

In his Christmas sermon, broadcast live on Austria's ORF and Germany's ZDF TV channels, Catholic diocesan Bishop Aegidius Zsifkovics of St. Martin's Cathedral in Eisenstadt, Austria, pontificated that tightening borders is an "erroneous opinion":

"Barbed wire, fences and walls are now many people's answer to the refugees [coming into] Europe. The terror of a few, as last seen in Berlin, reinforce many of us in this erroneous opinion".

Bishop Zsifkovics declared that we cannot let "Cowardly terror attacks, like that in Berlin, succeed in destabilizing our society, making us colder and less solidary. Let us not allow the terrorists this triumph -- we will not be ice cold like them!"

Since the bishop's speech, the Austrian Military Intelligence Service has predicted that up to 15 million migrants from Africa could arrive in the EU by 2020. The report predicts that a sharp rise in unemployment across the African continent will create a new wave of economic migrants, which will dwarf the current one, which has brought over a million migrants to Europe since the migrant crisis began.

Austrian diocesan Bishop Aegidius Zsifkovics. (Image source: Catholic Church of Austria)

In November 2016, Austria's interior ministry indicated that of the 287 Islamic radicals identified in the country in the past few years, 40 percent arrived as migrants looking for asylum. The data covers a period from early 2011 until 1 July 2016.

Bishop Zsifkovics' sermon was broadcast only five days after Anis Amri, an illegal immigrant from Tunisia, rammed a hijacked truck through the crowd at a busy Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring many others.

Bishop Zsifkovics is Austria's representative in the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union (COMECE). According to the organization's website, "The COMECE Secretariat works for the rights of migrants, refugees and hosting societies to be harmonised and respected in the EU for the sake of the common good in the Christian spirit of welcoming the stranger".

The Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, tipped to become the next Pope, appears to have a more realistic take on developments in Austria. His recent comments represent a sharp departure from the virtually unanimous view of the migrant crisis in the Catholic Church, represented by Bishop Zsifkovics. Cardinal Schönborn recently admitted on Austrian television that he had come to "rethink" his approach to the migrant crisis: Instead of accepting all the refugees, aid should be given in the Middle East and Africa, so that migrants could stay there, Schönborn said. He added that he was becoming "more cautious" in his attitude, as migrants had arrived in "unbelievable number" and "We have had to learn, this [crisis] goes well beyond our capacity and ability."

His statements made big headlines, and were described by one Austrian commentator as:

"unusual words for a representative of the Church...But they are also words which prove the cardinal's [sense of] reality. Yes, the enormous onslaught of asylum seekers has overwhelmed us - yes, you can admit that."

That such a view is considered "unusual" says it all.

Cardinal Schönborn has clearly harbored doubts about the migrant situation for a while. In September 2016, he made headlines when speaking at the festival of the "Holy Name of Mary," which was introduced 333 years ago to celebrate the Western victory over Ottoman forces at the Battle of Vienna, in 1683. In his speech, Cardinal Schönborn asked, "Will there be an Islamic conquest of Europe? Many Muslims want that and say: Europe is at the end."
He subsequently backtracked, saying that his words had been misinterpreted as an attack against Muslims and refugees:

"Europe's Christian legacy is in danger, because we Europeans have squandered it. That has absolutely nothing to do with Islam nor with the refugees. It is clear that many Islamists would like to take advantage of our weakness, but they are not responsible for it. We are.... One must not take my homily to be a call to defend ourselves against the refugees, this was not at all my intention."

Already in February 2015, the British anti-extremist think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, translated an ISIS document, which detailed plans to use Libya as a gateway to Europe, sending terrorists masquerading as refugees, and urging ISIS fighters to flood into Libya from Syria and Iraq to then head for Italy and elsewhere[1].

What the ISIS document describes is known as a hijra, which means spreading Islam, or jihad, by emigration. According to the Quran:

"And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (Quran 4:100).

Unfortunately, national decision makers all over Europe ignored the news contained in this ISIS document - an ironic result considering the current hysteria over "fake news".
One can think of many valid reasons for Cardinal Schönborn to "rethink" his approach to the migrant crisis. One of them is the inability of Austrian police to protect Austrian women from sexual assaults by migrants. In a pathetic move to cover up their helplessness, Austria's police distributed 6,000 rape alarms on New Year's Eve to prevent a repeat of the mass sex attacks in Germany a year ago. If activated, the complimentary gadgets emit a shrill sound aimed at chasing away potential aggressors.

The precaution does not seem to have been very effective, especially not in Innsbruck. According to the Express, on New Year's Eve, "Vienna's emergency services were inundated with calls across the country as reports of multiple sex attacks emerged, reportedly committed by dark-haired men with beards". In the city of Innsbruck alone, some 18 women reported having been groped by up to 10 men on Innsbruck's main square where around 25,000 gathered. Senior police official Ernst Kranebitter said: "We have not had anything like this happen here before. They were dancing around the victims and then suddenly grabbed their breast or stuck their hands between their legs. That's what made it hard for others to notice what was going on -- it all happened amid festivities."

In Oberdorf, Upper Austria, during the annual Christmas performance by the local kindergarten, a 24-year-old Somali man suddenly appeared on the stage during the performance, took a Koran from a plastic bag and began to preach. When he was arrested, he began yelling "Allahu Akhbar" ["Allah is the Greatest"]. "We were petrified and had tremendous fear for our children," said one of the kindergarten teachers. The Austrian news outlet, OE24, speculated that, "What the African wanted to achieve with his Koran action...is still unclear". Indeed, after so many years, the battle cry of "Allahu Akhbar" continues to baffle Europeans. What could it possibly mean?

Then there is a 72-year old grandmother refusing to eat and dying in hospital, after apparently losing the will to live On September 1, 2015 she had offered her hand to a 17-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan to pull him out of a canal where he was swimming; he then raped her. He is due for release from prison in a few months, after serving a 20-month sentence, and will not be deported.

Are these events what Bishop Zsifkovics had in mind when he preached that accepting migrants from the Middle East and Africa must continue, as doing otherwise would destabilize society and give the terrorists the victory of making Austrians 'ice cold like them"?

Since New Year, in the Innviertel region statues have been beheaded, prayer books burned and sacred images destroyed. Police have said the attacks could be religiously motivated, but they have not yet identified any suspects. On New Year's Eve, a chapel in the village of St. Radegund was attacked, and damage done to a statue of the Virgin Mary. Prayer books and wooden objects from the chapel were burned in a nearby wood. Another chapel at the nearby town of Auerbach was also attacked, with vandals smashing the glass guarding two Virgin Mary statues and stealing at least 22 murals, which they also burned in the woods. A few days later, in Braunau am Inn, also in the region, a third chapel was attacked. A figure of Jesus was stolen from a cross, as well as several other objects, and a statue of St. Barbara was beheaded. In the past year, Innviertel has witnessed an influx of migrants as part of Europe's ongoing crisis.

While it remains to be seen who did this, the beheading of religious statues certainly raises the legitimate suspicions of a religiously motivated attack. If so, might Bishop Zsifkovics and others in the church who think the same way be persuaded to rethink their stance?
Bishop Zsifkovics, unlike Cardinal Schönborn, but with so many of his peers in Western Europe, seems to view reality as something they can bend to their wishes and discard at will, especially if it offers the opportunity for moral posturing. The destabilization of Europe has already begun. Bishops such as Zsifkovics are unfortunately helping to speed it along.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

---

[1] The ISIS document states:

"... It has a long coastline and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat and note that the number of 'illegal immigration' trips from this coast is massive, estimated to be as high as 500 people a day, as a low estimate. According to many [of these immigrants], it is easily possible to pass through Maritime Security Checkpoints and arrive in cities. If this was even partially exploited and developed strategically, pandemonium could be wrought in the southern Europe. It is even possible that there could be a closure of shipping lines because of the targeting of Crusader ships and tankers".

In September 2015, Newsweek Europe also reported on ISIS making calls for Hijrah to Libya on social media.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9760/austria-church-migrants-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Can Trump Bell the Progressive Cat? - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The battle to shrink the last half-century of hypertrophied statism and leftist tyranny.

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

As I listened to Trump’s Inaugural Address, I thought of Aesop’s fable about the mice who were being devastated by a ferocious cat. As they debated what to do, a brash young mouse proposed putting a bell around the cat’s neck. That way the mice would hear its approach and scurry to safety. All applauded until one greybeard mouse posed the question: “Who’s going to put the bell around the cat’s neck?”

Especially in politics, it’s easy to propose simple, if not impossible, solutions to complex problems.

Trump’s speech was a rousing catalogue of promises to “make America great again.” Infrastructure development, rebuilding the inner cities, bringing back jobs to America, securing the borders, returning the power usurped by the feds back to the people, making “America first,” and eradicating Islamic jihad “from the face of the earth” comprise an ambitious agenda, to say the least. Perhaps these are mere negotiating positions to be adjusted later, but politics isn’t business. What a candidate thinks is typical campaign hyperbole, the voting public often considers promises to be taken seriously.

Ask George H.W. Bush, who broke his promise “Read my lips: no new taxes,” and lost his reelection bid. And that was just one costly broken promise. Trump has named a whole pack of cats he has promised to bell.

Just consider Trump’s promise about “transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.” Sounds good, but he said nothing specific about reducing the size of the feds, or restoring citizen self-rule. Yes, on Monday he imposed a hiring freeze on federal workers. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981, but that didn’t slow down much the fed expansion in the long term. And Trump’s claim that he will reduce regulations by 75% is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but highly unlikely without a lot of help from Congress.

Trump needs to be more specific, and realistic, about how he will restore power to the citizenry by undoing the un-Constitutional concentration of powers in the executive and its metastasizing agencies, enabled over the years by compliant Congresses and activist Supreme Courts. The result is our country’s feral cat, the bloated federal government spawned and nourished by progressives for nearly a century, with significant help from Republicans. As the fed has waxed ever fatter, the intrusive reach of its agencies, councils, and bureaus into all aspects of our lives––corporations, small businesses, churches, schools, private organizations, state and local governments––subjects them to the coercive power of federal agencies to regulate, investigate, and punish anything that challenges their technocratic pretensions to greater intelligence and efficiency than the sovereign citizenry possesses.

Along the way, Big Fed imposes billions of dollars in compliance costs––nearly $2 trillion in 2016­­–– and erodes the freedom and autonomy of individuals, municipalities, states, churches, and civil society. In addition, these agencies are staffed by 2.6 million anonymous employees with generous salaries and pensions––in one study, 78% higher than those enjoyed by the private sector–– and union protections from dismissal that rival academic tenure. Fed employees are not accountable to the people or subject to electoral audit, and can survive the changes in political appointees who head the agencies. Worse yet, we may think Congress writes the laws it passes and agencies execute. But in fact agency staffers do the actual law-writing and then execute and monitor the laws they have written, subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress needs to pass legislation requiring the Constitutional law-making branch to actually write the laws, so they know what’s in them before they pass them.

It’s not going to be easy to rein in the Dem-Fed complex that lies at the root of most problems Trump promises to solve. New heads of agencies appointed by Trump will meet stiff resistance from employees long in the pocket of the Democrat Party. In last year’s presidential race, 95% of federal workers’ contributions went to Hillary Clinton. There already appears to be leaks from the intelligence community attempting to embarrass and delegitimize the new administration. Trump can do only so much with executive orders or directives. To help “drain the swamp,” Congress will have to pass legislation making it easier to discipline and fire federal workers who obstruct or undermine the directives of agency heads.

Then there are the agencies that shouldn’t even exist, like the Department of Education, with its imperialist encroachments into the pedagogical business of the states and local school boards. But the worst abuser is the EPA, a gift of Republican Richard Nixon. Its regulatory compliance costs are $386 billion, one fifth of the total annual compliance bill. This job-killing bureaucratic extortion racket and crony-socialist pork dispenser needs to be pared back to its original purpose, ensuring clean air and water. Yes, Trump can issue executive orders and directives, but they will will be as transient as Obama’s. For more substantial change, Congress needs to help by significantly reducing the EPA’s funding and staffing and passing legislation that clarifies its mission, and strips it of its unilateral power to interpret the law according to its ideological whims and biases.

It sounds easy in an inaugural speech, but taking action against any executive agency will be fought every step of the way by powerful entrenched special interests. In the case of the EPA, the environmental and trial-lawyer lobbies will abuse Congressmen up for reelection, pour billions into kicking them out of office, and wage expensive “lawfare” on businesses and Trump’s reforms in order to obstruct them. So too with the teachers’ and federal workers’ unions. Or organizations like AARP, which go scorched-earth on Congressmen suggesting even modest reforms of Social Security or Medicare.  Or the lobbies that defend our tax code, a Kafkaesque labyrinth in which millions find lucre in its myriad loop-holes, deductions, credits, set-asides, and sheer complexity.

Helping the feds will be the mainstream media, sure to remain furious at Trump for the audacity of his victory. They are slavish cheerleaders of technocratic big-government, ever ready to decry callous conservatives just for suggesting common sense reductions in budget increases, which they decry as draconian “cuts.” Or they label Republicans anti-scientific “denialists” for questioning the climate-change cultists who infest the EPA, NSF, NOAA, and NASA. And of course, revanchist Democrats, with help from NeverTrump bitter-enders, will continually demagogue and undermine and obstruct proposals for reform.

Trump may end up like Gulliver, tied down by a thousand lawsuits, public relations campaigns, activist protests, deep-pockets lobbyists, parasitic NGOs, Republican trimmers, Democrat slanderers, and media calumny. No matter how strenuous Trump’s efforts, it will take remarkable fealty to principle and testicular fortitude for Congressmen up for reelection to resist this onslaught and support the president. And Trump needs Congress to pass the laws necessary for achieving his ambitious aims.

But let’s not forget the most important factor––We the People. He who takes the citizen’s vote––especially a populist–– is the citizen’s man and must do his bidding. We would like to think that we vote based on lofty principles and rational evaluations of policy. James Madison knew better. The bulk of the people vote their “passions and interests.” Passions include the ideas and beliefs that confer identity, status, and tribal solidarity. Interests mainly comprise “property,” i.e. income and its distribution. Barack Obama appealed to both: more redistribution of wealth to entitlement transfers satisfied “interests”; yearning for racial reconciliation and war-weariness served “passions.” Eight years of serial failure, from broken promises about ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the sluggish economy and static job growth, finally fed up enough people to come out and vote, or switch their vote to Donald Trump.

But remember, Trump won because of about 100,000 voters in some counties in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, who delivered those states’ 46 electoral votes. He won that thin margin because he pledged significant corrective change, not just of Obama’s failing economic or foreign policies, but of our social-political culture. He promised to reverse decades of elite arrogance that imposed on our national institutions and culture a tyrannical political correctness, a rent-seeking identity politics, a collective reflexive guilt and shame about our history and actions, a subordination of this country’s interests and security to those of a mythic “international community,” a sluggish economy that benefited well-connected bi-coastal elites, and a relentless, sneering assault on the faith, virtues, and principles of millions and millions of ordinary voters.

Given how deeply these progressive ideas have burrowed into popular culture, education, government, and the media, reversing those trends will be akin to turning around an ocean liner with half of the officers and crew mutinous, and half of the passengers concerned more about drinking and dancing than about the looming iceberg.

I hope I’m being unduly pessimistic, and Trump can achieve even half of his goals, which would go a long way toward shrinking the last half-century of hypertrophied statism and progressive tyranny. But if Trump breaks enough promises, if he fails “to get the job done” as he pledged, or if some crisis like an economic recession or a major terrorist attack erupts on his watch, then he’s likely to end up a one-term president––and the progressive cat will run wild again.

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/265557/can-trump-bell-progressive-cat-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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