'Arrow 3' missile defense tests in US successful - Kobi Finkler

​
by Kobi Finkler

Defense Ministry and US Missile Defense Agency complete series of successful tests of Arrow 3 system in Alaska.

Successful test of Arrow 3                                                                                                     Defense Ministry Spokesperson

The Defense Ministry and the American Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on Sunday completed a series of successful tests of the Arrow 3 weapons system in Alaska.


The tests were led by the Ministry of Defense and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), with the participation of Israeli defense industries and the Israel Air Force.

Developed by Israel and the MDA, the Arrow 3 weapons system is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere. The series of experiments successfully demonstrated a hit-to-kill capability against targets at high altitudes outside the atmosphere.

During the series of tests, an American ANTPY2 radar was used, and operational correspondence between the systems was demonstrated.

The experiment was held in Alaska since an examination of the system's capabilities could not be performed in Israel.

Video


Kobi Finkler

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266579

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'Palestinian state is not the solution' - Arutz Sheva Staff

​
by Arutz Sheva Staff

Hat tip: Susie Dym

Minister Elkin slams Congress' two-state stance in anti-BDS resolution. 'Palestinian state not the solution, but the root of the problem.'

Minister Elkin                                                                                                                                          Hezki Baruch

In an interview to Israel’s Kan channel, Israel State Security Cabinet member Zeev Elkin said he was unenthusiastic about the House of Representatives’ recent decision on Israel, because the decision expressed support for establishment of a Palestinian state.

"A Palestinian state is not the solution," Elkin said. “It is instead the root of the problem. And therefore I am not enthusiastic about this decision".

Elkin explained that since the resolution incorporated two-state solution language, supporting establishment of a new Palestinian-Arab area with statehood status, he had refrained from issuing any statement of support for the resolution.

Elkin said the only advantage of the decision is that a large majority of the Democratic Party had stood up against its radical anti-Israeli minority. He called this "an important process of containment within the Democratic Party". The Kan interviewer asked whether from the State of Israel’s standpoint, it was worth taking the risk of insertion of two-state solution language, in order to achieve this containment within the Democratic Party. Elkin replied that "No one asked us", in view of the fact that in the Democratic Party, "everyone is in favor of a Palestinian state".

Since the November 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic Party enjoys a majority in the House of Representatives.

"We need to invest in public opinion in the United States," Elkin concluded, noting with approval that the United States is a "true democracy" and therefore Congress acts according to public opinion.

Elkin is a member of Israel’s ruling party, the Likud. The Likud as well as Israel’s traditional/Orthodox right wing parties, strongly oppose establishment of a Palestinian state in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These parties enjoy a majority in the Israeli electorate. Some although not all parties in the Israeli left still support establishment of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli right argues that the Arab nation, of which the Palestinian Arabs are a part, was awarded many states by the international community and that these countries, unlike Israel’s vicinity, are not densely populated. Therefore, the Israeli right has long argued, no additional Arab state need be established within the over-populated mandatory Land of Israel, nestled between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. This area alone was recognized as the sole homeland of the Jewish people by the international community responsive to the Balfour Declaration, the Israeli Right points out. Israel’s Right also charges that establishment of an Arab state overlooking the population centers of the Jewish state would constitute an existential security threat for Israel.

Elkin serves on the Government of Israel’s State Security Cabinet and is also Minister of Jerusalem Affairs. He previously served as the Government of Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Chairman of the Israeli Knesset's statutory Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266576

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UN resolutions name Israel as only country violating women's rights - i24NEWS , Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

​
by i24NEWS , Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

Former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley on Thursday blasted the resolutions, saying “It amazes me how the UN condones votes like these.”

Two UN Economic and Social Council resolutions passed last week accused and singled out Israel as the only country violating women’s rights, according to UN Watch, a non-governmental organization.

Among the 54 countries on the UN council that favored the resolutions were Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Venezuela and Egypt.

Seven European countries also voted in favor: Norway, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta.

The first resolution condemned the Jewish state for allegedly being the “major obstacle” for Palestinian women “with regard to their advancement, self-reliance, and integration in the development of their society.”

The second resolution passed addressed the “social repercussions of the Israeli occupation.”
Canada and the United States voted against while the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Romania and Ukraine abstained.

Former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley on Thursday blasted the resolutions, saying “It amazes me how the UN condones votes like these.”

“It is a total mockery of human rights to allow Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Yemen to name Israel as the world’s only violator of women’s rights,” she wrote on Twitter.

UN Watch director, Hillel Neuer, also condemned the sole targeting of Israel by the UN council.

“The UN reached new heights of absurdity by singling out Israel alone on women’s rights, yet saying nothing on Iran holding women’s rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh behind bars, Saudi Arabia jailing and torturing women’s rights activists, and subjugating women under harsh male guardianship laws, or on Yemen denying women hospital treatment without the permission of a male relative,” Neuer said.

“When you have Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen among the UN council members accusing Israel of violating women’s rights, you are in the theater of the absurd.”

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday blacklisted Israel and Saudi Arabia for killing or wounding children in conflict.

The report to the Security Council said the Saudi Arabia-led military coalition fighting in Yemen killed or wounded 729 children during 2018, accounting for nearly half the total child casualties in that war.

Guterres also reported that the highest number of Palestinian children had been killed or wounded last year since 2014, mainly by Israeli forces, though no parties were blacklisted in the annex to the annual Children in Armed Conflict report, seen by Reuters.

The report, which does not subject those listed to action but rather shames parties to conflicts in the hope of pushing them to implement measures to protect children, has long been controversial with diplomats saying Saudi Arabia and Israel both exerted pressure in recent years in a bid to stay off the list.

In 2015 the United Nations left Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas off the blacklist, after they had been included in an earlier draft, but criticized Israel over its military operation, Operation Protective Edge, in the summer of 2014. Israel denied lobbying then Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the issue.

In an effort to dampen controversy surrounding the report, the blacklist released in 2017 by Guterres was split into two categories. One lists parties that have implemented measures to protect children and the other includes parties that have not.

The blacklist submitted to the Security Council on Friday named the Saudi-led military coalition and Yemen government forces on the first list, and the Iran-allied Houthi rebel group, pro-Yemen government militia, the Security Belt Forces and Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula on the second list.

The UN report said the Houthis killed and wounded 398 children and Yemeni government forces were responsible for 58 child casualties.

Last year, the report verified that 59 Palestinian children had been killed – 56 by Israeli forces – and another 2,756 wounded, while six Israeli children were wounded. The report found Israeli forces wounded some 2,674 children “in the context of demonstrations, clashes and search and arrest operations.”

Guterres urged “Israel to immediately put in place preventive and protective measures to end the excessive use of force” and “all Palestinian actors to refrain from encouraging children’s participation in violence.”

The annual children and armed conflict report is produced at the request of the UN Security Council.

“In Afghanistan, the number of child casualties remained the highest such number in the present report (3,062) and children accounted for 28% of all civilian casualties. In the Syrian Arab Republic, airstrikes, barrel bombs and cluster munitions resulted in 1,854 child casualties,” the report said.

This article was originally published by i24NEWS.


i24NEWS , Reuters , Israel Hayom Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/07/28/un-resolutions-name-israel-as-only-country-violating-womens-rights/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sanders: Our policy cannot just be pro-Israel - Ben Ariel

​
by Ben Ariel

Democratic presidential candidate says he would consider using aid to Israel as leverage to force the Israeli government to act differently.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 elections, criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and said the US cannot prioritize the wants and needs of Israel over all else if it wants to help bring peace to the Middle East.

Sanders’ comments were made in an interview with the "Pod Save America" podcast. The Vermont Senator, who is Jewish, opined that the tensions between Israel and Palestinians have become worse under Netanyahu.

“I lived in Israel … I have family in Israel. I am Jewish. I am not anti-Israel. I believe that the people of Israel have absolutely the right to live in peace, independence, and security. End of discussion, that is what I fervently believe,” he said.

“But I think what has happened is in recent years under Netanyahu, you have an extreme right-wing government with many racist tendencies,” charged Sanders.

Sanders said he would “absolutely” consider using the billions of dollars in military aid that the US sends to Israel each year as leverage to force the Israeli government to act differently.

He criticized the Trump administration over its overtures to Israel, asserting that they could put at risk the peace negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs.

“Our policy cannot just be pro-Israel, pro-Israel, pro-Israel. It has got to be pro-region, working with all of the people, all of the countries in that area,” said Sanders, who added that Palestinian Arabs deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Despite being Jewish and having spent time in Israel, Sanders has a history of problematic statements on the Jewish state.

In April, he described the Israeli government as “racist” and said that “Netanyahu is a right-wing politician who I think is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly."

Last year, he criticized Netanyahu and his policies, saying, "As someone who believes absolutely and unequivocally in Israel's right to exist... we must say loudly and clearly, that to oppose the reactionary policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu does not make us anti-Israel."

In June of 2017, Sanders recorded a video message to the Israeli leftist party Meretz, in which he said, “This occupation must end. Peace, real peace, means security not only for every Israeli, but for every Palestinian. It means supporting self-determination, civil rights and economic well-being for both peoples.”


Ben Ariel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266567

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Tehran Tries to Drown the Fish - Amir Taheri

​
by Amir Taheri

The US and its closest allies will have to decide whether to let the Islamic Republic off the hook yet again, and, as always, in exchange for partial and largely cosmetic concessions.

• A tougher profile, attacks on tankers and other soft targets, gesticulations by Hezbollah and Hamas, and more hostages are one aspect of the scheme that Tehran is currently working on. The other is a desperate attempt at appearing ready to enter into "constructive talks". That yarn is marketed by Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is still retained to play Foreign Minister in Western forums and TV studios.
• In New York, Zarif added the promise of addressing another demand, that the so-called "nuke deal" be rehashed to make limits on Iran's nuclear program permanent rather than limited to 10, 15 or 25 years. That could be done, at least in part, by Tehran signing the Additional Protocols of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), something that the Islamic Republic had promised to do during Obama's presidency but didn't.
• Trump's sanctions, which cost the US nothing, are placing the Islamic Republic under a degree of pressure it has never known. This is why Khamenei, his huffing-and-puffing notwithstanding, is ready to do what he is told, provided he can save a minimum of face. His chief aim at present is to survive the rough patch created for him by Trump. That could be done if he is allowed to sell even a million barrels of oil a day to finance his pet projects and surrogates at home and abroad. Will Trump be tempted to declare victory and let the Islamic Republic off the hook at a time it is reeling under pressure?
• The US and its closest allies will have to decide whether to let the Islamic Republic off the hook yet again, and, as always, in exchange for partial and largely cosmetic concessions.

President Donald Trump's sanctions on Iran, which cost the US nothing, are placing the Islamic Republic under a degree of pressure it has never known. Pictured: President Trump talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a cabinet meeting at the White House, on July 16, 2019. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Is the Islamic Republic collecting fresh "assets" with which to enter into a possible dialogue with the American "Great Satan"? The pattern of news related to Iran in the past few weeks may make "yes" a plausible answer. Tehran has already carried out a series of attacks on oil tankers in Fujairah and close to the Iranian Jask Peninsula. Its surrogates in Iraq have fired a number of rockets at targets connected with the US presence in that country. Tehran's Yemeni surrogates, the Houthi militia, have fired a number of missiles to raise the tension without affecting the overall military situation. Last week the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seized two British-flagged oil tankers, releasing one after a demonstration of force coupled with a stern warning.

Regarding the seized British tanker, Tehran has offered conflicting narratives. The Islamic Majlis (ersatz parliament) Speaker Ali Larijani says the tanker was seized in retaliation for the Brits seizing an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar that was trying to break European Union sanctions against Syria. However, President Hassan Rouhani's spokesman says the two cases are not related and that the British tanker was seized for infringing the law of the sea, whatever that means.

In another register, Tehran has ordered the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah to "reinforce" its positions close to the ceasefire lines with Israel in both Lebanon and Syria. Moreover, on Monday Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide" of the regime, received a high-ranking delegation of Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, to evoke the possibility of one day praying together in the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. He also reassured the Hamas leaders that, despite Iran's cash-flow problems caused by American sanctions, Tehran's financial support to the group will continue.

To reinforce the impression that American sanctions have not forced Tehran to modify its behavior as the Trump administration demands, the Islamic Ministry of Security showed up with the sensational news that it had "smashed" a network of CIA agents who had infiltrated the Islamic Republic's government structures and private sector outfits connected with it. The fact that the ministry's account was full of holes and contradictions may indicate that the cloth yarn was woven to contribute to the tough image Tehran wishes to project just before it succumbs to pressure.

Initially, the ministry spoke of a network (shabakeh in Persian) supposedly controlled by the CIA from an unknown location. The ministry also claimed that the "network" was part of fresh efforts by Gina Haspel, named as CIA Director by President Donald Trump. Also according to the initial account, the agents in the "network" had received high level training in espionage techniques and were equipped with "the most advanced" machines for transmitting information.

In later accounts, however, the ministry insisted that the 17 "agents" acted individually and had absolutely no contact with one another and therefore, could not be regarded as a "network". More importantly, the ministry claimed that most "agents" had been "fished" by the CIA with promises of US visas and work permits in America. In other words, the "agents" could not have been highly trained spies by any standards. Worse still, the ministry, forgetting its initial claim that Ms. Haspel had been the Mata Hari behind the Persian "network", claimed that the agents had been recruited six years ago, long before Trump was in the White House and Haspel in Langley.

Thus, the 17 individuals involved could be regarded as hostages, adding to the 41 foreign and dual-national hostages that the Islamic Republic already holds.

A tougher profile, attacks on tankers and other soft targets, gesticulations by Hezbollah and Hamas, and more hostages are one aspect of the scheme that Tehran is currently working on. The other is a desperate attempt at appearing ready to enter into "constructive talks". That yarn is marketed by Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is still retained to play Foreign Minister in Western forums and TV studios. Passing through New York, Zarif met Republican Senator Rand Paul to balance a meeting that he had held with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in an earlier visit. According to good sources, Zarif also held two long meetings with two American businesspersons "interested in Iranian affairs." All those who met Zarif must have obtained at least a nod and a wink from the White House.

As noted in a previous column, Tehran is already complying with several of the demands spelled out by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in his famous 12-point desiderata. In New York, Zarif added the promise of addressing another demand, that the so-called "nuke deal" be rehashed to make limits on Iran's nuclear program permanent rather than limited to 10, 15 or 25 years. That could be done, at least in part, by Tehran signing the Additional Protocols of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), something that the Islamic Republic had promised to do during Obama's presidency but didn't.

The Tehran game is based on a strategy that the French call "drowning the fish". By creating or highlighting numerous issues, Tehran would avoid giving the impression of abject surrender. Some hostages could be released as a sign of goodwill. The seized British tanker could be returned as part of confidence-building measures. The supposed CIA spies may benefit from leniency rather than being summarily executed.

Trump's sanctions, which cost the US nothing, are placing the Islamic Republic under a degree of pressure it has never known. This is why Khamenei, his huffing-and-puffing notwithstanding, is ready to do what he is told, provided he can save a minimum of face. His chief aim at present is to survive the rough patch created for him by Trump. That could be done if he is allowed to sell even a million barrels of oil a day to finance his pet projects and surrogates at home and abroad. Will Trump be tempted to declare victory and let the Islamic Republic off the hook at a time it is reeling under pressure?

