Loretta Lynch, Swamp Thing - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

Trump is cleared - Loretta Lynch, is up to her eyeballs in corruption and obstruction of justice

Arguably, the most interesting part of the testimony of James Comey, the cowardly lion of the criminal justice system, before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday is not that President Trump was cleared of even a scintilla of corruption and obstruction of justice but that President Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is up to her eyeballs in both. As the Daily Caller reports:

Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general under Barack Obama, pressured former FBI Director James Comey to downplay the Clinton email server investigation and only refer to it as a “matter,” Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
Comey said that when he asked Lynch if she was going to authorize him to confirm the existence of the Clinton email investigation, her answer was, “Yes, but don’t call it that. Call it a matter.” When Comey asked why, he said, Lynch wouldn’t give him an explanation. “Just call it a matter,” she said….
Earlier in his testimony, Comey said Lynch instructed Comey not to call the criminal investigation into the Clinton server a criminal investigation. Instead, Lynch told Comey to call it a “matter,” Comey said, “which confused me.”
Comey cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay the investigation as one of the reasons he held a press conference to recommend the Department of Justice not seek to indict Clinton.
Comey also cited Lynch’s secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton as a reason he chose to hold the press conference, he said, as he was concerned about preserving the independence of the FBI.

This is far worse than President Trump asking Comey in a private conversation to wrap up the Flynn investigation after Flynn was dismissed as National Security Adviser. This was a direct order by Comey’s immediate superior to align his rhetoric with the Clinton campaign spin. This is what Comey did, calling it a “matter” and not a criminal investigation, which is the only thing the FBI does. Couple this submissive compliance to an order to help the Clinton campaign with their spin with the meeting on the tarmac between Lunch and Bill Clinton, the husband of the target of that criminal investigation, and you have an obvious case for charging Lynch with obstruction of justice.

If Comey was concerned about preserving the integrity of the FBI, he wouldn’t have leaked the memo of his private conversation with President Trump to the New York Times through a third party. That memo, prepared on a government computer by a government employee on government time, is the property of the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer. Its unauthorized dissemination is a clear violation of the Federal Records Act and executive privilege. Comey was charged to find leakers, not be the leaker-in-chief.

Just as he didn’t have the authority to leak the memo, he didn’t have the authority to go before the American people and declare that the multiple felonies committed by Hilary Clinton while she was Secretary of State were not prosecutable due to lack of intent. Not only was he wrong on the law, which does not require intent, but his job is to gather evidence not to recommend prosecution or not. If Comey wanted to preserve the independence of the FBI, he wouldn’t have held the press conference giving Hillary Clinton a pass. He would have thrown the evidence on Lynch’s desk and told her to do her job. He bailed both Clinton and Lynch out and gave the Clinton campaign a boost.

Lynch ordered Comey to drop the word “investigation.” Did she also order him to drop the investigation itself and take the hit for doing so? Questions still remain as to why Comey did not attend the final Clinton interview, why the interview was not recorded, why Clinton was not under oath, and why obvious follow-up questions were not asked. It would seem that Comey, perhaps at the order of Lynch, was doing everything that would benefit the Clinton campaign.

Let us not forget another example of the tangled web woven between the FBI and the Clinton campaign -- the relationship between Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. As Caherine Herridge of Fox News reported:

A top FBI official who came under scrutiny last year over his wife’s campaign contributions from a Hillary Clinton ally did not list those 2015 donations or his wife’s salary in financial disclosure forms, according to records reviewed by Fox News.
The records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe left the box blank for wife Dr. Jill McCabe's salary, as a doctor with Commonwealth Emergency Physicians. And there is no documentation of the hundreds of thousands of campaign funds she received in her unsuccessful 2015 Virginia state Senate race.
As first reported by The Wall Street Journal, Clinton confidant and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe urged McCabe’s wife to run for statewide office shortly after news reports were published that Hillary Clinton used a private email server and address for all her government business while serving as secretary of State.
For the reporting period of October through November 2015, McCabe's campaign filings show she received $467,500 from Common Good VA, a political action committee controlled by McAuliffe, as well as an additional $292,500 from a second Democratic PAC.

Well, isn’t that special? This is the swamp President Trump wants to drain. Let us also deal with Swamp Thing -- Loretta Lynch.

Remember that Comey’s exoneration of Hillary came just days after Lynch met with Bill on the tarmac. Can you say “collusion” and “obstruction of justice”? The June 27, 2016 tarmac meeting on Lynch’s plane in Phoenix itself, in the light of Comey’s admission of Lynch’s pressure on him, is worthy of a special prosecutor all unto itself:, a fact not lost on Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton:

Lynch was caught off guard when a local Phoenix reporter asked her about the meeting at a press conference. She claimed at the time the discussion with the former President, which lasted 30 minutes, was simply about golf and grandchildren. After Hillary Clinton lost the White House to Donald Trump in November, Lynch said the meeting was regrettable.
“The infamous tarmac meeting between President Clinton and AG Lynch is a vivid example of why many Americans believe the Obama administration’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton was rigged,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement about the new lawsuit. “Now it will be up to Attorney General Sessions at the Trump Justice Department to finally shed some light on this subversion of justice.”

Let’s hope so. Let’s hope this DOJ will focus on real crimes and real obstruction of justice. It may turn out that Loretta Lynch and James Comey interfered in the 2016 election more than Vladimir Putin could even have dreamed of.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/loretta_lynch_swamp_thing.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Islamists have killed 1,534 Europeans. Will something change, Ms. May? - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

Ms. May, you can be the leader of this change, you can wake up Europe.

The first 16 years of the 21st century have claimed 658 victims of terrorist attacks on European soil. A new report drafted by the European MP Maite Pagazaurtundúa from Spain accounts all the victims of terrorist attacks committed in Europe during the period 2000-2016, as well as another number: Europeans who have been victims of terrorism outside of the Community borders, 1,029 people. The report includes all the victims who died at the hands of any of the terrorist groups recognized by the EU. But of these, 1,534 have been killed by Islamic organizations. 

While I am closing this column, the British police unveiled the identity of the third terrorist who attacked London this week, leaving behind 7 dead. The terrorist comes from my country, Italy, where his mother lives, an Italian who married a Moroccan man. In these hours, another Islamist attacked the French police in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral, the most important Catholic site in France. 

For 16 years now, the warriors of Allah are butchering Europeans at home and abroad, from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the coalition forces are now losing the war. But after 1,534 victims, what has Europe done to reverse this terrible trend? Nothing. The media, the political class, the intelligence services, the army, they are all paralyzed. 

Everybody knows what Europe should do to defeat terrorism and stop this wave: close the radical mosques, raid the "sensitive" areas to intimidate the population, strip the nationality of radical Muslims, control the borders, ban Islamic fundamentalist symbols, lay on severe penalties for incitement to hatred, profile without fearing political correctness. 

London's bridges are now being protected by big blocks of cement against the car attacks I have only seen one other democracy under siege: the State of Israel. The British could also emulate Israel with another solution for their Islamic majority neighborhoods, such as Barking, where one of the terrorists was living: those large red signs that in Judea and Samaria warn you that you are entering a Palestinian Arab area, where a Jew risks being lynched. 

Last January, I entered one of those areas with a brave Israeli to visit Negohot: 10 km to reach what the British call a "Jewish settlement", while in fact it is a small oasis of Western civilization in an Arab-Islamic sea. This is what our Eurabia's cities will become if we do not abandon this horrible complacency.  

Teresa May, this is your chance.


Giulio Meotti

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20608

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

How Sex Slavery Apologists Subverted America's Wealthiest Community Foundation - David M. Swindle

by David M. Swindle

When and how did the country's most well-funded community foundation – endowed with $7.3 billion — embrace the baseless narratives of Islamist activists at CAIR and IR?

Please click here to sign a petition calling on the nation's largest community foundation to end its financial support for Islamist hate groups.

Silicon Valley Community Fund CEO Emmett D. Carson (top center) and Vice President for Strategic Initiatives & Grant-making Manuel J. Santamaria (bottom left) are critical cogs in the U.S. Islamist movement.

Few ideas induce more horror than the selling of human beings for sex against their will. But the slave markets of the Islamic State are not the only places on earth one can hear human trafficking rationalized. Numerous Islamist institutions in the West frequently provide platforms for speakers who defend this abominable practice by citing Islamic law. And for years they have worked to infiltrate the mainstream of philanthropy.

Since January, the Middle East Forum has worked – first in private and then in public – to persuade the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to stop funding two such extremist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief (IR), and instead support reformist Muslim groups.

Both CAIR and IR provide regular platforms to fundamentalist imams and activists who justify concubinage and other brutal practices. Georgetown academic and Islamist convert Jonathan Brown, who spoke at a 2013 CAIR fundraiser, came under criticism in February for a speech defending Shariah-sanctioned rape and sex slavery. Brown attended that CAIR event with Islamist activist Linda Sarsour, who has said of authors Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don't deserve to be women."

IR also has a history of hosting imams who call for a return to the 7th century. In 2016, Abdul Nasir Jangda spoke at an IR fundraising dinner in Austin, Texas. Jangda, according to notes taken by one of his students, defends the use of female sex slaves and claims, "Slavery in Islam... is vastly different and superior morally and spiritually to the atrocious, obscene, and vile Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade."

Most grant-making foundations would do everything they could not to be associated with such offensive ideas.

One of Jangda's colleagues, Hussain Kamani, has also spoken at IR events. Kamani has said: "If a person wishes to fulfil his desires, his common desires, there are only two ways he can fulfill these desires where he will not be held responsible for it. ... The first thing is that he fulfills his desires with a spouse. The second thing is that he fulfills his desires with a female slave that belongs to him."

One would think that the SVCF, like most grant-making foundations, would do everything it could not to be associated with such offensive ideas. Yet our efforts to contact SVCF staff were stymied – vice president Manuel J. Santamaria refused to talk with us.

A mystery has hung over these pursuits: why has SVCF chosen to align itself so tightly with Islamist groups? When and how did the country's most well-funded community foundation – endowed with $7.3 billion — embrace the baseless narratives of Islamist activists at CAIR and IR?

The IIIT claims it is "dedicated to the revival and reform of Islamic thought."

While it's tempting to resort to ideological explanations, another angle might also shed some light: appeasing the desires of its donors. One high-dollar SVCF donor that may have helped to exert especially toxic influence is the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which in 2015 provided SVCF with $500,000 in "program assistance" for a project called the "Global Policy Fund" according to its 990 form.

The IIIT has a long history of extremist links. In 2008, federal prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial introduced evidence that included IIIT as one of the Muslim Brotherhood's "list of our organizations and organizations of our friends."

A US Senate committee in 2002 noted a connection between an IIIT employee and Al Qaeda's infamous leader: "Tarik Hamdi, an IIIT employee, personally provided [Osama] bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described as 'the phone bin Laden and other will use to carry out their war against the United States.'"

The IIIT also runs a religious training organization named the Fairfax Institute, where Brown serves as an "instructor." His speech defending slavery actually took place at an IIIT event.

The IIIT claims it is "dedicated to the revival and reform of Islamic thought and its methodology in order to enable the Ummah to deal effectively with present challenges..."

IIIT-affiliated scholars seek to cast Shariah-sanctioned slavery (left) as dramatically different from the slavery of the antebellum American South (right).

What this means in practice is that the IIIT and its "instructors" regard themselves as the theorists behind the growth of Islamism in the West, who work to intellectually and morally justify certain aspects of Shariah law and their implementation. Brown's specious claim that "the Shariah understanding of slavery" is "not comparable at all" to slavery as it existed in America.

There is nothing mainstream or moderate about this rhetoric. The time has come for SVCF CEO Emmett D. Carson and the others on the foundation's leadership team to wake up to an unpleasant truth: under their stewardship the organization has both accepted money from and given money to groups that promote deeply hateful ideas.

SVCF must stop empowering the Islamists and start working with moderate Muslims instead.

David M. Swindle is the Coordinator of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Follow him on Twitter at @DaveSwindle and Islamist Watch at @Islamist_Watch

Source: http://www.meforum.org/6751/how-sex-slavery-apologists-subverted-svcf

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Fatah spokesperson says 'Protocols' are real Jewish plot - Gary Willig

by Gary Willig

Fatah Spokesperson Osama al-Qawasmi tells PA TV notorious fake document is real plot for Jewish world domination.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

INN:Amazon

A spokesperson for the Fatah movement, which rules the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, presented the Protocols of the Elder of Zion as an authentic document on PA television, the Palestinian Media Watch watchdog organization reported.

Fatah Spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi said in an interview with the official PA TV on April 16: "The second protocol of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion says: Extremist [Islamic] religious streams must be created, as a complete contrast to the ruling regime [in Arab countries], regardless of which regime it is - be it national, Arab, secular, communist, or Marxist - so that the priorities of these regimes will change in a manner that fits the Zionists. Instead of dealing with health, education, society, and arming [themselves] against the enemy - they will be dealing with internal disputes."

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a notorious anti-Semitic forgery which was concocted by the Russian secret police in 1903 which purports to reveal a secret Jewish plot to take over the world. The protocols was exposed as a fraud in 1921.

According to PMW, the PA routinely presents the Protocols as an authentic documentation of Jewish plans for world domination.

Al-Qawasmi has claimed the the Protocols are accurate before. PMW reported in 2015 that the Fatah spokesman told PA TV that the Protocols instructed Jews not to live in the Gaza Strip.




Gary Willig

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230764

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Palestinians: Crocodile Tears and Terrorism - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

Abbas is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world -- except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him.

• This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.
• For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of "intifada" against Israel -- one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.
• Adding to the hypocrisy, Abbas and his PA leadership often point an accusing finger at Israel for killing the terrorists. Instead of condemning the perpetrators, Abbas and the Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of carrying out "extra-judicial killings" of the terrorists. In other words, Palestinian leaders save their condemnation for Israeli soldiers and policemen for defending themselves and firing at those who come to stab them with knives and axes or try to run them over with their cars. How would the British or French governments react if someone condemned them for killing the terrorists on the streets of Paris and London?

Who says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not condemn terror attacks against civilians?

As it turns out, he and his Palestinian Authority (PA) do indeed condemn terrorism -- when it is directed against anyone but an Israeli. Israeli blood, it seems, is different.

Abbas led the international outcry after the June 3 London Bridge terror attack that left seven people dead and 48 injured.

A brief statement issued by Abbas's office read:

"The President of the State of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, on Sunday condemned the terror attack in the British capital of London. His Excellency (Abbas) offered his deep condolences to Britain - its queen, government and people, and to the families of the victims of the terror assault. He affirmed his permanent rejection of all forms of terrorism."

This statement is in line with others Abbas has made recently. Just two weeks ago, Abbas, during a joint press conference with visiting U.S. President Donald Trump in Bethlehem, condemned the May 23 terror attack in the British city of Manchester, the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since July 7, 2005, in which 23 people were killed and 119 were injured, 23 critically.

Abbas described the terror attack as a "heinous crime" and said that the Palestinians were prepared to work with the U.S. as "partners in the war on terrorism in our region and the world."

Two days later, Abbas was among the first leaders to condemn a terror attack that killed 28 Coptic Christians in central Egypt. Once again, Abbas said that he and the Palestinians stood with Egypt and its president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in the war against terrorism.

This verbal charade has been going on for some time.

Last April, Abbas was quick to condemn the terrorist attack that took place on the Saint Petersburg Metro, in Russia, in which 15 people were killed and 45 injured. Abbas, in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that he and the Palestinians support Russia in its war against terrorism.

Abbas also ran to condemn the wave of terrorist attacks that has hit Belgium, France and Germany in the past two years. This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.

For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of "intifada" against Israel -- one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.

This wave of terrorism is the direct result of incitement by various Palestinian groups and leaders, including Abbas himself.

Days before the violence erupted, Abbas stated:

"Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem is holy blood as long as it is for Allah. Every martyr (Shahid) will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded, Allah willing. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, and they [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to [defile it], and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."

A few days later, Palestinians heeded Abbas's call by launching the newest wave of terrorist attacks against Israelis. These deadly attacks continue until this day. Abbas's remarks served as a catalyst for the new "intifada", one that is precisely parallel to the attacks we are witnessing on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin.

Yet Abbas, the world's newest renouncer of terror, has chosen to refrain from rescinding his explicit call for Palestinians to butcher Jews in order to prevent them from "defiling" the Aqsa Mosque. Needless to say, Jews have neither desecrated nor caused any harm to the mosque. All they have been doing, as is permitted, is visiting the outdoor Temple Mount compound as tourists. Never have any of these Jews set foot inside the Aqsa Mosque.

But Abbas and the Palestinians have been exploiting Jewish visits to the Temple Mount to incite against Israel, thus triggering the current wave of stabbings and vehicular attacks.

Not only has Abbas failed to withdraw his deadly appeal to Palestinians to engage in terrorism, he has also refused to condemn the attacks that have claimed the lives of scores of Israelis and wounded hundreds of others.

So, here is the take-home: Abbas is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. Except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him.

Adding to the hypocrisy, Abbas and his PA leadership often point an accusing finger at Israel for killing the terrorists who are carrying out attacks. Instead of condemning the perpetrators, Abbas and the Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of carrying out "extra-judicial killings" of the terrorists. In other words, Palestinian leaders save their condemnation for Israeli soldiers and policemen, for defending themselves and firing at those who come to stab them with knives and axes or try to run them over with their cars.

How would the British or French governments react if someone condemned them for killing the terrorists on the streets of Paris and London?

Has anyone in the West noticed Abbas's double standards in dealing with terrorism against civilians?
But Abbas not only stays silent when his own people mow down Israelis: he names streets and squares after such "heroes." Moreover, he rewards them and their families financially, with the help of American and European taxpayer money.

Perhaps it is time for Westerners to realize that there is no difference between a terrorist who sets out to kill Jews and a terrorist who kills British, French and German nationals. In fact, it has become clear that the terrorists in Europe have copied the tactics of the Palestinians in carrying out stabbings and vehicular and suicide-bombing attacks.

Abbas's crocodile tears are intended to disguise tears of joy that terrorism is alive and well -- certainly when it comes to the Israeli blood that his own people spill in the name of Allah.

Who says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not condemn terror attacks against civilians? He is against terrorist attacks anywhere in the world -- except in Israel, perpetrated by his own people and prompted by him. Abbas's crocodile tears are intended to disguise tears of joy that terrorism is alive and well. (Image source: Muhammed Muheisen-Pool/Getty Images)

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10485/palestinians-terrorism-hypocrisy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Two kosher restaurants in Manchester firebombed - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Jews is underway in Manchester

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Jews is underway in Manchester, escaping much notice by the outside world in the wake of the slaughter at the Arianna Grande concert. Antisemitism UK is the source for this report on the culinary terrorism underway:

JS Restaurant, the oldest kosher restaurant in Manchester has been gutted by fire following a suspected arson attack overnight at approximately 4:00.

As can be seen in the picture below, the second wave attack was successful, closing a business that also served as a community center, allowing observant Jews a place to gather and enjoy food together.

Two days ago, Ta’am, another kosher restaurant in the city, was firebombed for the second time, and CCTV captured images of two youths conducting the attack. Last year the same restaurant was also set alight.

Once again, the only term used by police to describe that attackers who were photographed is “youths."

If Labour led by Jeremey Corbin is elected in today's voting, things will get much, much worse for the Jews of Manchester and the UK. But they are only the first target of the conquerors.

Ht tip: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin


Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/two_kosher_restaurants_in_manchester_firebombed.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump and The Article Five Shibboleth - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

U.S. president makes another wise move on NATO.

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

The NeverTrump bitter-enders still can’t resist sniping at the president and his alleged éminence grise, Steve Bannon. Now it’s Trump’s “dangerous” refusal––despite advice from his national security advisors, and allegedly fomented by Bannon––to reassure fellow NATO members of his commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty during the ceremonies in May celebrating NATO’s new headquarters in Brussels. According to Commentary’s Noah Rothman, for example, Trump’s snubbing of Article Five emboldens Russia, for it “undermines a credible American deterrence” and “invites Putin to test the parameters of Trump’s resolve, which could be disastrous.”

The inflation of Article Five into the West’s premier bulwark against aggression is one of the best examples of the magical thinking that ritualistic affirmations of toothless multinational treaties will keep the peace and deter enemies.

This belief, however, depends more on half-truths and political marketing than on facts. We often hear that NATO “avoided a major state conflict,” as one NeverTrumper wrote, in postwar Europe, and kept the Soviets at bay during the Cold War. But what kept the peace in Europe was the simple fact that the European nations did not have the means or the will to wage a war. They were too demoralized and too busy rebuilding their shattered economies, financed in part by the Marshall Plan’s $190 billion (in today’s money).

As for deterring the Soviets, it was the 300,000 American troops deployed in Germany between 1950 and 1990, and the 25,000 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal threatening Mutually Assured Destruction that checked Soviet aggression, not the “military pygmies,” as NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it, of the European nations. NATO and Article Five were then and now a fig-leaf for allowing the European nations to hide the fact that their security was a benefit provided by American military power and funded by the U.S. taxpayer, freeing Europeans to concentrate on rebuilding their economies, and then creating their social-welfare, dolce vita EUtopia.

Indeed, the political purpose of Article Five is obvious from its actual language, which questions the common description of it as a mutual defense pact. Article Five states that “an armed attack against one or more of [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” In the event of such an attack, Article Five continues, “each” member will respond “by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [emphases added]. “Considering” an act of aggression to be an attack is inherently subjective, as are the “actions” any country might “deem” to be “necessary.” Such elastic language could make speechifying at the U.N., or imposing economic sanctions, or voting on a Security Council resolution to be a fulfillment of a member state’s treaty obligation. And no, there is no provision for enforcing Article Five, though there is one (Article 13) for leaving NATO.

These loopholes exist for a reason: they serve the political needs of each state, recognizing that the decision to use force will always be made by a sovereign nation’s leaders, who are answerable to their citizens and responsible for seeing to their particular interests. If Article Five had said, “In the event of an attack, each member state shall forthwith mobilize its military and declare war on the aggressor,” such a genuine mutual defense pact would have died in its diplomatic crib. The elasticity of Article Five’s language means it’s highly unlikely that, say, a Russian incursion into Estonia would be countered by military force on behalf of a faraway country about which most European and American voters know nothing.

Defenders of Article Five also make much of the fact that the only time it has been invoked was after 9/11. And some NATO states did send troops and matériel to Afghanistan, the bulk coming from the British Commonwealth countries. We should honor the sacrifice of those Europeans who died in that conflict and later in Iraq. But while we appreciate the help, it wasn’t necessary for defeating either foe. As happened in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya, NATO operations are in reality American ones, for we provide the bulk of men and matériel, and do most of the fighting and dying. Article Five is simply not necessary for our military effectiveness, since as the world’s greatest military and economic power, we can always find allies in other countries willing to bandwagon with the global hegemon. That’s why 34 nations in 1990 joined the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

NATO’s benefits, then, go mostly in one direction: to provide security for rich countries that refuse to finance their militaries or develop the capacity to defend themselves––which, by the way, is a requirement of the NATO treaty’s Article Three, which states that “each member state must maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” That article has been as ignored as the 2006 requirement that each NATO member spend 2% of its GDP on defense.

More useful for our foreign policy than rhetorical obeisance to Article Five is Trump’s scolding of member states for not carrying their fiscal weight. It’s a scandal that the two biggest economies in the Eurozone, France and Germany, can’t reach the 2% of GDP threshold for military spending required by NATO. Germany is the world’s fourth largest economy, but spends a paltry 1.2% of its $3.35 trillion GDP on defense. This shameful fact––worsened by endemic German anti-Americanism and moral preening––is of more consequence than Trump’s failure to issue rote statements of support for Article Five.

As for deterring Russia, one has to be delusional to think Vladimir Putin, after eight years of Obama’s “reset” and “flexibility” and retreat, will be frightened off by mere rhetoric. Getting NATO members to spend real money on weapons and troops, and rebuilding America’s military capability are the ways to concentrate the minds of all our rivals and enemies.

All this Article Five blather and NATO encomia represent the decayed remnants of idealistic internationalism and its faith in multinational institutions, agreements, treaties, and diplomatic palaver. For nearly a century we have witnessed failure after failure of this ideal: The League of Nations, the Locarno Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand pact, none of which prevented World War II; the U.N. with its pathetic “peace-keeping” forces, coddling of tyrannical regimes, and impotent Security Council resolutions; the numerous arms reduction and arms control treaties invariably violated by the signatories; the fruitless nuclear non-proliferation protocols and negotiations that turned North Korea into a nuclear power, and promise to do the same for Iran––all prove that aggression must be met with deeds, not empty words.

The fact is, sovereign states relate to each other not on the basis of imagined universal principles recognized by all nations, but on their particular interests that sometimes collide, other times agree, and always are subject to changing circumstances. Spain’s participation in the Iraq War, for example, ended after the 2004 Madrid train bombing by al Qaeda, and Italy pulled out after antiwar sentiment helped elect Romano Prodi Prime Minister in 2006. Alliances and treaties are always subject to political change, not lofty universal principles.

When it comes to foreign affairs, the only certainty, as George Washington said, is “the maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bounded by its interests.” It’s high time that we accepted that hard truth and acted accordingly.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266926/trump-and-article-five-shibboleth-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Obama’s State Department covered up Iranian cyber-attack during nuke deal negotiations - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

-- evidence of an Iranian attack during negotiations of the secret side deals in the wake of congressional failure to stop the deal has been ignored. The Washington Free Beacon reports

Our media devote most of their attention to a phony story of Trump collusion with a rival, while actual collusion (by Silence) between the Obama administration and an actual enemy, Iran, is largely ignored.

The entire media establishment is having paroxysms over a leak by a 25-year-old NSA contractor of an NSA report that the Russians carried out spear-phishing attacks just prior to the election. But evidence of an Iranian attack during negotiations of the secret side deals in the wake of congressional failure to stop the deal has been ignored. The Washington Free Beacon reports:

State Department officials determined that Iran hacked their emails and social media accounts during a particularly sensitive week for the nuclear deal in the fall of 2015, according to multiple sources familiar with the details of the cyber attack.
The attack took place within days of the deal overcoming opposition in Congress in late September that year. That same week, Iranian officials and negotiators for the United States and other world powers were beginning the process of hashing out a series of agreements allowing Tehran to meet previously determined implementation deadlines. (snip)
It is unclear whether top officials at the State Department negotiating the Iran deal knew about the hack or if their personal or professional email accounts were compromised. Sources familiar with the attack believed top officials at State were deeply concerned about the hack and that those senior leaders did not have any of their email or social media accounts compromised in this particular incident.

While the Free Beacon report relies mostly on anonymous sources, there is actual hard evidence provided that this happened:

State Department officials in the Office of Iranian Affairs on Sept. 24, 2015 sent an email to dozens of outside contractors. The email alerted the contractors that a cyber-attack had occurred and urged them not to open any email from a group of five State Department officials that did not come directly from their official state.gov accounts.

If the State Department or White House had acknowledged the attack to the public, it would have demonstrated the wrong-headedness of the Iran deal Congress had just punted on. 

Where is the outrage of the Left, obsessed with “collaboration” with Russia ( nation that, unlike Iran, has not launched terror attacks against the United States the way Iran has. What about Obama/Jarret’s collaboration with Iran?

After all, hacking during negotiations is a way to gain an unfair advantage, causing the opponent to give away far too much. Isn’t that exactly what happened? And didn’t the Obama administration cover it up?

Sooner or later, the time will come for a full-frontal pushback against the phony fantasy story of Trump-Russia collaboration. How about Congressional investigations of the Iran deal and Obama administration collusion?

Hat tip: Jack Hellner

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/obamas_state_department_covered_up_iranian_cyberattack_during_nuke_deal_negotiations.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel spearheads threat of mass exodus from UN rights council - Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

U.S. calls on the United Nations Human Rights Council to eliminate its "chronic anti-Israel bias"

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon | Photo credit: AFP

Israel is spearheading a move that could see multiple members exit the United Nations Human Rights Council unless it relinquishes its anti-Israel bias.

Israel is a fixed item on the agenda of the 47-member body, set up in 2006, and it has passed over 70 resolutions against the Jewish state.

Israel is demanding that the UNHRC cancel its annual session that focuses solely on alleged human rights violations committed by Israel against the Palestinians. Another demand is that the council cancel the committee tasked with maintaining a database of companies doing business beyond the Green Line.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon told Israel Hayom on Tuesday that "the time is right for a major change in the U.N., mainly over the new administration in the U.S."

He also credited U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley for "working tirelessly" to change the "aggressive and unjustified anti-Israel bias in the U.N."

The Trump administration on Tuesday gave formal notice that it was reviewing its participation in the Human Rights Council and called for reforming the body to eliminate what it called its "chronic anti-Israel bias."

"The United States is looking carefully at this council and our participation in it. We see some areas for significant strengthening," Haley told the Geneva forum at the opening of a three-week session.

Washington says the council is stacked with opponents of Israel and boycotted it for three years under President George W. Bush before rejoining under President Barack Obama in 2009.

"Tragically, we've been down this road before," Haley later told the Graduate Institute of Geneva. "America does not seek to leave the Human Rights Council. We seek to re-establish the council's legitimacy."

Haley named Venezuela, Cuba, China, Burundi, and Saudi Arabia as council members that do not uphold the highest standards, and said the forum was becoming as "discredited" as its predecessor body, the Human Rights Commission.

"This relentless, pathological campaign against a country that actually has a strong human rights record makes a mockery not of Israel, but of the council itself," Haley said, as some in the audience interrupted briefly with laughter at the remark.

She called for the council to address serious human rights violations in Venezuela and for the government of President Nicolas Maduro to address them.

"If Venezuela cannot, it should voluntarily step down from its seat on the Human Rights Council until it can get its own house in order. Being a member of this council is a privilege, and no country who is a human rights violator should be allowed a seat at the table," she said.

Haley called for the council to adopt strong resolutions on abuses in Syria, Eritrea, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo at its session.

Shlomo Cesana, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=42953&hp=1

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Marwan Kanafani, Former Advisor To Arafat: Palestine Cause No Longer The Most Serious Arab Issue, There Are More Syrian Refugees - MEMRI

by MEMRI

"negotiations to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah have been going on for ten years, while the U.S. and Iran reached understandings within less than a decade despite their differences"

In a recent TV interview, Marwan Kanafani, former advisor to Yasser Arafat, blamed the Palestinian leaderships and political parties for the "regression" in the Palestinian cause, saying that the negotiations to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah have been going on for ten years, while the U.S. and Iran reached understandings within less than a decade despite their differences. He was speaking on ON TV on May 27.

Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV 

Marwan Kanafani: "The Palestine cause is not the most serious issue in the Arab world today. There are more Syrian refugees today than Palestinian ones. More people were killed in Libya than in Palestine or other countries where we lived.

[…]

"The Palestinian leaders and political parties bear responsibility for our current situation. This is what was going through my mind as I was writing my book. I may be mistaken or too dogmatic about this, but I believe the time has come to talk about our mistakes.

[…]

"Over the past decade, we Palestinians have not made any progress whatsoever in our cause, and, as much as I don’t like to say it, we have regressed. Of course, we cannot blame the Palestinian people for this. The Palestinian people is not responsible for the split between Gaza and Jericho. The political parties and the factions are responsible for that split. The negotiations to bring about reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] have been going on for 10 years, whereas the negotiations for reconciliation and understandings between the U.S. and Iran took less than ten years, even though they have differences in religion, language, and race, whereas we all belong to the same race and the same heritage.

[…]

"Not a single revolution in the world ever ended in a knockout. They have all led to negotiations. Negotiations are permitted by Islamic law – the Prophet Muhammad negotiated with the infidels in the Hudaybiyya [Treaty], and the Caliphs [held negotiations], and so on. Negotiations are part of international constitutions, and at the end of the day, negotiations determine the balance of power."

View The Clip

MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/tv/arafat-advisor-kanafani-palestinian-cause-not-most-serious

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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