New York State Declares War on Life - Avrohom Gordimer

​
by Avrohom Gordimer

New York State's Reproductive Health Act, under the guise of progressiveness and liberality, is in truth a regressive act of intolerance toward the state's religious communities.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, once known as a fairly conservative Democrat, has run full speed ahead into the winds of the far-left, “progressive” agenda. After being accused by gubernatorial challenger Cynthia Nixon of not being sufficiently progressive, Cuomo appears to be seeking to outdo New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, whose ultraprogressive agenda is totally destroying the city. 

For decades, New York State allowed abortion until 20 weeks of pregnancy, and only when performed by a physician. Abortions performed in violation of the law were subject to criminal prosecution. As of this week, under Governor Cuomo’s brand-new Reproductive Health Act, late-term abortions may be performed literally until right before birth and even by non-doctors, and not only in order to save the mother’s life but also “to protect a patient’s health” -- something defined quite broadly by the law’s own language, which endorses abortions at will, for no health reason whatsoever. (“Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article”). Furthermore, abortion performed in violation of the law (although it is hard to imagine that any abortions will now be illegal) has been removed from the New York State Criminal Code.

Decriminalizing illegal abortion is not a mere abstract formality. To quote one prominent news source:

Livia Abreu of the Bronx lost her baby in a 2018 domestic violence attack. Charges against her ex-boyfriend, Oscar Alvarez, include abortion in the first degree.
“The passing of RHA will exonerate him from those charges. I cannot imagine living in a world where harming or killing an unborn child is not a crime,” Abreu said.

New York State's Reproductive Health Act, under the guise of progressiveness and liberality, is in truth a regressive act of intolerance toward the state's religious communities. By sanctioning abortions literally until a moment prior to birth, in deference to women’s “right to choose”, and by decriminalizing illegal abortions, Governor Cuomo and his political allies have declared war on human life, which is a reflection of God's image. This brazen offense against Biblical law and values and against millions of New Yorkers who object to the Reproductive Health Act's radical message speaks volumes about the state government's respect for faith and human life.

The hypocrisy is biting. Progressive politics is used to serve special, liberal interests, whereas the sensitivities of large religious constituencies in the state who oppose this new law are trampled upon without comment.

But worse is the offense against Biblical morality. New York State has in effect asserted that a woman’s convenience and whim are more important than the life of another. Have any of the politicians who supported this law ever really thought about this, or have they brushed this concern under the carpet in their idolatrous quest to satisfy every senseless progressive goal?

But let us go a bit deeper. It is not only Cuomo and his allies who are to blame for this unprecedented assault on religion. In fact, the blame in large measure lies on the religious communities themselves.

With the glaring exception of Brooklyn New York State senator Simcha Felder, who votes Republican in line with his district’s Orthodox Jewish constituency, other regions of the state which are comprised of religious communities are frequently represented by liberal Democrats. A quick look at New York State’s legislative districts and their elected representatives underscores this fact, which is a given for us New Yorkers. For whatever reason, most New Yorkers continue by rote to elect liberal Democrats, irrespective of the Democratic candidates’ values. Case in point: Even the vile socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hails from a heavily Catholic district (New York’s District 14), although the district is not overwhelmingly religious, it has pockets of regular worshippers in its quite numerous houses of prayer, as well as those who take their religion in general very seriously. So too for many other New York districts, comprised of various religious communities, that are woefully represented by progressive Democrats.   
         
It is time for people of religious conviction to take their conviction to the poll booths and make seismic political change. Rather than voting by rote, religious people must start to vote with their minds and hearts. Otherwise, they can only blame themselves for the wretched results of the progressive political machine. In the case at hand, it is a documented fact that the Reproductive Health Act was passed by the votes of Democrats from religious-oriented districts.        

We conclude with the words of one of American Jewry’s greatest sages, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who stated concerning abortion:

"If the sinfulness of murder were only a result of our moral judgment, then why not permit abortions? As a matter of fact, it happens in modern society. Abortion is murder according to Jewish Law. The fetus is alive. The liberals of today don’t like that position.  The liberals of today have simply lost the criterion of morality, what is moral and what is immoral; they are absolutely confused and perplexed…
“The birth of every child is an important event for the mother. The birth of the first child is the greatest and most cathartic experience for a mother, if a woman is ready to be a mother. Being a mother is not simple. It is a physiological relationship, a psychological relationship, a spiritual relationship. More than that, it is a metaphysical relationship -- somehow complete identification between mother and child.
“That is why I cannot understand it, I cannot grasp it, to me it is something vulgar, this clamor of the liberals that abortion be permitted. It’s not a clamor anymore – it’s a legislated fact.
“How can a mother kill her baby? I can’t understand it, I cannot grasp it…

That’s the choice: God-given morality or the gospel of Andrew Cuomo.

Avrohom Gordimer is chairman of the Rabbinic Circle at Coalition for Jewish Values, a public policy institute reflecting traditional Jewish thought. He serves on the editorial board of Jewish Action magazine, is a staff writer for the Cross-Currents website, and is a frequent contributor to Israel National News, Yated Ne'eman, and a host of other publications. He is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America and the New York Bar, and he works as an account executive at a large Jewish organization based in Manhattan. The views expressed in the above article are solely those of the writer.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/new_york_state_declares_war_on_life.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Venezuela on the Edge of a Precipice - Joseph Klein

​
by Joseph Klein

Will dictator Maduro survive against his most determined opposition yet?

Venezuela, an oil-rich country that was once amongst the most prosperous countries in the Latin American region, is now in a state of economic and political chaos. Venezuela’s socialist leaders – first, Hugo Chávez and then his successor, Nicolas Maduro - have turned the country into an economic basket case because of their gross mismanagement, corruption and destructive economic policies. The inflation rate could reach an unheard of 10 million percent in 2019. There is a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions, with the country’s population suffering from severe hunger and a health crisis. Millions of Venezuelans have fled the country. Amidst all this chaos, Maduro was sworn in as president for a second term two weeks ago following an “election” last year that many inside and outside of the country believe was rigged.

Many Venezuelans have had enough of Maduro’s dictatorship. As a result, he is now being forced to square off with a potentially formidable opposition leader who is popular with the Venezuelan people and is gaining international support. Juan Guaido, the new leader of the democratically elected opposition-controlled National Assembly, has declared himself to be the interim president until new national elections can be held.

Mr. Guaido claims that he is acting under the authority of the country’s constitution. Tens of thousands of protesters have rallied in the streets on his behalf. The Trump administration officially recognized Mr. Guaido as the legitimate interim president. President Trump tweeted on Wednesday the following expression of support: “The citizens of Venezuela have suffered for too long at the hands of the illegitimate Maduro regime. Today, I have officially recognized the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the Interim President of Venezuela.” The Trump administration made it clear that all options remain on the table if Maduro clamps down too hard on the opposition.

In response, Maduro ordered the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from Venezuela and defiantly declared that “I am the only president of Venezuela.” He added, “We do not want to return to the 20th century of gringo interventions and coups d’état.” Venezuela’s military and security forces have shown no signs yet of defecting to the opposition. There has been some violence in the streets, leading to at least seven deaths this week, but no widespread harsh crackdown with lethal weapons so far.

The United States is not alone in recognizing Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. Canada has also done so. To date, within the Latin American region, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras have also supported Mr. Guaido as interim president. Organization of American States president Luis Almagro tweeted Wednesday his support for Mr. Guaido.

The European Union has only gone as far as calling for “free and credible elections” rather than officially recognizing Mr. Guaido as the president during a transition period leading up to such elections. The United Kingdom did not quite give its official recognition to the opposition leader as Venezuela’s interim president. However, the UK's foreign secretary did almost as much when he called Mr. Guaido the “the right person” to take the country forward and said that Maduro is not the “legitimate” leader of Venezuela. Germany is backing Venezuela’s opposition-led National Assembly that was dissolved by the Maduro regime last year. The Republic of Georgia has outright declared its support for Mr. Guaido’s interim presidency.

While Maduro is becoming increasingly isolated internationally, he does still have some friends in Latin America. The governments of Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and El Salvador remain unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of any change in Venezuela’s presidency. Cuba’s government issued a declaration on Thursday expressing its “unwavering solidarity with the government of Constitutional President Nicolás Maduro Moros.” Mexico was much more lukewarm, saying that it would stick to its “constitutional principles of non-intervention.”

Mr. Maduro can also revel in the backing he is receiving from the dictators running Iran, Turkey, and Syria. Iran’s leadership, for example, described Mr. Guaido’s move as a “coup.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as telling Maduro: "My brother Maduro! Stay strong, we are by your side." Syria’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement denouncing U.S. backing of Mr. Guaido as interim president as a "violation of international laws and norms.” A regime that massacres its own people, including with chemical weapons, is in no position to lecture anyone about “international laws and norms.”

Russia is another notable Maduro backer. A Russian government spokesperson claimed that Mr. Maduro remained Venezuela’s legitimate leader and dismissed Mr. Guaido’s announcement as an “attempt to usurp power.” Russia is a major trading partner with the Maduro regime. Russia flexed its military muscles last year when it sent two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela, and has warned the Trump administration against any military intervention in Venezuela's affairs. China too remains supportive of Maduro, wary of endangering its economic stake in the country.

The United States has requested a closed meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Saturday morning to discuss the Venezuelan crisis. Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia has already expressed his belief that no such meeting is necessary. A procedural vote may be required to hold the meeting over any Security Council member objections, which would need at least nine affirmative votes for the meeting to proceed.

For his part, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated blandly: "It is absolutely essential to have dialogue, to avoid violence and to avoid escalation." A further statement issued in his name contained an equally bland call “for all relevant actors to commit to inclusive and credible political dialogue to address the protracted crisis in the country, with full respect for the rule of law and human rights.”

Secretary General Guterres has often spoken about the UN’s central role in fostering multilateral solutions to difficult problems. No doubt, the United Nations is the largest multilateral institution in the world since its membership spans the globe.  However, statements like the ones the Secretary General made regarding the current crisis in Venezuela illustrate the UN’s significant limitations when addressing the misdeeds of dictators who have the backing of strategically important countries. In too many instances, the UN’s large number of autocratic member states hobble the world organization from doing or saying anything with moral clarity. Dictators have each other’s back as they manipulate the processes of the UN to protect themselves from any real action against their human rights abuses. Just look at the membership of the UN Human Rights Council. One of its members is the Maduro regime’s chief supporter – Cuba.

Maduro will not engage in any “inclusive and credible political dialogue” with the opposition as Secretary General Guterres has urged. Maduro certainly does not care about what comes out of the UN, knowing that Russia and possibly China will block any serious Security Council actions against his regime. Maduro has already endured economic sanctions and can probably weather even more stringent sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies as long as Russia and China continue providing him with economic lifelines. He could care less about popular opinion or street protests so long as his military and security forces continue to stand by him. The military declared its firm backing for Maduro on Thursday. For Maduro, it is all about holding onto his power at any cost.

Massive protests alone are unlikely to oust Maduro unless the military and security forces do an about face and decide to stand down or join the revolt. With pervasive intelligence units embedded in the military overseen by Cuban intelligence advisers, however, an outright military revolt is unlikely to succeed. One such attempt was put down on Monday. President Trump has not ruled out the military option. However, direct military intervention could well lead to further friction with Russia and to potentially disastrous unintended consequences.

As if we needed any reminding, Venezuela’s descent from prosperity to abject poverty under two socialist leaders demonstrates that socialism is a sure path to economic ruin and political oppression. We can only hope that the Venezuelan people are finally able to escape their long nightmare.


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272672/venezuela-edge-precipice-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Democrats' stealth jihad - Amil Imani

​
by Amil Imani

If America's politicians don't stop bending over backwards for Islam, the soft jihad in this country will give way to jihad of the sword.

For decades, the Democratic Party has shown by both words and deeds that they despise the U.S. Constitution while they bend over backward to embrace Islamists, illegal aliens, and anyone who hates America. The left is interested only in power and nothing else – even if it means to sacrifice our national security and advocate open borders.

The liaison between American Muslims and the Democratic Party is frequently described as a marriage of convenience, where Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self-defense and sane social policies are kept out of office.

While America is in hibernation, Muslim organizations with the help of Democrats have been busy, working "stealthily" to change America in what is called "soft jihad." Soft jihad is practiced where Muslims are not strong enough to unsheathe the sword of jihad, where the true nature of Islam is exposed and when the public would likely stamp them out. A critical tool of soft jihad involves penetration of the American educational system, such as Da'wa, the religious duty of each Muslim to convert non-Muslims and strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

America is on a precarious path to lose its freedom and American values we have cherished for over 200 years. We must accept that the current Democratic Party is no longer the party of Kennedy. It has become the greatest threat to our national security and our survival as a nation.

Many Americans are confused as to why Democrats back Islamic ideology, honor their holidays and customs, and promote Islam as "the religion of peace," knowing that Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact, it is an ideology of war. The answer is quite simple: the Democratic Party stands with anyone who dislikes America and the Republican Party. History has proven that once Muslims reach close to 10% in population, they institute sharia law and adopt their own legal system – a government within a government.

Some self-appointed prima donnas cover themselves with the shield of academic freedom. Academic freedom is like liberty – it can be abused often and abused greatly. That is the price of freedom. Yet these abusers of freedom, the far left, will be among the first to be buried under the rubble of a free society's collapse they work so doggedly to bring about. Muslims love our liberal politicians and will happily ally with them, who then will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers.

I cannot emphasize enough the urgency of this threat. It is indeed urgent that we confront Islamic ideology and its expansionism, close all their chapters across America, and declare the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates a terrorist organization. All of us must pressure our government, at all levels, to abandon the practice of "political correctness" and protect and safeguard it against a truly deadly assault that is Islamic ideology.

Sugarcoating Islam is universally practiced not only by leftist politicians and liberal media, but also by the self-described doctors of Islamic religion. They keep ranting about the importance of accepting things on faith, denigrate reason, dangle carrots and sticks, and demand unconditional surrender in return for guaranteed bliss and salvation. Use jihad of the sword when it can and use soft jihad until the sword can be unsheathed to finish the job. And don't forget: the ends justify any and all means in Islam.

Regrettably, America's fortress is no longer safe. We also need to keep in mind that the breach of "Fortress America" from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of many more forthcoming heinous assaults – unless we abandon our complacency, stop relying on the invincibility of law enforcement agencies, and willingly make the sacrifices that will protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery has compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly and imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims.

For as long as the leftist officials bend over backwards to protect Islam as an endangered species, Islam will thrive and flourish. It is long past time for our elected officials to wake up and stop their political correctness.

Amil Imani

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

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Crimes without punishment in Argentina - Clifford D. May and Toby Dershowitz

​
by Clifford D. May and Toby Dershowitz

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan
 

Argentines now face a choice: Pursue justice or surrender to the terrorists responsible for attacks on the Israeli Embassy and Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

For more than a decade, Alberto Nisman had been investigating the worst terrorist attack ever committed on Argentine soil: the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Eighty-five people were killed and hundreds wounded.

Four years ago this week, the federal prosecutor was putting the finishing touches on a report that would accuse then-President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and a dozen others of helping cover up the Islamic Republic of Iran's responsibility for the attack.

On Jan. 18, the day before he was to present that report to Argentina's Congress, Nisman was found dead in the bathroom of his locked 13th-floor apartment. A .22-caliber bullet had been fired at close-range into his head.

Kirchner initially called his death a suicide – even though his fingerprints were not found on the Bersa pistol left close to his body, and there was no gunpowder residue on his hands.

Just over a year ago, however, an investigation by 28 forensic experts and law enforcement officials conclusively determined that he did not kill himself. In fact, they were able to deduce, two people roughed him up, sedated him, and then shot him.

Who were those people? And from whom were they taking orders? Argentines attempting to answer such questions place themselves in danger.

Late last month, Federal Judge Sandra Arroyo Salgado, who also is Nisman's former wife and the mother of their two daughters, withdrew from formal involvement in the investigation. The reason: ongoing threats – the "need to guarantee the protection and safety of the family," as she phrased it in a written statement.

Nisman used wire-tapped conversations to build his case against Kirchner. Among them was one concerning an ally, former intelligence official Antonio Stiuso. Kirchner says on tape: "We have to kill him." Her defenders claim she did not intend to be taken literally. Stiuso, unconvinced, subsequently fled the country with his family.

In September 2017, former Argentine Ambassador to Syria Roberto Ahuad revealed in testimony that Foreign Minister Hector Timerman had visited Syria in January 2011 to finalize an agreement with Iran, at a meeting hosted by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. A message sent to Ahuad asked: "When are you committing suicide?" Another warned: "Beware of an induced suicide."

And Eduardo Taiano, the head prosecutor investigating Nisman's murder, has received messages threatening to do to him and his son what was done to Nisman.

Nevertheless, Taiano is continuing to investigate, focusing most immediately on calls made over more than 150 phone lines – many of them reportedly to intelligence agents – on the day Nisman's body was found.

Long before implicating Argentine officials in a conspiracy, Nisman had found solid evidence that officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran planned and financed the AMIA bombing, and that Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy, carried it out.

Mohsen Rabbani became cultural attaché at the Islamic republic's embassy in Buenos Aires just months before the AMIA bombing. In 1997, after Argentine authorities issued an arrest warrant for him, and INTERPOL a red notice (a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition), he managed to return to Tehran. Red notices for four other Iranian officials in connection with the bombing remain in effect to this day.

Evidence points also to Hezbollah's responsibility for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, in which 29 people were killed, and more than 200 wounded. Argentine authorities charged Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah's infamous former military commander, who also masterminded the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. (He was killed in Damascus in 2008 in what may have been a joint Israeli/U.S. operation).

The most likely motive for the AMIA attack: Iran's rulers, in their own special way, were conveying displeasure over the Argentine government's suspension of nuclear cooperation.

As for the cover-up, Nisman believed a deal was in the works to lift the red notices in exchange for oil.

Tehran and Hezbollah have long been seeking influence and power in Latin America, not least through illicit means. As far back as 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department designated Assad Ahmad Barakat, a Lebanese-born citizen of Paraguay, as a terrorist and Hezbollah financier. He and other members of his family are believed to have provided logistical support for both the AMIA and embassy bombings.

Recently, Argentina froze the assets of 14 members of the Barakat clan. That sent a message that Mauricio Macri, elected Argentina's president in 2015, is unwilling to give Hezbollah free rein.

A few weeks ago, the U.S. State Department hosted a ministerial meeting with key Latin American officials that sent another message: Hezbollah operatives in the Western hemisphere must be thwarted.

That said, it remains to be seen whether Hezbollah or Iran will ever be held accountable for the terrorist attacks of 1992 and 1994, and whether anyone will be brought to justice for attempting to cover their tracks – and for the murder of the investigator who followed the facts wherever they led him.

That investigator, just days before he was assassinated, said prophetically: "With Nisman around or not, the evidence is there." Argentines now face a choice: to act on that evidence or to surrender to terrorists and murderers. To put it another way, they must decide what kind of nation Argentina is, and what kind of nation Argentina will become.

Clifford D. May (Twitter @CliffordDMay) is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. 

Toby Dershowitz (Twitter @tobydersh) is FDD senior vice president for government relations and strategy.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/crimes-without-punishment-in-argentina/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

One Way Outraged Americans Can Beat Robert Mueller - Michael Nollet

​
by Michael Nollet

It's called jury nullifcation.

Much has been made of the pre-dawn arrest of Roger Stone in his home in Fort Lauderdale. To make this arrest, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, probably having delegated the task to his subordinate Andrew Weissmann (who is known for this tactic), assembled a full-scale FBI SWAT team of 29 members, replete with long weapons, body armor, and even a flash-bang grenade or two. The arrest took place at "zero dark thirty" or 5:30 A.M. Nevertheless, a CNN crew was on hand to film the whole thing.

Once upon a time, this level of force was considered necessary only to raid suspects able and inclined to shoot back, or who might destroy evidence. Think Symbionese Liberation Army or drug kingpin Frank Lucas of American Gangster fame. In such cases, in which the suspects really might shoot back, a television crew would never be allowed, on the grounds that they could be killed in the crossfire. The fact that a CNN crew was allowed to film Stone's arrest is evidence that nobody believed he was dangerous. Indeed, he was not: he is 66-year-old white-collar suspect with no prior history of violence, who didn't even have weapons in his house. Even the judge processing Stone's arraignment implicitly accepted that Stone was not dangerous; he allowed Stone to be released on a $250,000 surety bond.

The usual procedure in white-collar cases is not to assemble an unnecessary SWAT team. Instead, the Justice Department informs the suspect's attorney that the suspect has been indicted and needs to turn himself in to whatever courthouse for arraignment. The attorney informs the suspect and usually surrenders his client peacefully in the courthouse. No guns, no flash-bangs, no pre-dawn raids. Alan Dershowitz has said the only purpose of this level of force is to intimidate the mark into flipping on someone higher. In the case of Roger Stone, that can mean only President Trump.

Nor is Stone the only white-collar suspect to feel Mueller's wrath. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort got it much worse. Manafort not only was subjected to the same kind of pre-dawn raid as Stone, but also denied bail and held in solitary confinement – before his trial.

All suspects are, legally, presumed innocent until they have been duly convicted. The government has a positive duty to treat all suspects as decently as possible until their convictions. Tactics such as the ones employed on Stone and Manafort are an outrage and instances of government tyranny. Alan Dershowitz opined that the ACLU ought to be up in arms over this kind of arbitrary treatment of Manafort but that he wasn't holding his breath. (Dershowitz himself resigned from the ACLU a few years ago.)

Is there anything we, the citizenry, can do about this violation of our rights? Actually, there is: jury nullification. It is the public's final sanction against abusive, arbitrary, and tyrannical government power.

Jury nullification is the refusal of a jury to convict a defendant, no matter how irrefutable the evidence against the defendant is. Law professor John Joseph Duane calls it the "Top Secret Constitutional Right." It's "top secret" because no judge or prosecutor ever likes to admit that any jury can always tell him to go take a hike. Professor Duane says the absolute right of a jury to implement jury nullification is enshrined in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and also in the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to a jury trial whose verdicts no judge has the power to overturn.

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States. Colonial juries used it to refuse to convict in "maritime cases" (presumably, that means smuggling). Before the Civil War, juries composed of abolitionists used it to refuse to convict defendants accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act, much to the rage of the South. During Prohibition, juries used it to refuse to convict in cases of violations of the Volstead Act. One estimate has it that juries nullified as many as 60% of all Prohibition cases. And, shamefully, all-white juries in the South used it to refuse to convict white men accused of murdering blacks. The Emmett Till case is the most notorious instance of this abuse.

Jury nullification can also be used to rebuke abuses of power committed by unaccountable, out-of-control special counsels like Robert "Gestapo" Mueller. How much egg would end up on Mueller's face if, after all of his efforts, Roger Stone's jury refused to convict?

Naturally, the last thing Mueller will ever do is publicize the fact that the public can actually tell him to go stuff it.

Michael Nollet is an Iowa truck driver known to some AT readers as Kzintosh.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/one_way_outraged_americans_can_beat_robert_mueller.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

#RecognizeRadicalization - Sara Al Iraqiya

​
by Sara Al Iraqiya

I was a Muslim - but I learned there is a more loving and compassionate way to live life.

A little over a year ago I had a moral awakening. I was finished with holding in the horrific injustices I myself witnessed as an American girl, born and raised.

Kidnapping of young women and turning them into child brides is not confined to brutal Islamist regimes. It happened to my friends here in the United States. Just outside our nation’s capital in quiet Virginia suburbs. 

Hate speech in the fashion of what you expect to hear at a mosque in Saudi Arabia were regular khutba (sermons) at my local mosque. I was afraid to speak out because the mosque leaders tacitly threatened my family’s businesses. I was a child and afraid. So, instead, I wrote. 

I wrote until adulthood when my writing reached dozens of other ex-Muslims and non-Muslim people from backgrounds from Muslim-majority countries. They understood the dangers of the culture. They had also lived it. I received support from Chaldeans, Assyrians, Lebanese Christians, and so many others.

A little over a year ago, a movement was sparked within me. And through my bravery I was united with the bravery of others. Together we brought something to the table to unveil the injustices taking place in the name of archaic cultural and religious practices worldwide.

Through persistence, I met allies. Amidst a sea of robotic politically correct decision-makers, telling me I was an anomaly or that my story emboldens bigotry, all I needed was one “yes, I believe you. And I have a platform for you.” 

I will never forget those who gave me a platform. Because I tell not only my own stories, but also the stories I witnessed myself stemming from the Islamic community here in the United States.

It started with writing, afraid to show my face, afraid of possible repercussions from Islamists and their sympathizers. 

Then I agreed to do a spoken interview but without showing my face. 

Soon I was asked by a very interesting individual to do a spoken interview showing my face. Thankfully he understood certain topics we could not touch. I was afraid to reveal anything too personal that could lead someone to know where I live and which cities/towns I frequent.

Eventually I spoke out, publicly. I faced religious leaders peddling their so-called “Westernized” Islamic schools in the United States. I publicly asked them why they teach inappropriate curriculum to little girls in their mosques and Islamic weekend schools. And as a jest of pseudo-progressivism they loudly told me “Thank you for asking that question! And it’s up to women like you who will change this!” They shook everyone’s hands except mine (I have one male witness to this – I hope that is enough for my readers/viewers). They tacitly painted me as another “kafir.” The infidel.

I will wear that badge proudly because there is no way I will subject myself to such barbarism. Helping ex-Muslim women, Muslim women escaping abusive family situations, and just about everyone that I can from those communities, if there is anything I can do. 

In my heart, I felt the spirit of the apostates murdered by their families. What motivated me was the survivors. Rifqa Bary, for example, as well as Lady Brigitte Gabriel.

I met Christians from Muslim-majority countries – I listened to their stories. I listened as they described the Western world as their beacon of hope and safe haven.

I do not plan to quit anytime soon. I am just getting started. 

I would like you to join me in this movement. #RecognizeRadicalization in your communities. If I had known my childhood friends would be kidnapped by their families, taken to the Middle East, and married off I would have done something. The hard beatings from Muslim fathers towards their small daughters were not enough to convince authorities that they were dangerous because “it’s their culture.” I wish I had tried harder and was more proactive in  contacting local officials. I wish authorities were not shackled by politically correct culture so we can see violence for what it is.

Culture that clashes with Western values does not get a free pass because it’s “okay”; for years it’s been getting a free pass because people are afraid. Afraid to speak up, file reports, or to seem bigoted to their peers.

As Westerners, we hold such values due to the nature of our inclusive and compassionate culture. I will leave you with one sentiment to take away: beating women is misogyny, brainwashing women to cover everything except their eyes (or sometimes including their eyes) is misogyny, forced marriage is not a choice (it’s right there in the term) -- it is by force. I call on you, my allies, those who believed me and continue to believe me and many others to always #RecognizeRadicalization. Use the hashtag, use your voice, and use your proactivity as a patriotic American and lover of freedom.

Contact your local governments, call proper authorities, if possible set an example for victims of extremism. I was a Muslim but learned there is a more loving and compassionate way to live life – and that is living in accordance with Western values. A set of values fundamentally incompatible with Islam. I learned to be human. I had the choice to join a monstrous doctrine or to side with Western values, true freedom, and love. Because I was able to recognize radicalization. 

I am not calling for a threat to freedom. Americans have the constitutional freedom of religion. It is one of the things I love about my country. I am calling for the preservation of freedom. While we take freedom for granted, Islamic enclaves work with their local governments and organizations to create what is essentially a no-go zone. Children are born and trapped within such enclaves. I am calling to break the shackles and give us all a shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Learn more about me and my story by following my Twitter and Facebook.

Sara Al Iraqiya

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272673/recognizeradicalization-sara-al-iraqiya

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump: In Third Year with Three Charges - Amir Taheri

​
by Amir Taheri

For their part, Trump's Democrat rivals have campaigned against him in a guerrilla-style, hoping to kill his hope of a second term with a thousand cuts.

• Those who opposed the creation of the US as an independent nation claimed there was collusion between the Founding Fathers and the French, who wished to prevent the English from extending their empire to the whole of North America.
• The second charge brought against Donald Trump by is arrogance. Have we forgotten Barack Obama, who claimed that the start of his presidency meant "oceans receding " to end climate change? Or his boast that he would solve the Israel-Palestine problem in one year?
• The claim that "foreign interests", including European, Latin American, Arab and Iranian (during the Shah's time) have tried to buy influence in the US by financing candidacies up to the presidency has been a routine part of the political war in America for decades.

(Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

Theoretically, we have another year before the next American presidential campaign gets underway. And yet those who follow US policies more closely know that the 2020 presidential campaign has already started. In a sense, at least as far as the two main political parties are concerned, the campaign started the day Donald Trump took the oath of office.

In his first two years in office, Trump has attended at least 30 rallies across the United States that could best be described as campaign sorties. Add to that more than two dozen media interviews, not to mention thousands of tweets designed to create the image of a successful president running for a second term. For their part, Trump's Democrat rivals have campaigned against him in a guerrilla-style, hoping to kill his hope of a second term with a thousand cuts.

Unable or unwilling to confront his policies or lack thereof, Democrats have focused their strategy on destroying the persona that Trump has tried to forge for himself. They have done this with three charges.

The first is incompetence. Two years after entering the White House Trump has not yet succeeded in filling some 34 percent of the positions in his administration. In the same period, he has lost almost all the top figures of his initial administration, including a handful of prestigious generals who gave his presidency the gravitas many claimed it lacked.

However, Trump's supporters may claim that he has not rushed to fill the posts with cronies mainly because, coming from the private sector, he did not have a political entourage. As for the heavyweight fellows who left or were kicked out, Trump was perhaps right in not keeping them even after he and they had found out they cannot work together. And that was in contrast with many previous administrations, in which people who couldn't abide one another stuck together, saying 'cheese' in front of the cameras to hide their clenched teeth. One recent example was the cohabitation between President Barack Obama and his first Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

The second charge brought against Trump by is arrogance.

There is little doubt that Trump's opinion of himself seems to be higher than justified by reality. But then, considering his surprise ascendancy to the presidency in just a few months, would others have felt differently?

Have we forgotten Obama, who claimed that the start of his presidency meant "oceans receding" to end climate change? Or his boast that he would solve the Israel-Palestine problem in one year?

The third charge against Trump sounds potentially more serious but is surely more bizarre. That is the claim that Trump may be a kind of Manchurian candidate working with, if not for, Russia or even Vladimir Putin himself.

This charge is incompatible with the first two. An incompetent agent would be of little use to anyone and liability for everyone. And if Trump is afflicted by the sin of arrogance how would he accept to work for a son of Stalin's cook?

Accusing senior leaders, including presidents, of being agents of foreign powers is nothing new in the United States' short history.

Those who opposed the creation of the US as an independent nation claimed there was collusion between the Founding Fathers and the French, who wished to prevent the English from extending their empire to the whole of North America.

Even today, the French still boast of how they sent 6,000 troops commanded by General Rochambeau "to help American colonists led by George Washington against British forces." And that is not to mention General Lafayette, whom legend has upgraded into an American national hero.

Aaron Burr, the third US vice president under Thomas Jefferson, was accused of colluding with Napoleon to seize Florida from Spain, capture Texas and create an empire of his own by annexing chunks of American territory. He was also suspected of being a Manchurian presidential candidate for the British.

The 10th US President, John Tyler, was suspected of shenanigans in negotiating trade deals with the German states of the Zollverein (customs' union) and China. He was later threatened with impeachment for a range of other reasons.

More recently, Charles Lindbergh, a famous aviator and spokesman of the America First Committee, was the subject of similar suspicions. Many saw him as a standard-bearer for the Republican Party to defeat President Franklin D Roosevelt and keep the US out of the Second World War. But his hopes were dashed when his Nazi sympathies were revealed. He later renounced his pro-Nazi sympathies.

Needless to say, evil tongues also accused Roosevelt of colluding with the British to get the US involved the Second World War.

Throughout his presidency, Obama had to cope with claims that he was not a genuine US citizen and had been propelled into the presidency thanks to unnamed foreign powers.

The claim that "foreign interests", including European, Latin American, Arab and Iranian (during the Shah's time) have tried to buy influence in the US by financing candidacies up to the presidency has been a routine part of the political war in America for decades.

A relatively new nation, the US may appear rather vulnerable to the conflict of loyalties among the numerous ethnic and religious groups composing it. The use of double-barrel identities, such as African-American or Irish-American, to cite just two, may reinforce that impression. However, anyone familiar with the US would know of the mysterious, not to say a mystical, bond that holds Americans of all ethnicities, creeds, and colors together, making the betrayal of America unimaginable.

My guess is that the much-heralded Mueller report, likely to appear long before the next presidential campaign is put in high gear, will exonerate Trump of the third charge while the other two charges fade into background noise.

But, even if, when the next presidential election comes, Trump faces nothing but the three charges leveled by Democrats, he would have a good chance of sailing through to a second term. By making themselves prisoners of these charges, the Democrats may have blocked the path for serious debate on key issues of domestic and foreign policies. And that is bad for American democracy.

This article was originally published in a slightly different version by Asharq al-Awsat

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13629/trump-third-year

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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