We may know the answer early next month when the waivers issued by Trump to seven nations for nuclear cooperation with the Islamic Republic expire. If Trump refuses to renew the waivers, he would show that he is not prepared to accept a partial victory. At the same time, however, he would make it impossible for Iran to fully comply with the moribund "nuke deal". A week after that will come the G7 summit in France, where the US and its closest allies will have to decide whether to let the Islamic Republic off the hook yet again, and, as always, in exchange for partial and largely cosmetic concessions.

This article was originally published 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. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14606/iran-drown-fish

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Muslim Evangelism Goes Public in Minnesota - Lloyd Billingsley

​
by Lloyd Billingsley

Public school district pays more than $50,000 for “equity survey” by Dr. Muhammad Khalifa.

“After a petition was sent around by activists, asking the school district to reduce ‘racism,’” William Krumholz reports in Alphanews, “the district brought in a group run by Dr. Muhammad Khalifa to conduct an ‘equity survey.’”  This took place in the Eastern Carver County School District in the city of Chaska, Minnesota, with a population of approximately 25,000. 

Dr. Muhammad Khalifa is Associate Professor of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota. He earned his Ph.D. in “educational administration” at Michigan State University. Khalifa’s group, Adjusted Equity Solutions, and the affiliated Culturally Responsive School Leadership Institute, Krumholz wrote, “sells its services, which focus on bias recognition education and training, to schools.” The Eastern Carver district and superintendent Clint Christopher, “awarded Khalifa’s AES $52,250 over a two-year period to conduct the equity survey and provide certain follow-up services.”

Dr. Khalifa’s “Islamophobia and Christian Privilege,” materials urge the district to “recognize that Islamophobia is one of the most widespread, rapidly growing, and tolerated types of oppression in school and society today.” This requires the school to “identify discourses and practices of Christian privilege and White privilege” and Christian privilege “is not only having major Christian holidays and Sundays off, and Christian trappings in school.”

The materials urge the district to “discuss with your staff how you have been implicit – directly or indirectly – in Islamophobic practices,” and “complete annual equity audits.” Dr. Khalifa  wants “speak outs” for Muslim students, and the protection of “Muslim female dress.” The district is also to “celebrate contemporary Muslim accomplishments and personalities, Kunta Kinte, Muhammad Ali, Keith Ellison, Yusef Lateef, John Coltrane, Malcolm X, Mahershali Ali, etc.”

As Dr. Khalifa’s materials explain, “Islam is not a religion in the sense that Western Europeans separated faith from other aspects of life.” Dr. Muhamad wants the district to “support causes connected to the Muslim community,” and “use staff, school space, student activities, and even financial resources – to advocate for causes important to student inclusion and belongingness.”

As Krumholz notes, Dr. Khalifa’s equity survey was emailed to parents by Sherief Elabbady, listed as the chief operating officer of Adjusted Equity Solutions. According to Krumholz, Elabbady “has a history of leftwing and anti-Israeli posts on Facebook. This includes sharing posts by Linda Sarsour, a far-left activist with a long history of blatantly anti-Semitic comments.” Sarsour, “has praised radical preacher Louis Farrakhan,” tried to oust Jewish women from the women’s march, and called for a “jihad” on President Trump and his supporters.

Krumholz also reports that Khalifa Muhammad is “closely associated” with the Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America, “a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate.” As Benjamin Baird explained in the American Spectator, MAS was founded in 1993 as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” a “transnational Sunni Islamist organization that is the progenitor of terrorist outfits such as Hamas.”

Dr. Khalifa is also a senior fellow with the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. The Texas-based institute warns of “the rise of Islamophobia” and the portrayal of Islam as “irrational, incompatible with modern civilization and inherently violent.” Yaqeen Institute research will include “topics such as Jihad, Shariah, gender issues, Muslim/Non-Muslim relations, slavery and explaining controversial texts in Islam.” Senior fellow Muhammad Khalifa is the man the East Carver district tapped for the “equity survey.”

According to an April 26 Star-Tribune report, a petition charged that “racist incidents and systemic inequities,” have “plagued the district for far too long.” The only incident cited in the report is a “boy of color” who was punched on a bus. A July 22 Star Tribune report cited “racist incidents that have rocked the district,” which turned out to be “a photo of a student wearing blackface,” in last year’s yearbook. This was enough to bring in Dr. Khalifa and pay him more than $50,000 in public funds.

At a June 24 school board meeting, Krumholz notes, “parents pushed back against the school board on the issue.” Krumholz speculated that “AES and some school board members will take this as more evidence of bias—which just so happens to require the school district to pay more money to Dr. Khalifa’s companies.”

Dr. Khalifa appears to hold Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam in symmetry with traditional Islam. The Nation of Islam holds that people like Amy Klobuchar, Jonas Salk, and Michelangelo are the result of an experiment by a mad scientist named Yacub some 6,000 years ago. Traditional Islam has no such belief.

Jazz artist Yusef Lateef (1920-2013), cited by Dr. Khalifa as an example of “contemporary Muslim accomplishment,” converted to Islam in 1948 and was not part of the Nation of Islam. Legendary saxophonist John Coltrane died in 1967, and his relationship with Islam remains unclear.

As Daniel Pipes notes, the connection of musicians with Islam, “contains a certain irony, given the Muslim role in enslaving Africans and Islam's dubious and sometimes directly hostile attitude toward music.” As Pipes recalls, in 2010, “Somali Islamists not only banned all music but even school bells.”

Somalia is the birthplace of Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, and this week Minnesota state representative Steve Drazkowski and Judicial Watch filed complaints with the House ethics office asking for an investigation into possible crimes committed by Omar including perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.

Last month, a Minnesota judge sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor to twelve years in prison for third-degree murder and manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of  Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation and, most recently, Sexual Terrorist, about the Golden State Killer.  Lloyd’s work has appeared in City Journal, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, California Globe, and many other publications. Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield is a collection of his journalism. His crime books include A Shut and Open Case, about a double murder in Davis, California.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274412/muslim-evangelism-goes-public-minnesota-lloyd-billingsley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Reparations and Racial Politicking - Thomas R. Ascik

​
by Thomas R. Ascik

Reparations mania has overcome the entire Democratic Party.

With the second round of Democratic presidential debates upcoming on July 30-31 and with the ever-increasing support in the Democratic party -- Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer having just added his endorsement -- it is time to ask for more details concerning reparations, and, specifically, how will eligibility for reparations for African-Americans be determined?

As for racial politicking, the Democratic presidential race is already pointed toward the early primary in South Carolina on February 29 of next year, where black Democratic voters are an even more significant factor than in the national Democratic party. Black support is crucial to any of the Democratic presidential candidates, of course, but it is likely definitive to the candidacies of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. And all the Democratic candidates have to do something about the continuing lead of Joe Biden in the polls. Racial politicking is one method they have chosen.

Thus, in the first presidential debates, Kamala Harris’ accused Joe Biden of almost being a racist for not supporting school busing 40 years ago -- while introducing her attack by stating that she was not accusing him of being a racist. Likewise, Cory Booker, already a critic of Biden about race and specifically about Biden’s statements in the first presidential debate, has stated that he may step up that criticism at the next debates. After it was pointed out in a tweet by an obviously liberal African-American that Harris, the daughter of an Asian Indian mother and Jamaican father, was not an African-American, which was then retweeted by Donald Trump, Jr., the Democratic media together with the other Democratic presidential candidates immediately and vehemently responded that this was an accusation based on birtherism.

Schumer says that “we need to do a lot more” about the “legacy” not just of slavery but also of “Jim Crow.” With a particular criticism of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who, Schumer says, had “done nothing to combat bigotry,” Schumer has announced his support for a Senate bill that would establish a commission to study and make recommendations for reparations. All seven Democratic U.S. Senators who are running for president are co-sponsors of the bill.

On June 19, the Democratic-controlled House, with the strong support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, further set the stage for the July 30-31 debates by holding a hearing on H.R. 40, a House bill identical to the Senate bill, to form a federal commission that would “Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans.” With three members appointed by the speaker, only one appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, and three appointed by the president, the result of the “study” is preordained under the current political makeup of the Congress because six additional members of the commission would be appointed from “organizations that have historically championed the cause of reparatory justice.”

The leadoff and chief witness in favor of reparations was presidential candidate Cory Booker. Calling slavery “our nation’s original sin,” Booker said that “racism and white supremacy,” including “federal policies that have intentionally excluded blacks from wealth-building and opportunity,” has caused “damage” that “has endured across generations.” The damage is manifest in “redlined neighborhoods” as well as “racialized violence” that persists “to this very day.”

Thus, reparations is now a major public issue, presidential campaign issue, and, in light of Mitch McConnell’s statement that slavery is “[s]omething that happened 150 years ago, for whom none of us currently living are responsible,” a major disagreement between the two political parties. So, will any questions seeking details about reparations be asked of the candidates at the upcoming debates? How will reparations be determined and what will be the cost? Who will be eligible? How “African” and how “American” will you have to be the recipient of “African-American” reparations? Will you have to be an actual descendant of slaves? What about other black Americans like Somali-born U.S. representative Ilhan Omar, who came to this country in 1992? Still more pertinent: the district that she represents includes Minneapolis, where a large number of latter-day Somali immigrants live. Would those black Africans be eligible?
Should descendants of slaveowners be required to personally pay reparations? How much land in the South today can be traced back to slave plantations? Beto O”Rourke has said that he is a descendant of slaveholders. And Kamala Harris’ father previously said that she is a descendant of Jamaican slaveholders.

The House hearing on June 19 was a major media event, but these kinds of questions were notably avoided. On July 6, Kamala Harris proposed a $100 billion reparations plan that would “give black families a real shot at homeownership” by providing federal grants of up to $25,000 for home down payments to counter the effects of redlining, that is, the practice of discrimination in housing and housing loans based on neighborhoods. Harris has not provided any more details. Elizabeth Warren has made the same kind of proposal. Redlining has been illegal since the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

On July 11, Pete Buttigieg offered a great deal of detail about reparations in his own Douglass Plan involving “health equity zones,” housing, and civil rights “that focuses on Black Americans.” It includes hiring preferences for blacks as health care providers and in public education, funding of “underrepresented” entrepreneurs, free college, and cancellations of college loans “lower income students,” as well as comprehensive decriminalization. In the part of his proposal that he has labeled the Community Homestead Act, the federal government in certain “pilot cities” would subsidize the purchase of home sites for “a current resident of any historically redlined or racially-segregated area.” Such residents would be given “absolute ownership of land’” together with a subsidized 10-year loan.

With three of the top five Democratic presidential candidates focusing reparations on housing, land, and “zones.” it is only natural to make a comparison to Indian reservations today. Can the maintenance of the reservations by the federal government with the host of reservation-based federal programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and free health care under the Indian Health Service (Medicaid for all!) serve as some kind of model for reparations for African Americans?

As Elizabeth Warren well knows, membership in an Indian tribe is determined by blood. Individual tribes have the authority to decide the exact blood quantum, but, overall, a person must have “one-half to one-sixteenth amount of a tribe’s blood to be “enrolled” as a member. Will this serve as some kind of precedent to make distinctions among descendants of slaves, African-Americans, black Americans, and recent African immigrants?

Since reparations has the support of the two most powerful Democrats in the Congress and has become such a major issue in the Democratic presidential campaign, it has to be wondered why the Democrat-controlled House doesn’t hold hearings to do the “study” and then come up with a complete reparations plan this Fall. Regardless, questions about reparations would seem to be a necessary part of the July 30-31 debates.


Thomas R. Ascik has written on a wide range of legal and connstitutional issues.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/reparations_and_racial_politicking.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Impeachment Dreams Die; Wall gets Built - Clarice Feldman

​
by Clarice Feldman

Protecting the real colluders

This was a week the President could only have dreamed of. There was the highly promoted appearance of Robert Mueller before two congressional committees in which the impeachment dream of the party with no saleable agenda died in full public view. Egged on by Deep Staters, Guatemala had recently backed off of a deal to keep asylum seekers there, but at the end of the week thought better of reneging (after the President threatened tariffs and other responses if they didn’t follow through on the deal). The week ended with the Supreme Court green lighting the transfer of some funds from the Defense budget to build 100 miles of a wall at the border of Mexico.

Mueller and “His” Report

For two years the mainstream media has been plugging the idea -- preposterous on its face as it was --that the President colluded with Russia to beat Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the Pulitzer Committee honored the New York Times and Washington Post, leaders of the collusion band, “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” 

Television and cable news carried the same tune ad infinitum, as this video clip records in condensed form.

Few people read the Mueller report and the Democrats believed a well-practiced series of soundbites at the hearing would revitalize impeachment impetus. It didn’t. On the contrary, it revealed that the endeavor was corrupt, poorly managed by someone seemingly in the early stages of dementia, and that the special counsel was clearly among those who’d never read the report offered up in his name. 

There was a lot of very good coverage of the Mueller testimony. In my view Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal and Professor Jonathan Turley at The Hill did the best job of it.

(a) Strassel

We’ve been told it was solely about Russian electoral interference and obstruction of justice. It’s now clear it was equally about protecting the actual miscreants behind the Russia-collusion hoax.
The most notable aspect of the Mueller report was always what it omitted: the origins of this mess. Christopher Steele’s dossier was central to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe, the basis of many of the claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the Mueller authors studiously wrote around the dossier, mentioning it only in perfunctory terms. The report ignored Mr. Steele’s paymaster, Fusion GPS, and its own ties to Russians. It also ignored Fusion’s paymaster, the Clinton campaign, and the ugly politics behind the dossier hit job. [snip]
As Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz asked Mr. Mueller, how could a special-counsel investigation into “Russia’s interference” have any credibility if it failed to look into whether the Steele dossier was itself disinformation from Moscow? Mr. Steele acknowledges that senior Russian officials were the source of his dossier’s claims of an “extensive conspiracy.” Given that no such conspiracy actually existed, Mr. Gaetz asked: “Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele, or did he just make it up and was he lying to the FBI?” [snip] The Mueller team, rather than question the FBI’s actions, went out of its way to build on them. That’s how we ended up with tortured plea agreements for process crimes from figures like former Trump aide George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. They were peripheral figures in an overhyped drama, who nonetheless had to be scalped to legitimize the early actions of Mr. Comey & Co. Mr. Mueller inherited the taint, and his own efforts were further tarnished. That accounts for Mr. Mueller’s stonewalling.

The appearances reminded me of scenes in Joseph Heller’s novel Good as Gold (less well-read than Catch 22, but a scathing and realistic take on Washington, D.C. culture). Here are two telling quotes from that work. The first about the FBI:

"You’re vulnerable to blackmail in the interests of a foreign power by anyone who knows all the facts.”
“Who knows all the facts?”
“The FBI knows all the facts.”
“Is the FBI likely to blackmail me in the interests of a foreign power?”

The second is paraphrased from memory as I’ve misplaced the book. It clearly was intended as a scathing rebuke of Henry Kissinger, whom the author detested, but the notion of undeserved reputation could apply as well to many others, including Mueller: “He lied under oath before Congressional Committees for three administrations and was widely considered an elder statesman.”

Congressman Louis Gohmert has offered up a detailed view of Robert Mueller’s history and it is far less glorious and ethical than the mainstream press and his admirers has led you to believe.

(b) Jonathan Turley

The hearing was a disaster for anyone who was hoping for a kickstart to impeachment. Democrats could not produce even a single takeaway moment in six hours of hearings. Instead, Mueller came across more often as befuddled than bemused by the entire exercise. Calling the hearings a “disaster” for Democrats, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a leading advocate for impeachment, declared, “Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it.”[snip] Democrats did not seem to care that Mueller was in open contempt of Congress by simply refusing to answer questions whenever it suited him. [snip]
He was allowed to discuss the underlying law as well as key decisions on the preparation of the report. All of these areas had been discussed by Attorney General William Barr and were neither privileged nor classified. So why did he not answer these questions? The answer is as simple as it is obvious. He did not want to because he often had no answer. [snip]
…Mueller answered questions about the Office of Legal Counsel when it suited him and then refused when it did not. He started the second hearing before the House Intelligence Committee by withdrawing part of his earlier testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the two memos. [snip] Given his resistance to testifying and his request to have his chief of staff with him, the hearings successfully magnified the lingering questions over his supervision of the investigation. It all was a testament to how a bad movie can ruin a good book. Film critic Joel Siegel once reviewed “The Bonfire of the Vanities” by saying, “This is a failure of epic proportions. You have got to be a genius to make a movie this bad.” If the Democrats wanted to dampen calls for impeachment, they could not have produced a better cinematic suppressant. Call it “The Day Impeachment Died.”

This is not to say that everyone decided it was time to stop beating this dead horse. Hacks Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are still at it.

I suppose with them it’s a new kind of psychological therapy for those dumb enough to watch them -- I’d call it “reverse reality therapy” where the therapist enters into the fantasy with the patients and encourages their continued derangement.

The Wall

Friday in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court determined that the Sierra Club, ACLU, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition had no cause of action to obtain a review of the determination to use $2.5 billion dollars from Defense Department Funds to build sections of the wall on the Mexican Border. (The administration had authorized other funds -- military construction, Defense department and the Treasury department’s asset forfeiture accounts [seized narcotics funds] -- to supplement the $1.4 billion Congress had allocated for building a wall on the Mexican border, but only the Defense Department funds were at issue.)

The case arose from -- where else? -- the Ninth Circuit, where a District Court judge had issued a nationwide injunction against the use of those funds for wall construction.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that private groups could not challenge this transfer and the majority of the court agreed. He added that even if they had a valid cause of action their “interests in hiking, bird watching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.”

Justice Stephen Breyer wanted to lift the injunction but halt construction until the case was heard on the merits but he was outvoted and construction contracts can now be entered into. “While Friday’s ruling isn’t technically on the merits, it is, in practice, a big win for Trump, since there will be no way to 'unspend' the money once construction begins.”

Boris Johnson, who reminds me so much of President Trump, is now the new United Kingdom Prime Minister and the two men are reportedly already discussing a trade agreement, something that should help Johnson immeasurably in his fight for a no deal Brexit. I can’t say the globalists and deep staters are dead yet, but they are mostly dead and as Mad Max in Princess Bride says of the dead, we’ll soon be able to go through their clothes and look for loose change.

Clarice Feldman

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/impeachment_dreams_die_wall_gets_built.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Liberals Are Dying Out - Taylor Lewis

​
by Taylor Lewis

The American city is losing its ability to perpetuate itself.

Conservatives may outlast liberals after all, if only through the age-old wonder of procreation.
Our punditry class, which is increasingly composed of cut-rate political scientists, enjoys gabbling about the urban-rural divide, the eternal electoral battle between red-blooded roturiers and blue-blooded burghers. This residential split is often used to explain the buzzword “polarization,” which is a fancy electromagnetic term for difference of opinion and lifestyle.

A new analysis in the Atlantic uncovers another way in which urbanites and provincials distinguish themselves other than property size: fecundity. In “The Future of the City Is Childless,” Derek Thompson pens a threnody for the once flourishing megalopolis. New York City actually shrank last year -- a Big Apple first in four decades not counting recession years. The number of New Yorkers leaving the city more than doubled during the same period.

Thompson writes, “There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard.” And by hard, he means expensive. Rising housing costs, combined with the unmentioned price of quality education and social outings, pull city living out of the grasp of middle-income families. 

What’s driving up the price of everything urban happens to be what economists praise as a salubrious sign of growth: the continual influx of young, childless adults into dynamic industry. The citified industry most attractive to young workers? Tech and internet, which are, ironically, supposed to be levelling fields unattached to specific geography. It just happens that five counties are home to half of the country’s internet-based jobs. Not only that, but, as Thompson points out, “the richest 25 metro areas now account for more than half of the U.S. economy.”

The cursus honorum of urbane careerism doesn’t include room for family formulation. Cities are so rich and expensive that they’ve priced out the cost of having a child, or heaven forbid, more than one. They are, in Thompson’s words, becoming an “Epcot theme park for childless affluence, where the rich can act like kids without having to actually see any.” I’d leave out the Epcot part; Mickey Mouse isn’t much of a presence where ten-year-olds dare venture.

Thompson speaks mainly to the material difficulties of raising a family in densely populated cities where the price of a two-bedroom apartment rivals a five-bedroom, three-bathroom mansion in San Antonio, Texas. But he misses out on the cultural reasons why aging millennials aren’t interested in making a go at having progeny in the concrete playground. After all, space is a luxury, not a necessity, and, until recently, it wasn’t uncommon to hear anecdotes of parents leaving newborns to sleep in bureau drawers.

Natalism is a culturally outré value to millennials because it rubs harshly against the average twentysomething’s ideal of true freedom as the deracinated individual. Kids tie you down. City living, with its apartment swapping, lack of privacy, ephemeral acquaintances, and emphasis on efficiency, encourages looseness, never getting too rooted.

In his epistolary memoir My Father Left Me Ireland, Michael Brendan Dougherty captures the parental ethic that was so persuasive in his upbringing -- as a member of the so-called Generation X -- and with millennials. “The adult world that I encountered was plainly terrified of having authority over children and tried to exercise as little of it as practicable,” he recounts. “They seemed grateful when a child wasn’t difficult.”

But children are difficult. They’re little bodies and minds, fragile and impressionable, you’re lawfully obliged to shepherd to self-sufficiency. There’s no how-to way to properly parent, no shortcuts or easy tricks. Living in a bustling city where everything is priced at a premium and vanity is a guiding principle only makes it harder. 

Thompson says the “childless city may be inescapable” at this point as urban amenities continue to be geared toward those not pushing a pram or lugging around a diaper bag. But, as the divide between married suburban parents and metropolitan dinks becomes starker, should we really worry if our biggest cities lack children? For the more fertile conservative, is it really a concern that liberal city-dwellers aren’t reproducing?

Yes, if only for the U.S.’s long-term viability. The country’s fertility rate is at an all-time low. Societies that don’t reproduce die. More importantly, societies that don’t encourage childbirth are planting the seed, so to speak, for their future obsolescence.

That’s just what our cities our doing, as they build more coffee bars and scooter lanes instead of daycares and sidewalks wide enough for strollers. “Die single, and thine image dies with thee,” Shakespeare warned the childless. The American city is losing its ability to perpetuate itself. What political power heartland conservatives gain from infecund liberals comes at the expense of the nation’s health.

Taylor Lewis

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/why_liberals_are_dying_out.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

PLO blocks West Bank Arabs leaving for a better life - David Singer

​
by David Singer

The only media outlet reporting Erekat’s incendiary statement was the Chinese newsagency Xinhua. The remaining media’s failure to report this news is concerning.

Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – Saeb Erekat – has told a political symposium in Jericho that West Bank Arabs would not be allowed to voluntarily leave – virtually holding them captives against their will.

Erekat stated:

"We will not allow resettlement or formation of refugee committees for that aim, while holding on to the settlement of their cause in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions."

Michael Lynk - the United Nations Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967” – had issued a statement on 28 June endorsing the right to freedom of movement – enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Erekat’s outrageous threat was not responding to Lynk’s comments - but to leaked reports claiming the United States might be seeking the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in at least five Arab neighboring countries.

If confirmed - 'West Bank' Arabs could well be prepared to voluntarily leave the West Bank in large numbers – especially if offered the opportunity to legally enter other Arab countries and receive financial assistance for rehousing and resettlement there.

President Trump has a massive US$28.7 billion possibly available to aid 'West Bank' Arabs who want to emigrate – being the money he wanted to plough into revitalising the West Bank and Gaza – which both the PLO and Hamas unbelievably rejected.

Given the state of relationships between Israel, the PLO and Hamas – spending that money earmarked for projects within the West Bank and Gaza was a highly questionable exercise that could have seen the destruction of such projects in future conflicts between these three long-time enemies.

Helping those desperate to emigrate who have suffered the perverse decisions of the PLO during the last 25 years is a much more targeted use of the money – guaranteeing a far better outcome for West Bank Arabs and their families.

The 2019 Human Rights Watch Report evidences the toxic nature of the West Bank: 

• the PLO arrested activists who criticized their leaders, security forces, or policies, and mistreated and tortured some in their custody. 
• The Independent Commission for Human Rights in Palestine (ICHR), a statutory commission charged with monitoring human rights compliance by the Palestinian authorities, received 205 complaints of torture and ill-treatment by 'West Bank' security forces as of 31 October 2018. 
• In the 'West Bank' and East Jerusalem, Israeli security forces fatally shot 27 Palestinians and wounded at least 5,444,
• attacks by Israeli settlers injured 61 Palestinians and damaged property in 147 incidents.
• Palestinians killed 10 Israelis, including six civilians, and wounded at least 58 in the same period in the West Bank. 

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords - 95% of the 'West Bank' Arab population has been under total PLO administrative control. 

Real growth declined to around 2 percent in 2018 - lower than its average in previous years. The 2018 unemployment rate was 17.6 percent.  Youth unemployment between ages 15-24 is 29.8 percent. 

The World Bank has concluded that lack of progress towards peace and reconciliation creates an unsustainable economic situation. The PLO has refused to negotiate with Israel since April 2014 and has failed to call elections since 2007.

The only media outlet reporting Erekat’s incendiary statement was the Chinese newsagency Xinhua. The remaining media’s failure to report this news is concerning.

The UN Special Rapporteur’s failure to condemn Erekat’s controversial announcement is despicable.

Hopefully President Trump will pressure the PLO to reverse its position and offer a window of opportunity for those to leave who wish to do so.

Offering West Bank Arabs a lifeline to a better future elsewhere is long overdue.

PLO no leaving

צילום: INN:HK

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog


David Singer is an Australian lawyer who is active in Zionist community organizations in that country. He founded the "Jordan is Palestine" Committee in 1979.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24210

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter