Sunday, March 7, 2021

A Storm Over the American Republic - Guy Millière

 

​ by Guy Millière

If H.R.1 becomes the law of the land, it will entrench those "very things that made the election of 2020 such a mess".

  • The atmosphere in the United States remains poisonous. Critics claim that stoking in the public is being done on purpose -- to create a false narrative that not only is Trump supposedly a "threat to democracy," but that his more than 74 million supporters are, too. Others, however, claim that the real threat to democracy is actually these serial liars, violators of the Constitution and falsifiers of information.

  • The right to challenge and criticize, which is an integral part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, appears seriously threatened. The right to defend oneself against charges also appears threatened, and the legal profession dangerous to practice.

  • Expressing doubts about the November 3 election is now a liability. Substantiated reports show that it was far from perfect. The American economist Peter Navarro, in his private capacity, drew up three meticulous analyses: "The Immaculate Deception," "The Art of the Steal" and "The Navarro Report". They have been zealously disparaged -- many think unjustly.

  • Some authors describe what is happening as a slide towards authoritarianism. They note that many Americans and corporations, while behaving in an increasingly authoritarian manner, accuse their opponents of being authoritarian -- in other words, blaming their opponents for what they themselves are doing.

  • For more than three years Trump was accused, without any evidence apart from a fake "dossier", of being a Russian agent. The accusations eventually proved baseless, but not before $32 million of taxpayers' money were spent in what the prosecutors knew from the start was a fraud. They also tried to frame, incriminate and send innocent people to prison. The exercise was, at bottom, nothing more than an attempted coup d'état.

  • Throughout his entire term, Trump was faced with threats, abuse of power and unremitting attacks. Even though Trump is no longer president, the war against him continues.

  • If H.R.1 becomes the law of the land, it will entrench those "very things that made the election of 2020 such a mess". These include, among other things, the flooding of states with millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots, failure to verify signatures, no chain of custody of ballots, same-day voter registration, and ballot-harvesting -- many of which are invitations to commit fraud. As a bipartisan report in 2005 from the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, concluded: mail-in ballots "remain the largest source of potential voter fraud." If H.R.1 is passed in the Senate, countless ways of demolishing election integrity will be set in cement.

The atmosphere in the United States remains poisonous. Critics claim that stoking in the public is being done on purpose -- to create a false narrative that not only is Trump supposedly a "threat to democracy," but that his more than 74 million supporters are, too. Pictured: Members of the National Guard at a checkpoint on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

January 20, 2021. President Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. The scene, however, is devoid of any human presence. The streets of Washington DC are empty. People had been urged to stay at home and Americans throughout the rest of the country asked not to come. The city is under the protection of 25,000 members of the National Guard, heavily armed. High barriers topped with razor wire surround the Capitol area. In the streets planned for the new president's "parade", barriers separate the sidewalks from the roadway. The only people visible are men in uniform carrying rifles. A day that is usually a day of celebration in the United States is, this year, strange and sad.

The explanation given by city officials and the FBI was that there was a risk of serious disruption. Other inaugurations had faced disruption, but had never placed the city under siege. On January 20, 2017, during President Donald J. Trump's inauguration, hostile protesters had come to Washington DC, burned cars and smashed windows. The police had protected the ceremony without razor wire and soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of people had cheered the new president.

This year, on January 6, responding to President Trump's calls for a big rally, a huge crowd gathered at the Ellipse, near the White House. Most listened to Trump's speech and returned home.

However, several thousand people went to the Capitol, a 30-minute walk away from Trump's rally, and there a group of well-organized people smashed windows on the Capitol and entered the building. It was not ransacked, but items were stolen. An unarmed woman was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer. Two protesters died of heart attacks. One person fell to the ground and was trampled. A member of the Capitol police died the next day, possible due to suffering a stroke.

The incident, though serious, fell far short of the scenes of looting, arson and extreme violence that had taken place in many of the country's major cities over the entire summer. The difference was that a riot now licked at the heels of the political class, not just the rest of us.

What happened on January 6 was unanimously condemned, including by Trump himself. There was no equivalence between those who had come to listen to him and those who marauded. The former had exercised their constitutional rights of free assembly; the latter had committed criminal acts.

Police could have made arrests and justice been served. The page would have been turned. That is not what happened.

Protesters had "stormed" the Capitol several times before: on March 1, 1954, by Puerto Rican Americans who fired guns and injured five congressmen; on March 1, 1971, by members of the radical Weather Underground who placed a bomb in the building; on November 7, 1983, by a group calling itself the Armed Resistance Unit, who also placed a bomb in the building; and on October 6, 2018, by people protesting the confirmation vote of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Overlooking that, however, on January 7, President Joe Biden described the incident of the day before as a major and unprecedented "attack":

"What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent. It was not disorder. It was not protest. It was chaos. They weren't protesters. Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It's that basic, it's that simple."

The mainstream media spoke of an assault on the "citadel of democracy" and a sign that a "will to overthrow the republic" had taken shape. Trump's supporters -- as a whole -- were described as dangerous people. Trump's constitutional challenge to the result of the November 3 election had already been presented for weeks as an attempt to "overturn" the result of a perfectly irrefutable election and as a "Big Lie". The mayhem, though vicious, was now being presented "as if the U.S. has become a war zone."

On January 8, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, after asking President Trump to "immediately and willingly" leave office before President-elect Biden's inauguration, launched what would be a second impeachment procedure against him. Insinuating that Trump was mentally unfit, she announced that she had spoken to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, "to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes". Her request, which breached the chain of command, was reported as sedition. Nevertheless, on January 13, discarding all due process, the House of Representatives hastily voted on an article of impeachment accusing President Trump of "incitement to insurrection."

President Biden, at his inauguration on January 20, while speaking of "unity", all the same echoed the words he had used on January 7: "a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat".

Since then, the Biden Administration has led a fight against those Biden has designated as such. "President Biden," read a statement from the White House, "will use the National Security Council to track down and combat political extremism and domestic terrorism".

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a "stand down" order to the entire US military for commanders to address "extremism" in the ranks. "White supremacism," John Kirby, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, announced, "poses a particular problem" for the US army.

In the Senate, impeachment proceedings against former President Trump commenced. The official impeachment managers described the events of January 6 as an "armed insurgency" that had threatened the lives of representatives of the people. They presented these alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- minus evidence and witnesses -- as the direct result of Trump's speech on January 6, as well as his having contested the election's result -- which they presented as "incitement to violence". The impeachment managers ignored that the results of presidential elections have been contested for decades with no objection.

They also claimed that the events of January 6 left five dead, but failed to note that only one fatality -- Ashli Babbitt, a protestor shot by a policeman -- could be directly linked to the event.

Trump's attorneys had no trouble refuting the allegations. They recalled that Trump had asked the demonstrators on January 6 to assemble "peacefully and patriotically" and that his a speech was fully protected by the First Amendment. They presented evidence showing that those who initiated the break-in on the Capitol had prepared it for weeks; that they had acted while Trump was still speaking, and that a causal relationship between Trump's January 6 speech and the break-in on Capitol Hill simply did not exist.

They emphasized that the impeachment proceedings were conducted in violation of the Constitution and that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had declined to oversee the proceeding. Trump, after all, now out of office, was no longer President Trump, just citizen Trump; did the US really want to start "impeaching" its citizens? They also pointed out that the evidence presented had once again (referring to the fraudulent , three year "Russia hoax") been falsified.

Trump's lawyers asserted that what happened was not an insurrection -- a violent and organized action aimed at overthrowing the established power: no one entering the Capitol had been carrying a weapon.

Unsurprisingly, Trump was once again acquitted.

The atmosphere in the United States remains poisonous. Critics claim that stoking in the public is being done on purpose -- to create a false narrative that not only is Trump supposedly a "threat to democracy," but that his more than 74 million supporters are, too. Others, however, claim that the real threat to democracy is actually these serial liars, violators of the Constitution and falsifiers of information (here, here and here).

Actions against supposed "domestic extremism" and "domestic terrorism" -- meaning, supposedly, the 74 million Trump supporters -- continue. Those labeled "extremists" and "terrorists" face continued threats. Trump's defense lawyers received threats as well. Michael van der Veen, for instance, has said he had to hire armed bodyguards and send his family to an undisclosed location. His house was vandalized.

The right to challenge and criticize, which is an integral part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, appears seriously threatened. The right to defend oneself against charges also appears threatened, and the legal profession dangerous to practice.

Calls for political purges continue. The leftist organization MoveOn.org has launched a campaign against what it calls the "Treason Caucus" and the expulsion from Congress of Senators described as "complicit in Trump's deadly insurrection." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- apparently trying to create an equivalence between the worst terrorist attack suffered by the United States on 9/11/2001 and the events of January 6, and seemingly trying to position the government to suppress free speech -- has announced that Congress will move to establish a 9/11-type commission.

A member of the Democratic National Committee, David. O. Atkins, suggested , "how *do* you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start?" and "We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan."

"White supremacists," President Biden announced, "are the greatest domestic terror threat in the US. It's complex, it's wide-ranging and it's real."

Journalist Kyle Daly, in an article called, "How to deprogram America's extremists", describes a measure "that could make a difference: Keeping extremists out of the institutions where they could do the greatest damage - like the military, police departments and legislatures... The U.S. needs a Marshall Plan against domestic extremism."

At The New York Times, the journalist Kevin Roose, in "How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis", offered what looks like the creation of the "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:

"Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a 'reality czar.'"

Expressing doubts about the November 3 election is now a liability. Substantiated reports show that it was far from perfect. The American economist and former Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Peter Navarro, in his private capacity, drew up three meticulous analyses: "The Immaculate Deception," "The Art of the Steal" and "The Navarro Report". They have been zealously disparaged as "nonsensical," "riddled with dubious claims," and "largely debunked allegations" -- many think unjustly (for instance here, here and here).

In another article, "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," in Time Magazine, Molly Ball, the publication's national political correspondent, shows in detail that a "well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information", and that the action of this cabal "touched every aspect of the election," including election laws, and engaged in a unified legal front to change voting systems and laws ".

Ball, also the author of an extremely laudatory biography of Nancy Pelosi -- whom she describes as an "icon of the Resistance" to Trump -- claimed that the purpose of the cabal was not was not to rig the election, but to "fortify" it.

Organizations that ravaged major American cities during the summer, she adds, were used by the cabal: "the left actually did control the activities of groups such as Antifa, Black Lives Matter." In another article, she wrote that what was done was to "save democracy", and manages to conclude that using undemocratic means to distort a democratic election somehow "saves" democracy.

A worrying drift seems to be dragging the United States away from the institutions of the American Republic and far from what can be expected of a democracy worthy of the name. Some authors describe what is happening as a slide towards authoritarianism. They note that many Americans and corporations, while behaving in an increasingly authoritarian manner, accuse their opponents of being authoritarian -- in other words, blaming their opponents for what they themselves are doing.

The legitimacy of Trump as a president was being thwarted and denied, for example by "Crossfire Hurricane" and serial FISA abuse [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] even before he was elected. Nineteen minutes after his inauguration, the Washington Post released the headline, "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has begun".

For more than three years Trump was accused, without any evidence apart from a fake "dossier", of being a Russian agent. The accusations eventually proved baseless, but not before $32 million of taxpayers' money were spent in what the prosecutors knew from the start was a fraud. They also tried to frame, incriminate and send innocent people to prison. The exercise was, at bottom, nothing more than an attempted coup d'état.

Later, Trump was accused of "endangering the security of the country" on the basis of an innocuous telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. For the accusation to appear plausible, one of his accusers had to reinvent the conversation. The first attempted impeachment that followed has been rightly described as a "travesty of justice" and "the equivalent of the Stalin's show trials". Throughout his entire term, Trump was faced with threats, abuse of power and unremitting attacks. Even though Trump is no longer president, the war against him continues.

Much of the mainstream media have ceased being news organizations and have become anti-Trump activists. For publishing all that fake news, The New York Times and the Washington Post were even awarded Pulitzer Prizes.

When, in 2020, the summer riots became destructive and Trump talked about using the military to restore order and protect property and lives, his political opponents compared him to Hitler and Goebbels, and indignantly defended the rioters as essentially "peaceful protesters", acting in the name of legitimate grievances. They apparently overlooked that the Insurrection Act was invoked by several Presidents, such as President George H.W. Bush in 1992, after California Governor Pete Wilson requested help to quell riots in Los Angeles.

Several months before the 2020 election, Trump's political opponents strangely anticipated his defeat and accused him -- in advance, again without any evidence -- of preparing to break the law. Pelosi, suggesting that Trump would not leave the White House, intimated that he might have to be "fumigated out". Biden predicted that the military would intervene. "I am absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch", he said.

The roots of what is happening are actually older.

The Communist Party of America never succeeded in obtaining broad political influence. The movement seemed to gain ground after World War II but was crushed in the 1950s after it was discovered that some of its members had spied on the country on behalf of the Soviet Union.

A new trend took shape in the 1960s. Its strategy seems to have been defined by a German activist, Rudi Dutschke -- a follower of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci -- as "the long march through the institutions". As the author Roger Kimball describes, it gradually took hold of the humanities sector in universities, then spread throughout the education system, the cultural sector, the mainstream media, and finally the political sphere.

It drew on the writings of the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who spoke of the need for a "great refusal", "a protest against that which is". Marcuse suggested practicing what he called "repressive tolerance" -- consisting of "intolerance to right-wing movements" until they would be rendered non-existent. He added that the "non-integrated forces of minorities" should be used.

These developments were also inspired by the leading thinkers of what is called the "French theory": Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Derrida spoke of the need for "deconstruction" especially of the idea of ​​truth. Foucault defined existing power structures as oppressions to be abolished.

The methods used were those of the radical political theorist Saul Alinsky, who recommended that radicals become "community organizers". "The job of the organizer," he added, "is to maneuver and bait the establishment". In 1971, Alinsky published Rules for Radicals, outlining how radicals can take power using thirteen rules. He noted that the tactic of accusing one's enemies of what one is guilty of can be extremely effective.

This movement seems to have decided to spread the "great refusal" defined by Marcuse, adopt the ideas of French Theory, and use the methods of Saul Alinsky -- sharpening "repressive tolerance" to erode institutions from within while eradicating the concept of ​​truth. Some followers who became "community organizers" acted to abolish power structures and accused their enemies of doing what they themselves were doing.

President Barack Obama, as an example, prior to entering politics, worked as a "community organizer" in Chicago. Shortly before being elected president in 2008, he said, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." He did not say into what.

President Trump, prior to his election, promised to "drain the swamp" -- which remains woefully in need of draining. The swamp's inhabitants undoubtedly saw him as a threat to their plans. Making Trump fall at any cost and regaining their lost power evidently became imperatives for the swamp's inhabitants. They appeared ready to use any means necessary -- and they achieved their goal.

Biden, in the first weeks of his presidency, has issued a battery of executive orders, some of which violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in addition will throw thousands out of work for the benefit of Russia and China. The House and Senate were not consulted.

When 74 million law-abiding Americans are described as terrorists and racists who need to be "reeducated", tolerance for ideas differing from one's own is clearly vanishing. Calls are also out for closing down television stations that offer a differing version of "the truth."

H.R.1, also called the "For the People Act", the first legislative proposal by the House for 2021, passed the House of Representatives on March 5. The noted attorney J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation and founder of the Election Law Center, noted:

"H.R.1 packs into one 791-page bill every bad idea about how to run elections and mandates that the states must adopt -- the very things that made the election of 2020 such a mess. It includes all of the greatest hits of 2020: Mandatory mail ballots, ballots without postmarks, late ballots and voting in precincts where you don't live."

If H.R.1 becomes the law of the land, the results will be the flooding of states with millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots, failure to verify signatures, no chain of custody of ballots, same-day voter registration, and ballot-harvesting -- many of which are invitations to commit fraud. As a bipartisan report in 2005 from the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, concluded: mail-in ballots "remain the largest source of potential voter fraud." If H.R.1 is passed in the Senate, countless ways of demolishing election integrity will be set in cement.

President Biden has also introduced an immigration reform bill. It has been described as a way to import, legalize and naturalize non-Americans crossing the US border illegally, and clearly has the intent of trying to create a permanent single-party majority. If passed, it could, as former senior advisor to President Trump Stephen Miller said, "fundamentally erase the very essence of American nationhood".

Economic proposals such as raising the minimum wage to $15, will, if implemented, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and create immense hardship for small businesses already hit hard by pandemic lockdowns as well as for disadvantaged people at the entry level competing for work. There would be fewer jobs and more people looking for them -- before one even starts including a prospective flood of "undocumented" newcomers. Perhaps that is the intent: to reward big corporate campaign donors while squeezing out their small competitors, and at the same time creating more desperate people who will keep reaching out to a Big Government to depend on it for help.

One of Biden's first decisions was to disband the 1776 Commission, which was created to "return to the unifying ideas stated in the Declaration of Independence". The alternative narrative, the 1619 Project, which describes the United States as founded on slavery, "structurally racist", and therefore illegitimate from the start, has been criticized by prominent historians for its total disrespect of basic facts. This distortion of history, which contains nothing about what makes America good, is apparently now teaching children to hate America in public schools.

The author Dennis Prager said last year:

"Civilization can be crushed in one generation. Germany was the most advanced artistic cultured country in Europe. People say how could the country that gave us Beethoven and Bach and Schiller and Heine give us Auschwitz? It's a common question. Of course, it's not asked at colleges today because they never heard of Beethoven, Bach, Schiller, Heine, or Auschwitz. Nevertheless, those who heard of them ask that question, and the answer is, it can happen anywhere. We are watching the undoing of American liberty in one generation, in our case, by those who call themselves progressives."

After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Part of America has "declared war" and "is intent on destroying the most tolerant, inclusive, egalitarian society ever created," wrote the American author David Horowitz recently. "The good news," he added, "is that a patriotic movement has risen, rededicated to the propositions that all men are created equal and endowed with God-given rights to life and liberty, and is prepared to defend them".

A storm is currently hanging over the United States. The coming months will reveal if this patriotic movement will dispel it.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

 

Guy Millière  

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17147/storm-over-american-republic 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lawrence Jones blasts Dems' For the People Act on 'Fox News Primetime': 'They're stealing your money' - Charles Creitz

 

​ by Charles Creitz

H.R. 1 would make political dark money 'darker than you can imagine,' Jones says

Lawrence Jones: Democrats are about to rob you blind to line their own pockets

House Democrats have passed "a sweeping election reform bill that would fundamentally change the way elections are held in this country," "Fox News Primetime" host Lawrence Jones told viewers Thursday. 

According to Jones, Democrats say that the "For The People Act" "would expand voter rolls, fight gerrymandering and as they put it, 'combat dark money in politics.' On the surface, that sounds like they could be good. Until you read the fine print."

Instead of fighting so-called "dark money" in politics, Jones said the bill makes the system "darker than you can imagine."

According to the host, the bill greenlights federal taxpayer-funded matching for political donations of $200 or less.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS PASS EXTENSIVE VOTING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM BILL

"What if you don't like AOC or Nancy Pelosi or anyone in Congress for that matter? Too bad. Shouldn't your hard earned tax dollars go to things that help you?" asked Jones. "Not in Nancy [Pelosi]'s America."

"Just imagine," he added, "if Republicans created a 6:1 fundraising match for pro-life groups or the NRA. Liberals would rightfully blow a gasket."

What's more, said Jones, some Democrats are claiming the matching funds would not necessarily come from taxes.

"They're going to create a new slush fund through forfeiture, which is a whole other separate issue," he said. "All you need to know is they're stealing your money. They claimed they will raise $3.2 billion the next 10 years. Wow. And we can't find anything else to spend that money on?"

"They can't send laptops to poor kids in Philadelphia? Fix the water in Flint, [Michigan]? Listen, they say taxation is theft. But in this case, it really is."

 

Charles Creitz  

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/lawrence-jones-blasts-for-the-people-act 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Beirut summons Iranian envoy for dressing down - Dean Shmuel Elmas

 

​ by Dean Shmuel Elmas

Move follows report by Iranian media outlet accusing Lebanon's Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai of support for the normalization of ties with Israel.

Beirut summons Iranian envoy for dressing down
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is seen on the terrorist group's al-Manar TV on May 4, 2020 | Screenshot: AFP

The Lebanese Foreign Ministry has summoned Iran's Ambassador to Beirut Ghazanfar Roknabadi for a dressing down after an Iranian media outlet accused Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai of supporting the normalization of ties with Israel.

Lebanon's Foreign Minister Charbel Wehbe, himself a Maronite Christian, tried to set a conciliatory tone ahead of the meeting, to be held Monday. "This will be an honest conversation that is based on the friendship between the countries," he said.

According Wehbe, Lebanon's Ambassador to Iran Hassan Abbas updated the Foreign Ministry in Beirut on the report in Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam network.

"He said the Iranian government apologized and condemned the accusations," Wehbe said.

As is customary in the land of cedars, the people responsible for the controversy are none other than the Iranian ayatollahs' emissaries in Lebanon – Hezbollah.

The trouble began on Feb. 27, when at a conference in the suburbs of Beirut, the Maronite patriarch declared, "The state needs to advocate neutrality so as not to become the victim of conflicts in the region."

He said there was a need to hold a UN-hosted conference in Lebanon to discuss the dismal state of the country. The message, which was clearly directed at Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah and his men, provoked the anger of the terrorist group.

"We oppose the Maronite patriarch's call for an international conference," Hezbollah parliamentarian Hassan Fadlallah said, adding that "international interference is a threat to Lebanon."

In an attempt to send the kind of assertive message to the patriarch they wouldn't have been able to send from within the country, Hezbollah apparently took care to publish the particularly forceful report in Al-Alam.

That reported asserted Al-Rai was "planning steps against Hezbollah, and defines them [Hezbollah members] as a militia loyal to Iran. He claims he is smart and objective, and even talks about neutrality in the existential war with global Zionism. We will certainly see him in Israel's arms tomorrow."

The Maronite patriarch fumed at the report, saying, "This is an insulting report put out by a foreign media outlet. This is an attack on internal Lebanese issues as well as church affairs."

 

Dean Shmuel Elmas  

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/03/07/beirut-summons-iranian-envoy-for-dressing-down/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Next War in the North: Scenarios, Strategic Alternatives, and Recommendations for Israel - Orna Mizrahi, Udi Dekel, Yuval Bazak

​ by Orna Mizrahi, Udi Dekel, Yuval Bazak

What will Israel face in the near future and how will she deal with the threats that confront her

 

In recent years, the northern arena has emerged as Israel’s primary military challenge. The entrenchment of the Iranian-led Shi’ite axis in Syria and Lebanon, attempts by Iran and its proxies to make inroads toward Israel’s border with Syria, and Hezbollah’s growing strength in Lebanon are all factors contributing to increased friction and cause for concern regarding the next war in the north. One thing is certain: a war on the northern front will be unlike all previous wars. as the conflict is likely to include the Lebanese arena, Syria, and possibly even western Iraq.


This memorandum presents the ­findings of a project conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies with the participation of INSS researchers, military and intelligence experts, and former high-ranking IDF commanders who analyzed the gamut of issues that require consideration in advance of the next war in northern Israel. Taking a long-term perspective, it looks at how threats may emerge and outlines the dilemmas, possible alternatives, and opportunities that exist for Israel in the different scenarios, with the aim of assisting the defense establishment and decision makers in Israel in their strategic and operational planning.


The authors do not proclaim that war is nigh, nor do they suggest that war is inevitable. Indeed, the common assumption today is that Iran and Hezbollah do not have an interest in war with Israel in the near future. Nonetheless, it is essential that Israel prepare for the possibility of an escalation of the conflict, whether triggered by a change of circumstances, as the result of a deterioration, or due to an erroneous assessment by any side.

Table of Contents:
מלחמת-הצפון-לתקציר
In this memorandum we present a summary of a long process of strategic planning (beginning in early 2019) conducted at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) to examine and analyze the gamut of issues that require consideration in advance of the next war in northern Israel. The aim of the project was to assist the defense establishment and decision makers in Israel to prepare for such a war, and to examine developing threats. It should be emphasized that in this study the reference is to threats against Israel and the overall need to prepare for those threats, without addressing the likelihood of war erupting, or when...
2020-07-28T061355Z_1987368017_RC262I94IJJ9_RTRMADP_3_ISRAEL-LEBANON-scaled
May 2020 marked 20 years since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew from southern Lebanon after an 18-year presence in the country. The unilateral withdrawal did not lead to the intended calm, but instead to the entrenchment of Hezbollah along the Israeli-Lebanese border, which eventually led to the Second Lebanon War (2006). Following the war, Israel pulled out of Lebanon and on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployed along the two countries’ shared border and a border regime was established together with the LAF and UN forces, which has managed to maintain a stable security reality. Nevertheless, in the same period, Hezbollah continued to shore up its capabilities and activities in southern Lebanon, including creeping expansion near the border, in contravention of the UN Security Council resolution...
rocket-launch-693200_1920-e1606400548991
The underlying assumption of this memorandum is that the next campaign in the northern arena will present Israel with new and tougher challenges than those it has known in the past. This view is based on the emergence in recent years of new types of threats against Israel that will impact the nature of the war – if and when it erupts...
מלחמת-הצפון-פרק-2
The project examines a wide range of scenarios, and in particular the following three scenarios were discussed: A Third Lebanon War, The Northern War, A general war against Iran...
24485040398_7c9b00e17f_o
In light of the evolving threat in the northern arena, decision makers should periodically reassess the strategy for dealing with it, with consideration given to the following options...
דובר-צהל-CC-BY-NC-2.0-scaled
We now present the strategic alternatives available to Israeli decision makers to attain the war goals and strategic objective outlined in chapter 3. Our analysis is based on the following key assumptions: there is a grave and developing threat against Israel in the northern arena; efforts to prevent war have been exhausted; and the campaign-between-the-wars strategy has not provided the required response. Therefore, Israel can no longer avoid a military operation in order to diminish or remove the threat against it and maintain the IDF’s military superiority. Three main courses of action that may advance these goals were examined. They are differentiated from each other in their concrete objectives and the scope of the conflict required to achieve them. The alternatives are presented in a graded scale, from limited confrontation to a broad campaign. The duration of hostilities also differs between each alternative, from a short campaign (a few days) to a longer one (several weeks)...
2006-08-09T000000Z_489078367_GM1DTFVDAIAA_RTRMADP_3_MIDEAST-scaled
This chapter is based on the assumption that the conflict will take place on two parallel fronts, the military front and the civilian front. Compared to previous conflicts, the civilian front is expected to sustain heavy and repeated fire, including some precision strikes, especially in the initial stages of the war. At the same time, as in previous conflicts, non-guided rockets can be expected at numerous civilian targets in Israel, though at a higher rate than in past conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. The extent of damage – human casualties and property damages – could be far greater than what we have seen before, since the number of incidents per day will be much higher – and this will present a huge challenge to the first-response system. In other words, it is anticipated that the civilian front will face threats from a number of directions that may shake Israelis’ sense of security...
2020-10-13T101910Z_153773761_RC2MHJ9ZT6VE_RTRMADP_3_LEBANON-ISRAEL-BORDER-scaled
The role of a cognitive campaign in a war has long been recognized, and its place has grown with the increasing reach of new media. Leaders of the Shi’ite axis know well how to exploit the media to influence public opinion. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah spends a lot of time and effort trying to influence the consciousness of the Israeli, Lebanese, and international publics. And this pattern is expected to continue during the next war, when he will likely claim victory over Israel – whether or not that reflects reality on the ground. Nasrallah can be expected to apply scare and deterrence tactics against the Israeli public and IDF soldiers via all types of media, including social networks, in an attempt to sow fear and amplify Hezbollah’s successes regardless of the actual outcomes of the war...
2000-05-24T120000Z_612782850_RP2DRIBHBVAB_RTRMADP_3_ISRAEL-LEBANON
Any discussion on an exit strategy from the next war in the north must center on the following issues: the optimal time for an end to hostilities in order to maximize the achievements gained up to that point and to reduce the costs of continued fighting; endgame mechanisms that may help end the war; boundary lines – the scale of the depth of penetration of Israeli forces into Lebanese and Syrian territory to ensure that the results of the war are clear and less susceptible to manipulation by the enemy; and security and stability arrangements after the war, with the intent of creating an improved reality in comparison to that achieved following the Second Lebanon War, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This resolution did not achieve the desired result for Israel, i.e., dismantling Hezbollah as an independent military militia, closing the border crossings between Syria and Lebanon to prevent the transfer of weapons, and the imposition of Lebanese sovereignty in southern Lebanon. Instead it enabled Hezbollah’s continued control over southern Lebanon and its military buildup, despite the presence of UNIFIL forces in the area...
Cpl.-Omer-Barr-IDF-Spokespersons-Unit-CC-BY-NC-2.0
The underlying premise of this project was the assumption that the threat to Israel from the Iran-led Shi’ite axis is likely to persist in the decade to come. The coronavirus pandemic has not stopped Iran and Hezbollah’s longtime efforts to invest in their military buildup: Iran continues to entrench itself in Syria and transfer advanced weapons to Syria and Hezbollah, which in turn continues to move goods and people from Iran into Lebanon, ignoring the risk of infecting the Lebanese population with Covid-19. Despite the damage to Iran and Hezbollah’s capabilities and means following both internal and external pressures of late, notably the August 2020 blast at Beirut Port, they remain motivated by a Shi’ite religious ideology and view Israel and the US as the source of evil, and will continue their efforts to harm and weaken Israel. They are also likely to act against American forces in Iraq and eastern Syria in order to accelerate their departure and establish Iranian control over the land bridge that connects Iran, via Iraq and Syria, to Lebanon. Recently, Iran has even launched precedent-setting attacks on vital Israeli infrastructure, such as a cyber attack attributed to it against water facilities in Israel (May 2020) and it vows to respond to incidents attributed in the media to Israel aimed at facilities and infrastructures in Iran...
Publication Series: Memoranda | Topics: Hezbollah, The Northern Arena

 

Orna Mizrahi, Udi Dekel, Yuval Bazak  

Source: https://www.inss.org.il/publication/next-war-in-the-north/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mail-in ballot fraud -- in Mississippi, it's real - Monica Showalter

 

​ by Monica Showalter

The judge found “significant evidence of voter fraud” on the part of two people who notarized paperwork for absentee ballot applications. He ordered one of them arrested.

So much for the media's constant claims that mail-in vote fraud is rare.

In Mississippi, a judge found it to be real. 

According to CBS-affiliated WCBI:

ABERDEEN, MISS. (WCBI) – A judge is ordering a new runoff election for the Ward 1 alderman seat in Aberdeen.

In the sixty-four-page order, Judge Jeff Weill not only calls for a new election but also finds evidence of fraud and criminal activity, in how absentee ballots were handled, how votes were counted, and the actions by some at the polling place.
In his ruling, the judge said that sixty-six of eighty-four absentee ballots cast in the June runoff were not valid and should never have been counted. Nicholas Holliday was declared the winner by a 37 vote margin. Robert Devaull challenged the results in court.

Judge Weill found many irregularities with absentee ballots. He issued a bench warrant for notary Dallas Jones, who notarized absentee ballots. During a hearing, Jones admitted violating notary duties.

According to a summary by left-leaning Politifact:

  • The election do-over involves the election for alderman in Aberdeen, Miss., population 5,326. A judge found irregularities in the paperwork for 66 of the 84 absentee ballots cast, or 78%. The race had been decided by 37 votes, 177-140.

  • The judge found “significant evidence of voter fraud” on the part of two people who notarized paperwork for absentee ballot applications. He ordered one of them arrested.

It's worth noting that every character here involved here is a Democrat, as this was a 2020 Democratic Party runoff. That it's just Democrats makes such stories harder to ignore. This isn't President Trump yelling fraud, this is Democrat-on-Democrat malfeasance, with a judge calling the whole show off, ordering a do-over.

Mail-in ballot fraud in fact is very real. Politifact is implicitly dismissing this story as of no importance because it happened in a town of 5,300 in northeastern Mississippi, where, a Google map shows, the nearest big "city" is Tupelo (of Elvis Presley and Bobbie Gentry song fame), and the town sits approximately halfway to Memphis, Jackson, Birmingham, Huntsville, and Montgomery, each around 150 miles away, making it an equi-distant crossroads of sorts.

But just because the town was small doesn't mean such things don't matter. Fraud could only occur in a small town and not a big city? That's nonsense. Big city machines led by Democrats are utterly famous for their corruption.

The Heritage Foundation has a database of all the 239 known cases of elections trashed by mail-in voting fraud since 1997. It's occurred in places like Texas, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, California.... The most recent case documented was in Paterson, New Jersey, again, for a local race. Now there's this.

It's also occurred abroad. Jimmy Carter, who runs the voter integrity oriented Carter Center, has condemned the practice as inimical to free and fair elections as recently as 2005, recognizing just enough cases to make that conclusion. (Jimmy Carter has since done a U-Turn, but it seems that was about 2020 politics).

In Europe, it's a practice banned by most countries, and in places where it's permitted, it requires special requests, as well as sometimes trips to the voting registrar for a voting packet, while all require the showing of national I.D. These aren't junk-mail elections where ballots are mailed out indiscriminately from un-updated and unpurged voter registration lists as is done in California, where many voters ending up with multiple ballots (I know one in Pasadena, Calif., and he showed me the evidence).

Scholar John Lott came out with a major report on how and why the practice is generally banned in Europe based on its threat to free and fair elections.

Separately, the Swedish IDEA institute also came out with a report warning of mail-in voting election problems.

The evidence is massive. Yet everywhere in the press, all you read is that ballot fraud coming from mail-in voting is "very rare."

Why would it be rare? An unattended mailbox is the same as an unattended ballot box. With nobody looking, which election fraudster wouldn't see his opportunity? The incentive is there, and that's just one kind of incentive -- the Mississippi case shows that there are others. The idea that a Democrat wouldn't dream of doing such a thing is contradicted by the evidence. And yes, there are some bad Republicans, too. The name of the game, after all, is to win power.

What's different here is that there was a judge who was willing to do something about it. An election do-over (after a hopeless ballot pile of votes that are completely tainted) is the most humane and practical solution. It's sad that with the most recent Supreme Court rejection of a credible 2020 case from Pennsylvania, the judge from the small town in Mississippi has a fairer and more realistic understanding of how the law works than most of the over-vaunted justices from the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court disgraced itself on a Dred Scott level with its miserable failure to take a case they might have to rule on as the Mississippi judge did. They are cowards. And if it's court packing they fear from Democrats, maybe it's time they fear such things from Republicans, too.

Monica Showalter  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/mailin_ballot_fraud__in_mississippi_its_real.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer sticks a finger in Canada's eye - Bill Weckesser

 

​ by Bill Weckesser

A man-made disaster appears to be brewing between the nation of Canada and the state of Michigan.

As Texans try to sort out who's to blame and what to do following their grid disaster, a man-made one appears to be brewing between the nation of Canada and the state of Michigan.  Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has issued what nearly amounts to a declaration of war against our northern ally.  Whitmer is threatening to cancel a permit on May 13 that could halt oil and natural gas flow through Line 5.  The line is critical to the energy needs of people in both Canada and America.

In a recent Calgary Herald column, former politician, journalist, and broadcaster Danielle Smith explained that Line 5 carries 540,000 barrels per day of oil (for gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel) as well as natural gas for heating.  Line 5 supplies 45 percent of Ontario's energy needs and connects to Line 9, supplying Quebec with 40 to 50 percent of its energy.  It also produces 55 percent of the propane that Whitmer's voters use.  Nonetheless, back in November, Whitmer threatened to trash the 1977 Pipeline Agreement between the United States and Canada and shut down the line.  As Smith writes, the options are more dangerous to the environment than the pipeline.

A rail tank car carries 700 barrels, so a 100-car train would contain 70,000 barrels, meaning you'd need eight trains a day every day to keep full capacity. Barges on the Great Lakes have a 118,000-barrel shipping capacity, so five barges per day from Superior shipped through the Straits of Mackinac is the other option.  I guess eastern Canadians will just have to hope that the substantial ice coverage that appears on the Great Lakes each winter will be easy for barges to navigate daily to secure the supply year-round.  

But if watershed protection groups are freaked out about the danger of a rupture from a pipeline that has been in operation since 1953 and never had a leak, they aren't going to be thrilled with transporting the same volume where there is more potential for a spill on the ice-covered water.

Unlike Cuomo in New York, whose attorney general has become his nemesis, in Michigan Whitmer, has a partner in environmental crime in Attorney General Dana Nessel.  While COVID was spreading in the state last May, heavy rains caused a dam to give way.  At the time, Bridge Michigan pinned the blame on the Attorney General.

For decades, federal regulators demanded changes to the design of the Edenville Dam to make it more likely to withstand heavy rains and avoid flooding.

So when Michigan regulators assumed oversight of the dam in late 2018 after its owners lost their federal license to generate energy, they took action.

To protect mussels.

Three weeks before the 96-year-old dam failed this week amid heavy rains and caused the worst flood in Midland history, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued its owner, alleging it illegally lowered Wixom Lake in 2018 and 2019, killing "thousands if not millions, of freshwater mussels."

"Defendants wrongfully exerted dominion over the freshwater mussels and caused their death which denies and is inconsistent with the state's right to them," state lawyers wrote in an April lawsuit.

Residents impacted by the massive flood say they are dumbfounded by the state's priorities, especially since federal regulators had warned since at least 1993 the dam failed to meet safety requirements.

"How we got to the point where environmental issues trumped public safety, I don't know," said David Kepler, a resident who lives off nearby Sanford Lake and is president of the Four Lakes Task Force, an association largely consisting of waterfront property owners that was in the process of buying the Edenville Dam and three others before this week's flood.

Democrats have crossed a Rubicon, showing that their policies are turning out to be worse than bad.  They're clearly dangerous.

Image: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan via Flickr, CC BY-ND 2.0.

 

Bill Weckesser  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/michigans_gretchen_whitmer_sticks_a_finger_in_canadas_eye.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'Iran is a main destination for uranium smuggling from Venezuela' - Damian Pachter

 

​ by Damian Pachter

"It is public knowledge that several members of the military have been arrested after smuggling uranium from Venezuela, and we believe Iran is one of the main destinations," says would-be Venezuelan leader Juan Guaido.

'Iran is a main destination for uranium smuggling from Venezuela'
Venezuella's Juan Guaido | File photo: Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

"It is public knowledge that several members of the military have been arrested after smuggling uranium from Venezuela, and we believe Iran is one of the main destinations," would-be Venezuelan leader Juan Guaido, told Israel Hayom over the weekend in an exclusive interview.

Guaido discussed his fears of being arrested by the regime of President Nicolas Maduro, sounded the alarm over Iran's infiltration of the hit country, and also delivered a message to Jerusalem.

It stands to reason that the conversation with the 37-year-old Guaido occurred under the watchful eye of a local intelligence agency, now a routine part of life for the man who emerged to spearhead the fight against the Maduro regime and the United Socialist Party, yet another failed model of the populistic socialism that has gripped the country since 1999.

Some two years ago, after being chosen as the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Guaido rose to international prominence as the great new hope for his country. The people believed he possessed the key to changing the regime, which indeed brutalizes those oppose it with arrests, torture, and even executions.

The masses answered his calls and took to the streets, armed with the expectation and hope that the turning point was just around the corner. Even the international community recognized Guaido as the country's interim president, including the European Union, United States, and Israel.

Now, the picture is completely different. The excitement has waned with time, international support has become ephemeral – even the EU stopped recognizing him as interim president – with only one thing remaining constant: Maduro and Chavezism.

"The Maduro regime has become a crime syndicate, while importing oil from Iran. At present, a preliminary investigation exists into uranium stockpiles in Venezuela and the countries to which this material could be sent," Guaido reveals from his residence in the capital, Caracas. "There is a large reservoir of uranium in Venezuela that is smuggled from the country somehow, through illegal channels."

The South American country has maintained close relations with Iran for years now, amid persisting rumors of cooperation with neighboring countries in the field of nuclear energy.

Describing the early stages of Iran's foothold in Venezuela, Guaido says, "The Maduro dictatorship allowed Iran to enter. It started when [former President Hugo] Chavez began welcoming companies under sanctions by the US and other countries."

In January 2019, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognized Guaido as the country's official leader, which remains Israel's official position to this day.

Chavez severed relations between Israel and Venezuela in 2009 in the wake of the IDF's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.

Today, Guaido is grateful and has a message for Jerusalem: "The government of Israel provides important diplomatic support in the war against the dictatorship," he said.

Opposition members in Venezuela are in constant danger. Their lives are at the mercy of the "dictator," as Guaido refers to Maduro. The United Nations has accused his regime of crimes against humanity. Guaido, for his part, is making efforts to win back international support.

He recently discussed with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken possible paths to "democracy and holding free elections," but it still isn't clear what position the Biden administration will take in terms of the humanitarian problem in Venezuela.

Asked about the looming threat of arrest hanging over his head, Guaido said he was aware of the peril but continues to be sure of his path and principles.

"The dictatorship's threats exist, and it operates this way because the people don't support it and it doesn't have much support in the international community," he explained.

"Venezuela's only alternative is free elections and allowing a process for a legitimate government," Guaido concludes.

 

Damian Pachter  

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/03/07/iran-is-a-main-destination-for-uranium-smuggling-from-venezuela/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Leftists Start a Pillow Fight with Mike Lindell - Charles Turot

 

​ by Charles Turot

Your money, it turns out, buys not just pillows. It buys freedom, for you and for others.

It began with throw pillows.  Pillows shouldn't matter much, but like every decision we make now, they matter more than you think.

The old sofa had to go.  It had lasted 25 years, by some miracle.  The old sofa was U.S.-made.  Only 20% of today's furniture is.  It was expensive; the store owner told us we'd be able re-upholster it down the road, though that would be expensive, too.  He was right on both counts.  He retired.  His kids run the store now.

We managed to find a new sofa, also made here.  A different color.  So we needed throw pillows.

Choosing colors is tricky online.  I wanted to buy them from an actual store.  There aren't many stores left.  Jeff Bezos sells us everything.  I stopped at a few and came up empty.  Just ahead was Bed, Bath and Beyond.  Surely, they would have every throw pillow known to mankind.  Then I caught myself, as I might when reaching into the fridge for leftover chicken on a Friday during Lent.  I won't spend another dollar at BB&B after it canceled Mike Lindell.  

Is there an American who doesn't know Lindell?  A college dropout and serial entrepreneur, he became addicted to crack cocaine.  He lost his home and was divorced.  He credits his sobriety to his Christian faith . He's passionate about it, as anyone should be after escaping the talons of the devil.  There but for the grace of God goes any of us.  He invented his revolutionary pillow in 2004.

My pillow is a MyPillow.  It costs a lot, but darned if it doesn't do exactly what it claims.  The typical box-store pillow is shot after a year at most.  MyPillow soldiers on.  Lindell's son is running the company now, though Dad's familiar face still sells the products on TV.  His new ambition is politics.  Last March, "the MyPillow guy" appeared with the president, praising his handling of COVID and dedicating his factories to production of then-scarce masks.  He defied the narrative that we should tremble in our locked down homes and it was all Trump's fault.  With his highly visible support of the Orange Man, the benevolent bedding-peddler with the cross around his neck quickly earned a place on the Public Enemies List of the mainstream media and the radical left.

Then came the election.  Lindell joined legal luminaries Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Rudy Giuliani in seeking the truth about massive fraud everyone could sense but few could quantify.  His contribution was not expertise, but passion.  To the very end, as constitutional safeguards failed and hope dimmed, he maintained that the president would be re-inaugurated.  Good salespeople are optimists.  Lindell, who sells $60 pillows, is the Optimist King.

President Trump was impeached, without witnesses, in five short days, the same length of time Henry VIII required to dispatch St. Thomas More.  A single count of impeachment was brought: "inciting insurrection" by questioning the results of the election.  For the same grievous offense, Mike Lindell was blacklisted by Bed, Bath and Beyond; JC Penney; Kohl's; and others.  Perhaps they take personal offense at Lindell's politics; more likely, they're simply cowards yielding to leftist pressure.  BB&B raised the insult level by cloaking its kowtowing in corporate babble we amateurs call "lying": "rationalizing our assortment to discontinue a number of underperforming items and brands."  I wanted to tell them how I felt about.  That can't be done online.  No email, no phone number.  They'd rather not know.  So I just don't go there anymore.

The politics of the company's board, its employees, or the entities whose products they carry is none of my business. I've never cared about that when I bought things anywhere.  I start to care when corporation try to put a company out of business because the owner's politics looks like mine — in this case, because he exercised his First Amendment rights.  If political correctness is fascism with manners, cancel culture is fascism out of uniform, carrying a concealed weapon.  Amazon sells 83% of America's books.  If Jeff Bezos won't list what you've written, your First Amendment rights may be intact, but your writing career is over.  President Biden would advise you to learn to code.

The day I didn't buy throw pillows, Hyatt Hotels fielded a similar leftist assault with aplomb.  The Hyatt Regency Orlando hosted CPAC this year.  It's a gorgeous venue for a big convention, among the few taking place recently.  I've attended CPAC, a joyous, energizing gathering of exceptional people, like-minded thinkers, and patriots.  Hosting it is a feather in the cap of any hotel.

Leftists took a different view.  Boycott pledges rained down on Hyatt the day President Trump addressed the conference, his first appearance since leaving office peacefully.  Hyatt stood accused of accommodating "Nazis," "white supremacists," and "insurrectionists," people we know as Republicans, conservatives, and Trump voters.  It's a niche market: half the country.  The Hyatt chain explained they were in the business of welcoming everyone. Their statement was so warmhearted thatit brought tears to your eyes, while yielding not an inch to the cancelistas.  The hotel's affirmation of its right — indeed, its obligation — to offer its product without regard to politics represented the best of American capitalism.  Hyatt's courage sets an example for every company facing extortion by malicious radicals.

This is how boycotts work in a nation polarized.  The left  boycotts those who allow conservatives the freedom to do business.  We boycott those who don't.

We also support those who do.  We stocked up Goya foods in response to a boycott when its CEO joined a presidential panel on Hispanic enterprise.  The shelves were half-emptied in my supermarket.  We ordered from L.L. Bean more than ever when a donation to a Trump PAC from a Bean family member sparked a boycott (not that its products aren't sufficient reason for loyalty).

Conservatives support businesses who support freedom: freedom of expression, freedom of political affiliation, freedom to pursue success.  The left boycotts those same businesses, for the same reason.  This defines conservatives as well as anything.

Your money, it turns out, buys not just pillows.  It buys freedom, for you and for others.  Where you spend your money matters much more now than it did when we bought the old sofa.

Charles Turot is a pseudonym.

Image: Gage Skidmore via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.

 

Charles Turot  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/leftists_start_a_pillow_fight_with_mike_lindell.html 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Should Ditch the Doha Deal with Taliban - Amir Taheri

 

​ by Amir Taheri

[I]t is clear to anyone familiar with Afghan realities that a scheme that may have worked 20 years ago has no chance of succeeding now.

  • There is at least one issue on which Biden would be wise to adopt the anti-Trump posture: Afghanistan.

  • Today, Biden could ditch Trump's cut-and-run plan and re-commit the US to helping Afghans protect what they have achieved and move on to build more. By doing so, Biden would burnish his anti-Trump credentials and also please Obama nostalgics.

  • This week, Khalilzad offered the chasing wolves a much bigger morsel: a plan for a coalition government in which the terrorist outfit would secure a leading place.

  • It is worth remembering that, until the 9/11 attacks, Khalilzad and Karzai were lobbyists for Taliban in Washington.... By early August 2001, those interested in the issue already knew that Karzai was to be the first Taliban ambassador to Washington.

  • [T]he US has invested heavily, in blood and treasure, in making Afghanistan what it is today, a chunk of the world freed from one of the darkest forces mankind has seen for centuries.

  • Finally, it is clear to anyone familiar with Afghan realities that a scheme that may have worked 20 years ago has no chance of succeeding now. The Doha "peace deal" would be nothing more than a prelude to a new tragedy.

  • For the Taliban to enter government in Kabul they should give up their arms, accept the Afghan constitution, take part in elections and let the world see how much support they have.

In the past 20 years, the United States has forged a moral bond with the people of Afghanistan, persuading them to accept untold sacrifices in the hope of a better future, which in turn would not allow Afghanistan to become a base for terrorism against others, including the United States. Pictured: Afghan policemen arrive at the site of a bomb blast in Kabul that killed at least two people and injured five others, on February 21, 2021. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

President Joe Biden's first foreign policy moves so far make at least one thing clear: he is looking for areas where he can distance himself from his predecessor without committing to dramatically different courses.

He has promised to return to the Paris climate accord that, requiring congressional approval, doesn't imply doing anything in particular.

He has flattered European allies by talking about multilateralism, forgetting that even the most multilateral arrangement still needs leadership and a program, something he tries to avoid for fear of being accused of Trumpian arrogance.

He has pleased the mullahs in Tehran by removing their Yemeni surrogates, the Houthis, from the terrorist list, without removing the names of their leaders from it.

He pleased Israel-bashers by keeping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waiting three weeks for a phone call. Biden has also revived the mullahs' hopes of getting off the hook of sanctions while bombing their base in Syria, killing some of their Arab and Pakistani mercenaries. He has taken a dig at Saudi allies by releasing a highly redacted intelligence "assessment" that reads more like a badly-written op-ed for The New York Times than a forensic, evidence-based report.

Well, since "Diplomacy is Back" has become the Biden mantra, those moves could be understood, though not necessarily justified, as diplomatic posturing. And a posture, provided it doesn't become imposture, is a legitimate diplomatic tool.

There is at least one issue on which Biden would be wise to adopt the anti-Trump posture: Afghanistan.

From the day he entered the White House, President Donald Trump vowed to end America's involvement in Afghanistan.

There was no rational reason for that obsession. The US presence had already been reduced to a manageable size and was bearing tangible, though frugal fruits. The fact of the US remaining engaged was a great help in steadying the ship of the state in Kabul, enabling the Afghan society, warts and all, to muddle towards a better future.

There was one crucial reason why Trump wasn't concerned about that.

Just as Biden today tries to be anti-Trump, Trump in his time, tried to be anti-Obama.

Obama had built his political career on going around condemning the fall of Saddam Hussein as "the bad war in Iraq", and, to pretend he could be tough for good causes, building up Afghanistan as "the good war".

Today, Biden could ditch Trump's cut-and-run plan and re-commit the US to helping Afghans protect what they have achieved and move on to build more. By doing so, Biden would burnish his anti-Trump credentials and also please Obama nostalgics.

The plan to run away from Afghanistan under the cover of a "peace accord" with Taliban is a surrealistic gambit.

The rationale claimed for it goes like this: The Taliban have the capacity to conduct terror attacks in many parts of Afghanistan. The only way to reduce those attacks is to bring them into the tent.

Question is; which tent and how?

Zalmay Khalilzad, the seasoned diplomat appointed by Trump to chaperon the "deal", started by suggesting a number of "sweeteners" for the terrorists, including release of mass-murderers from prison. Worse still, the terror group's leaders were given red carpet treatment as bona fide diplomats and peace-partners signing a treaty with the United States.

However, we now know that all that wasn't enough for the Taliban.

Their behavior reminds one of a story by Chekhov in which a Russian muzhik, traveling in the frozen steppes in a troika drawn by dogs, is chased by hungry wolves. To ward off the pursuers the muzhik keeps throwing his food at the wolves who keep coming. Once all the food he has is thrown away, he throws his dogs to the wolves that still keep coming. Too late, he realizes that the wolves won't be satiated until they eat him, too.

This week, Khalilzad offered the chasing wolves a much bigger morsel: a plan for a coalition government in which the terrorist outfit would secure a leading place.

Where would that" coalition" get its legitimacy from?

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai says internal "legitimacy" can come from a loya-jirgah, a council of Afghan tribal and religious elders "acting on the basis of traditions." External legitimacy will come from endorsement by the United States and regional powers, meaning Pakistan and Iran.

At one brush, more than a generation of Afghan experiment with a democratic method of government is cancelled. Afghans are told that the constitution they approved in a referendum, the elections they held in a competitive, though imperfect context, meant nothing.

Worse still they don't need to know who picks the members of the coalition and around what program those members are supposed to coalesce.

It is worth remembering that, until the 9/11 attacks, Khalilzad and Karzai were lobbyists for Taliban in Washington.

In fact, the George W Bush administration was about to implement the agreement reached under President Bill Clinton with Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar in negotiations with Bill Richardson, then US Ambassador to the United Nations. The announcement that the US recognized the Taliban government was to come during the UN General Assembly in New York at the end of September. By early August 2001, those interested in the issue already knew that Karzai was to be the first Taliban ambassador to Washington.

To be sure, 9/11 was not the work of Taliban, who may not have known about what was being cooked up by their Arab protégés. Khalilzad's assertion that Taliban were not especially anti-American is broadly correct.

However, this is 20 years later.

In those 20 years, the United States has forged a moral bond with the people of Afghanistan, persuading them to accept untold sacrifices in the hope of a better future, which in turn would not allow Afghanistan to become a base for terrorism against others, including the United States.

Apart from that moral bond, the US has invested heavily, in blood and treasure, in making Afghanistan what it is today, a chunk of the world freed from one of the darkest forces mankind has seen for centuries.

To throw all that away for political pettifogging in Washington is shamefully inelegant, to say the least.

Finally, it is clear to anyone familiar with Afghan realities that a scheme that may have worked 20 years ago has no chance of succeeding now. The Doha "peace deal" would be nothing more than a prelude to a new tragedy.

For the Taliban to enter government in Kabul they should give up their arms, accept the Afghan constitution, take part in elections and let the world see how much support they have.

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.

This article was originally published by Asharq al-Awsat and is reprinted by kind permission of the author.

 

Amir Taheri  

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17150/biden-taliban-afghanistan 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Saturday, March 6, 2021

The New McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School - Alan M. Dershowitz

 

​ by Alan M. Dershowitz

Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

  • This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration...."

  • One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments.

  • It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left.

  • The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.

  • Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.

A recent petition, signed by hundreds of Harvard Law School students and alumni, demands that Harvard not "hire or affiliate with" the "architects and backers of the Trump administration's worse abuses." There is no place for selective censorship based on political affiliations at Harvard Law School or any institution of higher education, whether it receives federal funding or not — but especially if it does. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

A recent petition, signed by hundreds of Harvard Law School students and alumni, raises the specter of the new McCarthyism coming to the law school at which I taught for half a century. The petition states that "Harvard Law School faces a choice of whether to welcome the architects and backers of the Trump administration's worse abuses back into polite society." It demands that Harvard not "hire or affiliate with" any of these sinners, and threatens that "if it does so the school will be complicit if future attacks on our democracy are even more violent – and more successful."

The petition sees this ban as part of the educational and employment mission of the school: "it would also teach ambitious students of all ages that attempting to subvert the democratic process" will deny them access to the "revolving door to success and prestige." This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration ...."

This is similar to the message that the original McCarthyites tried to have Harvard convey in the 1950s, when students were denied editorship of the Law Review, clerkship recommendations, and other opportunities that they had earned, solely because of their alleged affiliation with Communism and other left wing causes. One would have thought that current Harvard Law School students would be familiar with the sordid history of McCarthyism that infected many American universities, including Brooklyn College, which I attended as an undergraduate and where I fought against the denial of civil liberties to suspected communists.

One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments. It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left. Even today, the French government is expressing concern about the impact of "Islamo-leftist" influences from Americans universities.

The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.

Free speech for me but for not for thee is not a defensible principle. Today it is the mantra of the new censors, who demand deplatforming and cancelling speakers, teachers and writers who disagree with their anti-Trump zealotry. The voracious appetite of the censor, however, is rarely sated. Some are now trying to silence defenders of the Constitution, such as me, who opposed most of Trump's policies but who also opposed what we believe were unconstitutional efforts to impeach him. When I was invited to speak by a Harvard Law School student group, the event had to be moved off campus as the result of threats to shout me down and silence me.

Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.

Today's students should welcome Trump supporters and challenge them — respectfully, civilly and with open minds. They should be willing to listen to views diametrically opposed to their own deeply felt morality and politics. Many of these cancelled speakers would express views that are accepted by tens of millions of American voters. Those of us who disagree with these views should feel confident that they will be soundly rejected in the open marketplace of ideas, as they were in the 2020 election. No university or law school should shut down this marketplace, as the old McCarthyism did and as this new McCarthyism is now trying to do. There is no place for selective censorship based on political affiliations at Harvard Law School or any institution of higher education, whether it receives federal funding or not — but especially if it does.

This anti-civil liberties petition should be rejected in the marketplace of ideas by all students, faculty and administrators who value diversity of opinions both inside and outside the classroom.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. His new podcast, "The Dershow," can be seen on Spotify, Apple and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute. 

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17146/harvard-law-school-mccarthyism 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter