New Year, Same Old Turkey - Burak Bekdil

​
by Burak Bekdil

In the past couple of years, 29 publishing houses have been shut down. Tens of thousands of books have been confiscated and destroyed. Thousands of libraries have banished books banned by the government.

• The joke goes: One day a political prisoner asks his guard if he could borrow from the prison library a certain work of fiction written by a certain author. The guard answers: We don't have that book in our library. But if you want, I can bring you its author. He is here."
• HSBC Turkey's Chief Executive Officer, Selim Kervancı, is being investigated by the prosecutor's office over a video he retweeted during the Gezi protests five years ago. Kervancı is being charged with insulting Erdoğan for retweeting a video clip from the 2004 German movie "Downfall," set during Adolf Hitler's last days and depicting the collapse of Nazi Germany.
• Recently, Erdoğan claimed that the Turkish businessman and philanthropist Osman Kavala, currently detained and awaiting trial, was working for "the famous Hungarian Jew George Soros." By adding the "famous Hungarian Jew" to his conspiracy theories, Erdoğan apparently wanted to demonize Kavala and remind the judges that the suspect has a Jewish connection.

In December, a prosecutor launched an investigation into prominent Fox News (Turkey) journalist Fatih Portakal for "openly inciting others to commit a crime," because he asked his viewers a perfectly realistic question: "Let's have a peaceful protest [in Turkey], a protest against... rising natural gas prices. Could we do it [without getting arrested]?" (Image source: Fox News Turkey video screenshot)

Democratic anomaly became the new Turkish normal several years ago. The anomaly, sometimes, offers entertaining moments, too. Take, for instance, Parliament Speaker Binali Yıldırım, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's most important political confidant (and former prime minister), who became the joke of the day when he declared: "Animals, too, are living beings". Someone teased him on social media: "He is right. And I am adding: Plants, too, are living beings." A few days later Yıldırım, under fire from the opposition because he refuses to resign as parliament speaker although he would run for mayor of Istanbul in nationwide local elections on March 31 (they cite the constitution which bans the impartial parliament speaker from engaging in any political activity), amused a whole nation when he said: "Elections are not political activity". Not all Turkish anomalies are as entertaining as this one.

What most Turks thought was a joke in the past few years now appears to be bitter reality. The joke goes: One day a political prisoner asks his guard if he could borrow from the prison library a certain work of fiction written by a certain author. The guard answers: We don't have that book in our library. But if you want, I can bring you its author. He is here."

A journalist recently uncovered the true story behind what millions of Turks mistakenly thought was just a joke. An academic, Mehmet Altan, detained on charges of "giving subliminal messages for a coup," asked a guard if he could borrow a book written by his brother, Ahmet. "We don't have that book," said the guard, "but the author is here."

So, the Turkish witch-hunt goes on. As of October 31, there were 239 Turkish journalists under detention or in jail. One of them was Max Zirngast, an Austrian journalist and social activist, detained by the Turkish anti-terror squads in September. Like a political thriller from a Latin American country in the 1970s, Zirngast's interrogators sought to know details about books he had and his ties with the Kurds, as well as with left-wing organizations in Turkey. Zirngast was released on December 24, pending trial.

In the past couple of years, 29 publishing houses have been shut down. Tens of thousands of books have been confiscated and destroyed. Thousands of libraries have banished books banned by the government. Bookstores visited by police officers have expelled unwanted titles from their shelves, as well.

In January, Turkish law enforcement officials invented a new crime for journalists: Doing journalism against the state. The new crime, reminiscent of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Russia, came into being when Turkish prosecutors filed a lawsuit against journalist Esra Solin Dal on charges of "being a member of a terrorist organization" and "doing journalism against the state". Dal, a reporter for the pro-Kurdish Mezopotamya news agency, had been arrested along with 141 people in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish Diyarbakır province. Turkish police on October 9 arrested Esra Solin Dal, a reporter of the pro-Kurdish Mezopotamya Agency, along with 141 people, in the southeastern province of Diyarbakır. She was released later, but the authorities launched an investigation nevertheless. Finally, a court in Diyarbakır accepted the indictment.

In December, a prominent television news presenter, after covering the Yellow Vest protests in France, asked his viewers a perfectly realistic question: "Let's have a peaceful protest [in Turkey], a protest against... rising natural gas prices. Could we do it [without getting arrested]?" asked Fox News (Turkey) journalist Fatih Portakal, who has six million followers on Twitter. After President Erdoğan lambasted Portakal, a prosecutor immediately launched an investigation into him. The prosecutor's office said it was investigating Portakal for "openly inciting others to commit a crime" after the journalist speculated whether Turks could protest like those in France.

The Turkish witch-hunt does not target only journalists. Turkish actor Levent Üzümcü, for instance, known for his dissident views said his theatrical production was cancelled due to political pressure by the authorities. In a sarcastic video released, Üzümcü said:

"These days, which art and artists are as free as they have never been, democracy has been improved as much as it has not been before, our stage that we were planning to present our play on was taken from us due to political pressure."

Üzümcü took part in the Gezi Park protests in 2013, when millions of Turks took to the streets for months to protest Erdoğan's government. He was fired from his job at Istanbul's City Theater in 2015 after criticizing the government's heavy-handed suppression of protests that had spread across the country.

The Gezi Park protests apparently remain unforgettable in Turkey's official memory. HSBC Turkey's Chief Executive Officer Selim Kervancı is being investigated by the prosecutor's office over a video he retweeted during the Gezi protests five years ago. As the senior Turkish official of one of the world's biggest banks, he is among the highest-profile executives targeted in the government's crackdown on dissent. Kervancı is being charged with insulting Erdoğan for retweeting a video clip. from the 2004 German movie "Downfall," set during Adolf Hitler's last days and depicting the collapse of Nazi Germany.

In defiance of his country's colossal democratic deficit, Erdoğan is evidently trying to find new foes. Erdoğan's conspiracy theory that Turkey would have been a global power if not secretly battled by a clandestine network of Jews is not hidden. Recently, Erdoğan pointed a finger at the American entrepreneur George Soros for apparently conspiring against his government. He claimed that the Turkish businessman and philanthropist Osman Kavala, currently detained and awaiting trial, was working for "the famous Hungarian Jew George Soros". By adding the "famous Hungarian Jew" to his conspiracy theories, Erdoğan apparently wanted to demonize Kavala and remind the judges that the suspect has a Jewish connection.

Kavala was arrested in October 2017 on charges of sponsoring and organizing the Gezi protests. He has remained in jail since then, with no indictment. He says he is waiting to see the indictment against him in order to prove his innocence. Now that Erdoğan linked him with "that famous Hungarian Jew," this feat may not be easy.

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13598/new-year-old-turkey

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

France and Germany: "We Are Committed to the Emergence of a European Army" - Soeren Kern

​
by Soeren Kern

The continental showdown, which threatens to split the European Union down the middle between Eurosceptic nationalists and Europhile globalists, will heat up in coming weeks, ahead of elections for the European Parliament in late May 2019.

• "Populism and nationalism are increasing in all our countries. For the first time, a country — Great Britain — is leaving the European Union. Worldwide, multilateralism is under pressure...." – German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
• "Converging this much with Germany is an abandonment of sovereignty — a betrayal. If we had not alerted the public, this text would have been signed on the sly. The text provides in particular for the need to legislate in the event of obstacles to Franco-German cooperation.... I do not want more convergence with Berlin, be it in social or security matters, or in closer consultation in the UN Security Council." – Marine Le Pen, Le Temps.
• "Emmanuel Macron is calling for a grand debate to involve citizens in the public life of our country. At the same time, however, the President of the Republic negotiated a treaty on the sly even though it concerns conditions essential to the exercise of our national sovereignty. Neither the French people, nor the Parliament, nor the Constitutional Council were consulted... For many reasons, this treaty undermines our national sovereignty." – Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of the party Debout La France! (Stand Up, France!).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said that a new pact between German and France aims to build a Franco-German "common military culture" and "contribute to the creation of a European army." Pictured: Soldiers of the Franco-German brigade, a military unit founded in 1989, jointly consisting of units from the French Army and German Army. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have signed a new Franco-German friendship treaty aimed at reinvigorating the European Union, which has been buffeted by the European debt crisis, mass migration and Brexit — as well as innumerable conflicting interests and priorities among its 28 member states.

France and Germany, the self-appointed guardians of European integration, have said that the new treaty is a response to the growing influence of populists in Austria, Britain, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland and other European countries who are seeking to slow, and even reverse, European integration by recouping national sovereignty from the European Union and transferring those powers back to national capitals.

The continental showdown, which threatens to split the European Union down the middle between Eurosceptic nationalists and Europhile globalists, will heat up in coming weeks, ahead of elections for the European Parliament in late May 2019.

The "Aachen Treaty" [Traité d'Aix-la-Chapelle; Vertrag von Aachen], signed on January 22 in the German city of Aachen, consists of 28 articles organized into seven chapters; both states commit to closer cooperation in a series of policy areas. The first eight articles, which encompass bilateral foreign and defense policy as well as the European Union, are the most ambitious and consequential items in the treaty:

• Article 1 commits both states to deepen their cooperation on European policy by "promoting an effective and strong common foreign and security policy and strengthening and deepening Economic and Monetary Union."
  
• Article 2 commits both states to "consult each other regularly at all levels before the major European deadlines, seeking to establish common positions and to agree coordinated speeches by their ministers. They will coordinate on the transposition of European law into their national law."
  
• Article 3 commits both states to "deepen their cooperation on foreign policy, defense, external and internal security and development while striving to strengthen Europe's autonomous capacity for action." The two states also pledge to "consult each other in order to define common positions on any important decision affecting their common interests and to act jointly in all cases where this is possible."
  
• Article 4 commits both states to "increasingly converge their objectives and policies on security and defense.... They lend themselves to mutual assistance by all means at their disposal, including armed forces, in case of armed aggression against their territories." They also "commit themselves to strengthening Europe's capacity for action and to jointly invest to fill its capacity gaps, thus strengthening the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance." They "intend to promote the competitiveness and consolidation of the European defense industrial and technological base...they support the closest possible cooperation between their defense industries on the basis of mutual trust...both states will develop a common approach to arms exports with regard to joint projects. The two states will "establish the Franco-German Defense and Security Council as the political body to manage these reciprocal commitments. This Council will meet at the highest level at regular intervals."
  
• Article 5 commits both states to "extend cooperation between their foreign affairs ministries, including their diplomatic and consular missions" and coordinate action at the United Nations and NATO.
  
• Article 6 commits both states to "further strengthen their bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism and organized crime, as well as their cooperation in the judiciary and in intelligence and police matters."
  
• Article 7 commits both states to "establish an ever-closer partnership between Europe and Africa...with the aim of improving socio-economic prospects, sustainability, good governance and conflict prevention, crisis resolution, especially in the context of peacekeeping, and the management of post-conflict situations."
  
• Article 8 commits both states to "cooperate closely in all organs of the United Nations." They will "closely coordinate their positions, as part of a wider effort of consultation among the EU member states sitting on the UN Security Council and in accordance with the positions and interests of the European Union." They will "do their utmost to achieve a unified position of the European Union in the appropriate organs of the United Nations." The two states also "undertake to continue their efforts to reform the United Nations Security Council." The admission of Germany as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council "is a priority of Franco-German diplomacy."
  

The remainder of the treaty pledges closer bilateral cooperation in the areas of artificial intelligence, climate change, cross-border issues, culture, economic affairs, education, energy, environment, health and sustainable development, among other issues.

Merkel, speaking in Aachen, noted that the city was home to Charlemagne (742-814), whom she described as "the father of Europe." She said that the new pact aims to build a Franco-German "common military culture" and "contribute to the creation of a European army." She added:

"Populism and nationalism are increasing in all our countries. For the first time, a country — Great Britain — is leaving the European Union. Worldwide, multilateralism is under pressure, be it in climate cooperation, in world trade, in the acceptance of international institutions or even in the United Nations. Seventy-four years — within one lifetime —after the end of the Second World War, what was seemingly self-evident is again being questioned.
"Therefore, first of all, this situation requires a new founding of our responsibility within the European Union — the responsibility of Germany and France in this European Union. Secondly, it requires a redefinition of the direction of our cooperation. Thirdly, it requires a common understanding of our international role, which can lead to joint action. For this reason, there is, fourthly, a need for shared similarities between our two peoples — in institutions, but above all in the daily living together of our peoples; and especially in the area close to the border....
"We are committed to developing a common military culture, a common defense industry and a common line on arms exports. We want to make our contribution to the emergence of a European army."

Macron, also speaking in Aachen, added: "At a time when Europe is threatened by nationalism, which is growing from within, Germany and France must assume their responsibility and show the way forward." He said that the agreement is an "important moment" for showing that the bilateral relationship was "a bedrock which can relaunch itself... in the service of reinforcing the European project." Macron defended the European Union as a "shield against tumults of the world."

The treaty, however, is short on details and may end up being more symbolic than substantive. Merkel and Macron are both facing waning authority and it remains unclear whether they will have the necessary political capital to jump-start European integration. Germany is now looking toward the post-Merkel era, after she announced that she would step down as chancellor in 2021. Macron is grappling with a nationwide wave of anti-government protests that may yet bring down his government.

The treaty has been met with a mixture of anger and indifference.

In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the populist party National Rally (formerly the National Front), said that the treaty undermines national sovereignty and accused Macron of "selling off" France to the Germans. In an interview with the Geneva-based newspaper Le Temps, she said:

"Converging this much with Germany is an abandonment of sovereignty — a betrayal. If we had not alerted the public, this text would have been signed on the sly. The text provides in particular for the need to legislate in the event of obstacles to Franco-German cooperation. The French nation is one and indivisible and the law cannot be applied differently for the border regions with Germany. There is the letter of this treaty, but also the spirit. I do not want more convergence with Berlin, be it social or security matters, or in closer consultation in the UN Security Council. The permanent seat of France was hard-won during the Second World War and made France a major power. To call it into question would be to defeat what General de Gaulle did."

Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of the sovereigntist party Debout La France! (Stand Up, France!), said:

"In no case should this Franco-German friendship treaty be a pretext for submission. Yet this appears to be the case.
"First, the method of the treaty. Faced with the democratic crisis that our country is going through, Emmanuel Macron is calling for a grand debate to involve citizens in the public life of our country. At the same time, however, the President of the Republic negotiated a treaty on the sly, even though it concerns conditions essential to the exercise of our national sovereignty. Neither the French people, nor the Parliament, nor the Constitutional Council were consulted.
"Second, the content of the treaty. In concrete terms, many stipulations of the treaty aim to share with Germany the sovereign powers and prerogatives of France. Indeed, if mutual defense is integrated into the treaty, France offers Germany the benefits of its military assets, which are envied around the world: (the world's fifth-largest military power, nuclear deterrence, etc.) (Article 4). France offers Germany access to its diplomatic network, the third-largest in the world after the United States and China (Article 5). France offers Germany indirect access to its permanent seat on the UN Security Council by coordinating their positions and coordinating their decisions (Article 8). France wants to give Germany a permanent seat on the UN Security Council by making this objective a diplomatic 'priority' (Article 8). For many reasons, this treaty undermines our national sovereignty.
"Finally, the lack of reciprocity. While Germany is taking advantage of France's strengths as a world power in diplomacy and defense, Germany offers no real counterpart. This is why the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle is not an act of Franco-German cooperation, but of submission of France to Germany.
"In reality, this one-sided treaty is an insult to the friendly relationship that France should maintain with Germany. In view of the concessions made by France to Germany, without compensation, the text signed today in Aix-la-Chapelle constitutes a true act of treason."

In Germany, Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel, leaders of the populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD), issued a statement:

"The Aachen Treaty is a step in the wrong direction. Under the guise of European cooperation, the treaty is the result of the French interest of transferring and redistributing German power, to the detriment of the German taxpayers. It would also create a Franco-German special relationship that would alienate Germany from other European nations.
"AfD federal spokesman Alexander Gauland explains: French President Macron is unable to maintain order in his own country. The nationwide protests in France are never-ending. This failing president is imposing visions for the future of Germany. The EU is now deeply divided. A German-French special relationship will alienate us even further from other Europeans. This torpedoes exactly those European thoughts that Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Macron summon so intimately. They seem to suspect that this EU will disintegrate in the current form.
"Leader of the AfD in the German Bundestag, Dr. Alice Weidel, adds: This treaty is a unacceptable submission of an elected chancellor to a troubled president. Macron gets what he wants: Germany is committed, in the first article, to strengthen and deepen the Economic and Monetary Union, in other words, to complete the transfer and redistribution of wealth.
"Macron promises better and faster access to German taxpayer money in order to be able to continue the French inflationary policy and to fund his election promises. He has already laid out concrete plans for this and has received plenty of applause from established German parties.
"France should also be the main beneficiary in the planned intensified cooperation of the armed forces for the purpose of joint operations and in the consolidation of the European defense industry, which is also envisaged in the treaty. Article 4 of the treaty opens the door to new questionable foreign deployments in Africa and the further sell-off of German technology under the umbrella of French-dominated joint ventures.
"These policy points of French interests are embodied in the pathetic affirmation of obviousness and a plethora of symbolic measures and well-intentioned declarations of intent. Where this treaty, beyond general Europeanness, should also serve German interests, remains a mystery. This agreement furthers the breach with those EU member states that do not want a Franco-German 'European Superstate.' The Aachen Treaty is therefore not only superfluous, but counterproductive.'"

• Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13620/france-germany-european-army

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

“White Skin Privilege” – a Racist Idea - David Horowitz

​
by David Horowitz

We are facing a totalitarian threat in the Democratic Party.

The hottest political fad in America today is “Get Whitey.” Across the country re-education sessions are routinely held in businesses, professional offices, medical schools, universities and even kindergartens, whose purpose is to teach the “un-woke” about the evils of “white privilege,” and make the whites who participate uncomfortable about their skin color. The bottom line in these sessions: Whites need to own up to the fact that regardless of their intentions, beliefs, behaviors or status in life, they are elite participants in a racist system that oppresses “people of color,” and are so merely because they are white. But discrimination on the basis of skin color has been outlawed in this country for more than 60 years. Therefore one might reasonably ask, “WTF is white skin privilege”?

Here’s my politically incorrect answer: White skin privilege is the gift of being the only racial/ethnic group on the planet which it is okay to single out for abuse. Indeed, handing out such abuse is obligatory for all who regard themselves as “woke,” and aspire to create a brave new world of “social justice.” This is a category that includes the media, the popular culture, the educational system and such racist shapers of public opinion as Don Lemon, Joy Ann Reid, Joy Behar, Brian Stetler, Rachel Maddow, the editorial boards and reporters of the NY Times and the Washington Post, and their clones, and the Democratic Party.

 “White privilege is the privilege of being regarded as untrustworthy, prejudiced, and blind to the injustices one’s whiteness allegedly inflicts. White privilege is the privilege of being damned for alleged crimes like “Stop and Frisk” laws, and also the often imaginary crimes of one’s often alleged ancestors. Thus it is fashionable in today’s politically correct culture to seek reparations for slavery from Americans whose ancestors never owned slaves, were not even in the country at the time, and were oppressed themselves in ethnic and religious ghettos across the globe. Reparations for slavery are also sought from the descendants of Union soldiers who gave their lives to abolish slavery. Facts are irrelevant. It’s all about skin color.

Thus white skin privilege is the privilege of being held responsible for slavery when white America accounted for less than 1% of the African slave trade globally, which was mainly run by “people of color,” while white America led the world in abolishing slavery, an institution which still exists in non-white Africa today.

White skin privilege is the privilege of being scapegoated for every failure of “people of color” who are unable to take advantage of the opportunities America affords to all races, and in particular to the majority of African Americans who have successfully made it to the middle class.

 Our country is now facing a national political crisis over borders because of the poverty and oppression caused by the corrupt politics and leftist economies of Central and South America, which have prompted their citizens to break into our country illegally. Conditions in the resource-rich southern hemisphere are so bad that 20 million of its residents have already broken the law to violate our sovereignty, bankrupt our social services and educational systems and fill our jails. According to the left, to seek a wall to stem this flood is white racism - or, as top Democratic strategist put it recently, “Building a wall says, “If you’re brown turn around.” Such twisted logic would also provide an excuse to open our borders to the world’s Islamic terrorists who are also brown, and have killed hundreds of thousands of mainly brown victims since 9/11.

Here is how the social justice website, Tolerance.org, which is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center, explains the invisible powers of “white privilege” to its target audience of K-12 teachers: “It seems logical that a person should have the chance to prove themselves individually before they are judged. It’s supposedly an American ideal. But it’s a privilege often not granted to people of color—with dire consequences. For example, programs like New York City’s now-abandoned ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy target a disproportionate number of black and Latinx [sic] people.”

Stop and Frisk was originally a New York law enforcement policy designed to make random checks for concealed weapons, and thus to prevent potential armed robberies and homicides. It was instituted by conservative Republicans and subsequently “abandoned” by leftwing Democrats as “racist.” To make Stop and Frisk a racial issue, its opponents inevitably left out its specifics, including the profiles of individuals whom the police target for searches. Like all “analyses” promoted by identity politics enthusiasts, the Tolerance.org explanation eliminates details like the motivations for the policies, and the characteristics of their applications. It thus obscures from view all the actions of individuals that might account for the disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics affected, in order to focus on the invisible but sinister oppressor, “white skin privilege.”

In reality, the selective nature of the policy was dictated by the fact that 98% of the homicides in New York are committed by blacks and Hispanics. Blacks constitute only 23% of the city’s population buy they commit 70% of the robberies, while whites are responsible for 4% of the same. In other words, the Stop and Frisk policies that discover “disproportionately” concealed and illegal weapons among blacks and Hispanics have an explanation that is behavioral not racial. So-called white “privilege” is a mirage. The fact is that whites are only 3% of the homicide problem and 4% of the robbery problem. Therefore, law enforcement officials are wise to be less interested in them. On the other hand, more than 90% of the homicide victims of blacks and Hispanics are other blacks and Hispanics. So “Stop and Frisk” should really be seen as a privilege for the black and Hispanic communities who are the potential targets of lethal criminal behavior, and therefore favored for protection. Or were until the left, led by the radical mayor of New York ended the practice.

Most examples offered by proponents of the “white skin privilege” scam depend on attributing all disparities between races to “systemic racism”- a practice outlawed by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 - rather than to the habits, attitudes and actions of individuals. For example, the Tolerance.org article tells us, “the ability to accumulate wealth has long been a white privilege—a privilege created by overt, systemic racism in both the public and private sectors.” Tolerance.org doesn’t identify any overt racism or racist acts (which are illegal under American laws) or examine any of the individual behaviors that lead to wealth accumulation. It would be news to Oprah Winfrey, daughter of a share cropper, raised in segregated Mississippi, whose net worth is $2.9 billion, or billionaire basketball player and TV host, Shaquille O’Neill, or hip hop mogul, clothing magnate and outsize celebrity Sean “P. Diddy” Coombs or Snoop Doggy Dog or any of the many blacks who have managed to accumulate tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in a single lifetime.

Seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock thanks in part to a welfare policy inflicted by leftists on America’s poor that cuts off benefits for homes where a father is present. All other factors being equal, including race, a child raised in a single mother household is five to six times more likely to be poor, than a child raised in a household with two parents. But facts like this are generally excluded from the “studies” that claim the wealth gap is intractable. “Inherited wealth” is often invoked as an insuperable advantage – a privilege that allegedly whites alone can take advantage of. But 70% of all millionaires are first generation millionaires. In other words, they earned their deserts, and did so in a single generation. 

“White skin privilege” is not only a racist term, but part of a totalitarian ideology - identity politics - which erases the individual in favor of collective identities based on race and gender. It warps language to conceal the facts that refute its claims. Thus “white skin privilege” is an Orwellian construct to scapegoat whites who in reality, and in alliance with minorities, have created the most tolerant and inclusive society in human history.

The adjective “undocumented immigrant,” for example, is a form of Orwellian DoubleSpeak designed to suppress the fact that millions of aliens have violated the nation’s laws, circumvented its citizenship process and stolen places that belong to those applying for entry legally. It is part of the left’s efforts to eliminate the concept of citizenship along with the obligations it entails in exchange for the rights it bestows.

Similarly, the term “under-served communities,” universally used by colleges to provide privileges on the basis of skin color, suppresses the truth that these privileges are only necessary because the beneficiaries are unable to qualify under the same standards as required of others. In other words, to obscure the fact that nobody is under-serving these communities and the privileges are racist in intention and result. No one in his right mind thinks that the admissions staffs at America’s liberal colleges are excluding minorities for racist reasons. Especially not when the same colleges are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to seek out and recruit qualified minorities. The only reasons for the subterfuge “under-served” are to suppress the fact that the applicants are unqualified and then to create the fiction that minorities are “marginalized” and “excluded” by … whitey.

America is at a crossroads. The progressive left has embraced a racist doctrine in which white people are the villains. Equally disturbing, the left has embraced a totalitarian doctrine that erases the individual – the cornerstone of America’s revolutionary idea that all human beings are equal in the eyes of their Creator, and should be judged according to their merits and not on the basis of their skin color. Is it any wonder that the Democratic Party has formed a “resistance” against a duly elected government that seeks to defend America’s core principles of individual freedom and individual accountability - or are constantly calling for its overthrow?


David Horowitz is the author of the forthcoming book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, which will be published by Humanix Books on February 19.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272671/white-skin-privilege-%E2%80%93-racist-idea-david-horowitz

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran's Kidnapping Industry - Majid Rafizadeh

​
by Majid Rafizadeh

The more the ruling mullahs are appeased, the more emboldened and empowered they become to continue violating human rights.

• This international breach of justice should be a lesson to the UK and other governments: It does not matter if the mullahs reach out their hands out in peace; the Islamist regime of Iran will continue to harm innocent victims on a daily basis.
• In response to the snub, the British government should consider bringing to a halt its appeasement policies toward the ruling mullahs. The more they are appeased, the more emboldened and empowered they become to continue violating human rights.
• It must be made clear to Iran that, apart from its unacceptable nuclear and ballistic missile build up, the UK -- and every country -- will also not stand for the capture, torture and imprisonment of the innocent. If the British government speaks in actions rather than words, perhaps these captives could be free to resume the life they deserve again, and the world could be free of a major nuclear threat.

Two of the hostages Iran is holding are an innocent British mother, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and her helpless four-year-old daughter, Gabriella. Pictured: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband Richard Ratcliffe in 2011. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

"Sometimes when I come back from the visit with Gabriella, after saying goodbye to her, I feel as if I cannot live without her, I want to go back and hold her. She kisses me so hard. It is hard to say goodbye to her. She blows kisses all the way as she goes up the stairs, and everyone stands there watching." These are the words of a grieving British mother, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, held in prison in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as she describes saying goodbye to her child.

In 2016, the relationship between the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Obama administration seemed to have reached a euphoric level. Many exorbitant concessions were made by the United States to the Islamic Republic. The argument for these concessions was that such policies of appeasement would inspire Iran to change its malignant behavior, and that the freedoms that resulted would trickle down to the Iranian people. People began to think it would be safe to travel to Iran again. As tourism began to increase, however, it soon became clear that there was still rampant danger. People started becoming the new hostages of Iran.

Two of these victims are an innocent British mother, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and her helpless then-22-month-old daughter, Gabriella. Zaghari-Ratcliffe traveled with her baby to Iran to visit her family on Norowz, the Iranian New Year, in 2016. With the change in political climate Zaghari-Ratcliffe, employed as a project manager with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of the Canadian news agency, Thomson Reuters, assumed they would be safe. As she boarded the plane, she had no idea what she would face at the Khomeini Airport. She was surrounded by The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and arrested.

Immediately, the IRGC confiscated both her and her daughter's passports. Gabriella does not have an Iranian nationality; she was born in Britain. Despite her foreign citizenship, she has not been allowed to return to their there. As is true in many Iranian court cases authorities are not required to, and did not offer, any reason to detain or arrest Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her child.

Zaghari-Ratcliffe not only had her baby taken from her, she was faced with the confusion of why she had even been arrested in the first place. Later, ambiguous and vague charges surfaced. Although the authorities never presented any evidence, Zaghari-Ratcliffe was accused of "plotting to topple the Iranian government." With no ability to defend herself, and no requirement for actual proof that such a crime had occurred, she was sent to prison. The entire situation looks like another instance of Iranian serial kidnapping and hostage taking, starting with the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-81, in which 52 American citizens and diplomats were held for 444 days. When President Ronald Reagan – expected not to look kindly upon the situation – was elected, the hostages were immediately released.
The Iranians proceeded to kidnap more Americans, five of whom were released by then-President Barack Obama for an illegal ransom of $1.7 billion

Former FBI agent Robert Levinson, about whom a "proof-of-life" video from 2010 was released in 2012, is still missing.

In 2007, Iranians seized five Britons from a government ministry building in the Baghdad in May 2007, apparently to stop Iran's diversion of $18 billion to Iraq from being exposed. "Just one, Peter Moore, made it out of Iran alive," according to the Guardian.

In 2016, Iran seized two US Navy boats with their crews, and in 2017, a Saudi fishing boat.
In 2018, Iran kidnapped 58 members of a Qatari royal falcon-hunting party; the government may have paid $1 billion for their release and then have captured two Qatari boats.

Even though the United Kingdom has been providing assistance to the Iranian regime by arguing in its defense to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the "nuclear deal"), Iranian leaders evidently feel no obligation to return the favor. Instead, they continue to hold an innocent citizen of the United Kingdom, and imprison her mother under fabricated charges -- presumably in the hope of yet more ransom money or possibly the continuation of the never-signed nuclear deal that would enable it to advance to deliverable nuclear capability.

The British government and the United Nations have repeatedly reached out to the ruling mullahs of Iran and asked that Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her baby be allowed to return to their home in the United Kingdom. Despite countless attempts made to help Iran, it has ignored their requests. Ms. Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, as well as Mr. José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, have called on Iran to release Zaghari-Ratcliffe:] "We consider that Ms. Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been arbitrarily deprived of her liberty and that her right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal has been violated, she pointed out ... These are flagrant violations of Iran's obligations under international law".

Even though the British government has sometimes come to her defense, the 41-year-old Zaghari-Ratcliffe has faced a worsening situation. The conditions of her imprisonment continue to deteriorate. Her legal rights have been completely scuttled.

With no fair and due process in the Sharia court, she has been consistently denied access to her lawyer. The Iranian regime has even refused to allow the British authorities to have access to her. The Sharia court then sentenced her to five years in prison.

Currently the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has exceeded 1,000 days in prison as of January 2019, amounts to torture. From what information her family has been able to gather, her situation as a prisoner in Iran is dire, and she has said she will go on a hunger strike.

They explained this while pleading for the United Nations to intervene in her case to free her from the torment she is forced to endure. Although the prison's doctor has promised her medical care, the Iranian authorities are refusing to provide it. The Labour MP for Hampstead, Tulip Siddiq, urged the British government to act because Zaghari-Ratcliffe treatment is "becoming a matter of life and death".

This international breach of justice should be a lesson to the UK and other governments: It does not matter if the mullahs reach out their hands out in peace, the Islamist regime of Iran will continue to harm innocent victims on a daily basis. In response to that snub, the UK should consider bringing to a halt its appeasement policies toward the fundamentalist mullahs. The more the ruling mullahs are appeased, the more emboldened and empowered they become to violate human rights.

The British government should also level appropriate economic and political sanctions against Iran to pressure the regime into agreeing to stop all human rights abuses, and also to release an innocent mother, and her baby, so that they may be reunited and return home. It must be made clear to Iran that, apart from its unacceptable nuclear and ballistic missile build up, the UK -- and every country -- will also not stand for the capture, torture and imprisonment of the innocent.

If the British government speaks in actions rather than words, perhaps these captives, just two of many who endure such unspeakable hardship, could be free to resume the life they deserve again, and the world could be free of a major nuclear threat.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13542/iran-kidnapping-hostages

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Egypt issues ultimatum to Hamas on cooperation with Iran - Daniel Siryoti

​
by Daniel Siryoti

Cairo officials: Hamas must decide whether group "takes its orders from Tehran or continues to implement understandings for calm" on Israel-Gaza border

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi
Photo: Reuters 

Israel Hayom has learned that alongside Jerusalem's decision to postpone the transfer of Qatari funds to Hamas following the escalation on Israel's border with the Gaza Strip, Egypt has issued the terrorist organization's political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh an ultimatum. Cairo has made it clear Haniyeh must decide whether "Hamas takes its orders from Tehran or continues to implement the understandings for calm" formulated by the head of Egyptian intelligence Abbas Kamel.

A senior Egyptian intelligence official told Israel Hayom that senior Hamas members, chief among them Haniyeh, had contacted Kamel with the request that Israel be sent the message that "Hamas was not involved in the grave events on the border."

Hamas further asked the Egyptian intelligence chief to "prevent the postponement of the transfer of the money from Qatar." Haniyeh clarified that "Hamas will not ignore the Islamic Jihad's provocations, which were carried out at the direct order of Tehran."

The source said that while "Hamas was furious that senior Islamic Jihad officials did everything they could to bring about an escalation in the security situation in Gaza that postponed the transfer of money from Qatar to the [Gaza] strip," they did not expect the Egyptian ultimatum, which pushed them into a corner.

The Egyptian official's remarks come as Egypt and other Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states are hoping to keep Iran from establishing itself militarily in Gaza as it has done in Yemen and Syria, at the same time as it eyes other Sunni Arab states.

Israel Hayom has further learned from the Egyptian official that Cairo made it clear to Haniyeh that "Egypt has no plans to take part in the indirect talks Qatari emissary [to Gaza] Mohammed al-Emadi is conducting on the issue of the postponed transfer of funds to Gaza." This is due to the bitter rivalry between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE.

Qatari envoy Mohammed Al-Emadi meets with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh 
in Gaza City, Thursday

Qatar has been accused of providing support, funding and shelter to terrorist organizations and their operatives, including radical Sunni Islamic terrorist groups directed by Hamas' umbrella movement movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed in Egypt and other Gulf states, as well as Shiite terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which take their orders from Tehran.

The Egyptian official emphasized that "it was made clear to Haniyeh and the heads of Hamas that Cairo would not lay the groundwork for Qatar's moves in Gaza, and Egypt has no intention of intervening in the event a military confrontation breaks out in Gaza because Hamas is looking the other way at the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's provocations that come at the orders of Tehran."

He said Cairo relayed to Hamas the message that it was to blame for the crisis "and that they will need to deal with it and contain the IDF's attacks so that they can get the money from Qatar."

Daniel Siryoti

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2019/01/25/egypt-issues-ultimatum-to-hamas-on-cooperation-with-iran/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Key document on Bezeq could clear Netanyahu in Case 4,000 - Akiva Bigman

​
by Akiva Bigman

Document shows merger approved unanimously and PM had negligible impact.

A newly unearthed document could undermine a key premise in Case 4,000, a corruption case in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considered suspect.

Case 4,000 centers on an alleged conflict of interest involving Netanyahu, Bezeq and the Walla news website, which Bezeq owns. The police allege that Bezeq's controlling shareholder, Shaul Elovitch, ensured positive coverage of the Netanyahu family on Walla in exchange for the prime minister promoting government regulations favorable to Bezeq that would cement the telecom giant's market share and be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the corporation.

Police investigators say Netanyahu went out of his way to push for regulation that allowed Bezeq to merge with Yes, a provider of satellite TV, as part of the illicit deal with Elovitch. Investigators say this was clearly a quid pro quo because Netanyahu used his clout to override the objections among various officials in the Communications Ministry and expedited the approval process in a way that gave Elovitch favorable treatment.

But a new document from the minutes of a meeting held by the Communications Ministry's Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Council on June 23, 2015 shows that the merger was approved without any objections and only after the proper procedures were followed.

According to the minutes, which were released after a freedom of information request by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, shows that that council chairwoman asked, "Who is in favor of the merger?" and then she rules: "The merger is approved unanimously."

The minutes also show that three senior officials from the ministry who participated in the meeting did not voice any objection to the merger.

The council signed off on the merger, and only then did Netanyahu, as the newly appointed communication minister, sign off on the merger.

In fact, the council meeting was only the final step in a drawn-out regulatory process. Deliberations on the possible merger go back as early as 2004 and in March 2014, more than a year before Netanyahu became communications minister, the Israel Antitrust Authority gave it a green light.

Netanyahu became communications minister only in May 2015, about a month before the ministry's regulatory council approved the merger. This means that he only had about a month in which he was in a position of influence in the decade long approval process.

Akiva Bigman

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2019/01/25/key-document-on-bezeq-could-clear-netanyahu-in-case-4000/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Palestinian Civil War - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

​
by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

An article on a pro-Hamas site by a Mr. Ra'afat Mara is brought in translation. Mara expresses in print what Hamas members think of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority he chairs.

The tension between the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas Organization in Gaza is approaching the boiling point, as a result of several factors:

The dire economic situation in Gaza, the unbridgeable chasm between Hamas and Fatah's outlook,  a stalemate in Israel-PLO negotiations, the postponement of any attempts at progress between Israel and the Palestinians during the election period, the approaching date for announcing the US government's "deal of the century" - and the constant leaks about its content - the strengthening of relations between Israel and several Arab states and, of course, the lack of any chance on the political horizon that Israel will pack its bags and return to the 1949 lines.

Hamas is in financial straits because its flow of Iranian support has dried up as a result of the economic sanctions on Iran, while the economic crisis in Turkey casts a shadow on Sultan Erdogan's proteges, the heads of Hamas in Gaza. Hamas members in Judea and Samaria are being hunted down by Israeli and PA security forces, who work hand in hand 24/7 against the terror organization.   

The article I have brought below (in translation), with my clarifications in parentheses, appeared on a pro-Hamas site n early January 2019.

What lies behind Mahmoud Abbas' hysteria

An article by Ra'afat Mara.

"Anyone observing the behavior of Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, realizes very soon that he functions under tense, extremely difficult political conditions and that the decisions he has been making are bad ones and detrimental to all Palestinians.

"Anyone observing Mahmoud Abbas becomes aware of the evil impulses he harbors inside him, of how he is an extremist who thinks in terms of settling scores, is ruled by a tendency to take revenge and does not mind causing injury to every Palestinian as long as he can spew poisonous hatred in every direction. There is not one Palestinian or group of Palestinians who have been spared Mahmoud Abbas' blind hatred.

"His criminal acts have caused damage to Fatah itself, the group which has lost the most because of his unstable behavior.   

"About a year ago, Abbas made decisions and decided on punitive measures against all Palestinians, against PLO splinter groups, against the Gaza Strip and against Fatah members. He steadfastly ignored the demands of the PLO splinter groups which refused to assemble the National Palestinian Council and the PLO Central Committee while under the occupation and for as long as there is no real national understanding or peaceful relationship with Hamas.

"Abbas has ceased paying the salaries of Fatah workers, cut the salaries of prisoners, held back funds meant for the sick, suspended the agreement signed with hospital sanitation workers, and cut off Gaza's electricity. 

"Abbas publicized a decision to dissolve the Legislative Council elected by the people, thwarted peace efforts with Hamas and the establishment of an agreed upon government with them, dismissed the PA personnel at the Rafah crossing (which caused Egypt to close its side of the crossing) – and these are not the only bad decisions he has made.

"There are several reasons for this hysterical behavior on the part of Mahmoud Abbas, the most important of which are: 

"1. Hamas' ability to stand strong during the last year in the face of Abbas' sanctions and the siege he laid on Gaza. In fact, the Hamas movement withstood the pressure, managed to overcome the attempted siege whose objective was to weaken the organization, and did not give in. Hamas foiled Abbas' plans by means of good policies, national consensus and several steps that provided public services on the ground.

"2. Hamas continues to commit violent and armed terror attacks against the occupation in the West Bank.  Hamas succeeded in killing several soldiers of the occupation, raising the level of hostility in the West Bank. These operations enhance Hamas' political importance in the eyes of the public, while Abbas and his government played the role of security service providers who collaborate with the enemy and whose mandate is to protect that enemy.

"3. Hamas succeeded in creating a true Palestinian national vision that includes the vast majority of Palestinian society's components by presenting a broad nationalist  outlook vis a vis the dialogue with the PLO,  one based on reconcilitation, cooperation, free elections and building a joint government. Abbas played the part of the person who refuses to accept these suggestions, bringing the entire process to a halt.

"4. The March of Return sustained broad mass momentum involving amazing sacrifice and succeeded in achieving more against the occupation than one victorious moment because it united all the Palestinian forces and the masses of our people, in the country, and out of it in the Hamas camp.

"5. Hamas proved that it is in its power to neutralize disagreements with several influential states in the region, maintain the dialogue it began with them, and develop relations with these states. 

"6. There is a strong mutual understanding between the American government and the occupying government. It is this understanding that will bring us "the deal of the century" and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the occupation. This has put to an end to Mahmoud Abbas' hopes to begin to settle the conflict with Israel, to the idea of a Palestinian State (on a portion of Palestine), legitimized the settlements, cancelled the right of return and presented the PLO as a terror organization. What this means is the collapse of Abu Mazen's dream of negotiations.

"7.  The Palestinian public, both within Falestin and outside it, supports Hamas. This received strong expression in more than one way, from free elections held in the universities and elections taking place in countries allowing Palestinian refugees within their borders, as Hamas (as opposed to the PLO) is willing to back the refugees in their pursuit of rights and reparations as well as to protect them.

"These and other reasons contributed to turning Mahmoud Abbas into the person standing in the way of nationalist dialogue, the person destroying national Palestinian aspirations and the enemy of the opposition, without his achieving the political quid pro quo for his aid to the occupation. Over the past few weeks he has raised the level of his declarations  Protecting the occupation, careful to preserve the security coordination (with Israel) and refusing to accept any form of opposition.

"The problem is that the biggest loser as a result of Abbas' hysterical behavior is the Palestinian issue and Palestinian national aspirations as well as the heroic shaheeds, wounded and imprisoned, of whom the Barghouti and Na'alwa families are living paradigms (families of the terrorists who murdered Jews in recent months)."

Mr. Ra'afat's article ends here. He put pen to paper and expressed what Hamas members think of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority he chairs.  

Abbas and his Fatah cohorts, however, did not let him have the last word: They speak constantly about the terrible injury Hamas inflicted on the Palestinian dream when it took over Gaza by force of arms, an eye-opener that led to Israel's realizing that the same violence would occur if a Palestinian state were to be established in Judea and Samaria.

The split between the two forces limits the ability of the Palestinian Arabs to maneuver because it is not clear to the world who represents the Palestinians and who is actually responsible for their fate. The split allows hostile elements such as Iran to entrench their influence in Palestinian Arab society, against the Palestinian desire to take control of their own decision-making. As a result of the split and the accusations hurled from Gaza, as seen in the article brought here, it is clear that Hamas is supported by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, bringing the probability that Israel will allow the establishment of a Palestinian state there close to zero.

Abbas' supporters claim that Hamas is responsible for the suffering of Gaza residents, because the Hamas takeover put them in charge of what happens in the Strip. Since he has no control over what happens with the money he transfers to Gaza, Abbas, accordingly, has ceased funding the Strip. 

In the final analysis, the split between the PLO and Hamas, Ramallah and Gaza, Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, is not a controversy, but a deep chasm. And it is permanent.  The reality is one of two cultural patterns, two entities, two agendas, and the world does not contain a bridge long enough to connect the worldviews and behavior of the two sides.

The old and unanswered question lurks behind the scenes, awaiting a definitive response: Is there really a "Palestinian nation?" And the answer is in the negative. In the Middle East there are no nations, only tribes and the tribes living in Judea and Samaria are not the same as those living in the Gaza Strip. This is the incontrovertible sociological fact behind the political split between the PLO and Hamas.

Translated from the Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor Arutz Sheva.


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

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23350

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Trump went for a 21-day suspension of the partial shutdown, and what happens next - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation.

President Trump’s Rose Garden declaration of an end to the partial shutdown was a tactical retreat, a rejection of a Little Big Horn strategy. He found himself in a no-win situation, and rather than bear unacceptable costs, has redefined the contest on better terms: sending the issue to a House and Senate conference committee charged with coming up with a deal that prevents a resumption of the shutdown, and provides border security, something that Democrats say they believe is important. 

Making the best of a bad situation. Rose Garden speech January 25, 2019

Cropped from Fox News, via YouTube

It is important that Nancy Pelosi declined to rule out funding for a physical barrier. We do not know what was said in the process of reaching an agreement to re-start the normal operations of the federal govenrment for the next 21 days. 

Democrats naturally are gloating, calling it a surrender and admonishing Trump to “learn his lesson” and acknowledge his defeat by the wise and all-knowing Nancy Pelosi. This certainly gives them a sugar high while providing evidence for future use that their priority is humiliating Trump rather than attending to the needs of border security.

Nonetheless, as President Trump correctly noted in the Rose Garden address, it was an “agreement.” The Dems agreed to procedural rules that can be used to make the case for border barrier construction. The deal will be hashed out in the conference committee, which will then submit the same legislation to both Houses of Congress, with the 21-day clock ticking. Either chamber can modify the legislation, but that happens under the gun of the ticking clock.

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation. It was obvious when the Air Traffic Controllers demonstrated their ability to stymie air travel at the nation’s busiest airports that President Trump, having declared ownership of the shutdown, would be blamed for strangling the economy, and was on the hook for any air traffic control disaster that might, God forbid, happen. The Executive VP of the Air Traffic Controllers Association went on CNN to blame Trump for delays and safety issues. With the Super Bowl next weekend in the city with the world’s busiest airport, not only would business and family travel be impaired, the functioning of the nation’s premier sporting event was in peril. 

It may be coincidence, but this kill shot job action occurred in the wake of extraordinary signs that House Democrats were wavering in their support for Pelosi’s “not one dollar” opposition to a border wall – while the government is (partially) shut down. This gives Trump’s allies something to work with. Steny Hoyer, second-ranking House Democrat, already has conceded that a physical barrier is part of the solution – just not while the government is shut down. The Democrats now own the House majority because new members have been elected from historically GOP-leaning districts, and many of those freshmen fear facing voters in November next year and being painted as Pelosi’s pawns who prevented a border barrier desired by their constituents.

The Senate members of the conference committee have been announced:

The Republicans are Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Hoeven of North Dakota, and the Democrats are Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jon Tester of Montana.

Tester won re-election in Montana, but cannot afford to be too far left. Leahy is the biggest camera hog in the group, and Dick Durbin is a chronic schemer. None of the Republicans are among the highest profiles in the Senate..

I have not been able to locate a full list of the House members, but Rep. Chuck Fleishmann, the Republican ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee is on it.

It is possible that the conference committee will not be able to come up with anything that satisfies both parties, in which case the partial shutdown resumes, but this time with the Democrats shown to be willing to shut down the government in order to prevent a border barrier. Trump will have met their demand to resume government funding, and they will have refused to meet him halfway. And President Trump will be delivering the State of the Union address at a date to be determined, but before the shutdown might resume. This will allow the highest possible platform for President Trump to comment on the negotiations, with Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.

Will the Democrats refuse to give Trump funds for something his base would accept as a reasonable start on the wall he promised? They certainly might, in which case the government will partially shut down again, with federal workers having received their back pay, but facing another bout of financial stringency. Would Trump then pull the trigger on a national emergency declaration? If he does, the Democrats will find a judge in the Ninth Circuit who believes that a district court judge has the power to overrule the statutory authority clearly granted to the president to declare a national emergency. What happens then? I think it is quite possible that the Trump administration will appeal directly to the SCOTUS, bypassing the Ninth in the name of a national emergency. He might even decide to take a stand against the new concept of district court jurisdiction over the entire United States. 

I have a guess, based on the fact that Trump has not deployed insulting nicknames for either Schumer or Pelosi. I suspect that in the discussions that led to the agreement to set up a conference committee both sides agreed that another shutdown was in nobody’s interest, and that a compromise would benefit both parties. If I am wrong, the Democrats will be going to the mattresses over a barrier free border, a position that may please Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but would not help the Dems win in 2020. 

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/why_trump_went_for_a_21day_suspension_of_the_partial_shutdown_and_what_happens_next.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter