MY SAY: UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY THE KOREAN WAR

THE KOREAN WAR Jun 25, 1950 – Jul 27, 1953

The news is full of commentary, policy suggestions and criticisms of the present crisis with aggressive and dangerous behavior by North Korea’s present leader Kim Jong-un. The Korean War fought from June 25th, 1950 until July 27,1953 is hardly mentioned, although the latest records indicate that 36,574 were killed and 103,284 wounded in action and as late as 2017, 7,800 soldiers remain unaccounted for. In the aftermath of World War 11, In August 1945, Korea was liberated from Japan which had invaded and annexed Korea in 1910. Stalin’s demands for “buffer zones” in Asia, created the 38th parallel, which divided the nation into the People’s Republic of (North)Korea and the Republic of (South)Korea, to be administered by the Russians and the Americans respectively. The Communist regime in the north was run by then 33-year-old Kim Il Sung (the grand-father of North Korea’s present dictator) whose patrons were Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung.

When thousands of North Korean troops who fought on Mao’s side in the Chinese Civil War returned to North Korea, Kim Il Sung redeployed them along the 38th parallel, and escalated provocations which resulted in an invasion of the Republic of South Korea on June 25, 1950.

On June 27th, at the urging of the United States, the UN Security Council voted in favor of armed resistance to North Korea which persuaded President Truman who was reluctant to enter into armed conflict so soon upon the heels of World War 11 to commence the defense of South Korea. There were armed contingents from Turkey, England Canada and Australia, but America sent 90% of troops so it was really America’s war.The United States would deploy the Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy in the Taiwan Strait and send massive air and naval power to the area. In spite of warnings and caveats from The Joint Chiefs of Staff, troops were committed on June 30th and the draft, still in place, increased the numbers of active duty troops to roughly 700,000 Army and 90,000 battle-ready Marines.

There were military triumphs and an equal number of serious reversals.In July 1950, when General Douglas MacArthur was given command of U.S. troops in Korean The North Korean Army drove south to the nation’s capital Seoul.On September 15th, approximately 80,000 marines landed at Inchon with minimal losses. Supported with massive air power the United States forces halted the advances of Kim Il Sung and by end of September they recaptured the capital and North Korea’s forces retreated.

However, Chinese/North Korean forces swiftly responded with a massive counterattack which Secretary of State Dean Acheson described as the worst American defeat since the battle of Bull Run during the Civil War. By December the North Korean armies pushed American troops southward and reoccupied Seoul in early 1951. This was a major defeat for the American forces subsequently blamed on “poor intelligence.”

In late January American strategy was reassessed, and under the command of General Matthew Ridgeway, who had been called in after the landing in Inchon, and after intense fighting American/Korean forces retook Seoul and again, pushed north of the 38th parallel. By April 1951 the fighting stabilized along what ultimately became the “demilitarized” zone and the South was secured.

On April 11, 1951, Truman demanded MacArthur’s resignation and the Supreme Command was turned over to General Ridgeway. Most historians agree that MacArthur was insubordinate and declassified documents have indicated that Truman distrusted him. Others posit that Truman was determined to wind down an increasingly unpopular war.

The war settled into the pattern it would follow for the next two years: Although formal negotiations to end the conflict actually commenced on July 10th of 1951, bloody fighting along the 38th parallel continued until 1953. U.S. forces engaged in several battles known as “active defense.” By this time, under the capable command of Generals Ridgeway and Van Fleet the US forces had already gained ground and in operations named “Roundup” “Killer” and “Ripper” had successfully repelled all Chinese/Korean forays. Fighting continued on hills called Pork Chop, T-Bone, Heartbreak Ridge and Old Baldy and the US forces continued their gains on the combined forces of North Korea and China, whose offensives all subsequently failed. The North Korean army was rapidly disintegrating and the Chinese turned their full attention to their land redistribution and “re-education” policies.

When Harry Truman announced that he would not run for another term. NATO’s Supreme Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, decided to run for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

The Democrat nominee Adlai Stevenson, Harry Truman’s choice, failed to gain momentum or populist support against a war hero. The war became so unpopular that the New York Times endorsed Eisenhower, whose platform promised a quick end to the war. He won by a landslide.

In November, 1952, a victorious Eisenhower fulfilled his campaign vow and traveled to Korea to help pave the way for the armistice which formally ended the war.

On July 27, 1953 the 38th parallel remained the front line of both north and south and a final armistice was signed. The Americans whose determination and military prowess had decimated and dispirited North Korea, had the ability and intention to “roll back Communism” but instead, they rolled back the war.

July 27th is the 64th anniversary of that armistice.

There was no conclusive victory, no surrender, and nothing gained for the West or Korea. It is also important to note that America’s hand picked President of South Korea Syngman Rhee refused to sign the agreement. Kim Il Sung consolidated one of the most brutal regimes in Asia. On his death in 1994, his son took control and has catapulted North Korea into a bellicose nuclear power which exports weapons and technology to all America’s enemies. And his son Kim Jong-un continues the Kim legacy of tyranny.

On January 23, 1968 after literally hundreds of violations of the armistice, North Korean torpedo ships seized the American spy vessel The Pueblo. The captain surrendered after stalling in an effort to destroy classified documents. The crew members were imprisoned, tortured, humiliated and forced to praise their captors. All efforts to free them were considered “unworkable” by President Johnson who was beset by the Vietnam War. The crisis ended 10 months later after the United States signed a letter of contrition and apology.

That is the pitiful legacy of America’s first unfinished war, establishing a pattern which haunts the free world and our allies today leaving thugs and despots in place. Wars are now fought until nations get tired of them.

In war, only the continued application of overwhelming force and total surrender will subdue and destroy enemies. That is how the Nazis were defeated and how Japanese imperialistic Shinto was dismantled.

How we will deal with present enemies- Iran, North Korea, and radical Islamic Jihad is anyone’s guess.

The Democrats’ Anthropological Field Trip to Study Americans ‘A Better Deal’ tries to focus on economic issues, but the cultural issues are inextricably intertwined. By Kyle Smith

The Democrats have sensed weakness, and chosen this moment to pounce. To capitalize on Donald Trump’s low approval ratings they are rolling out Elizabeth Warren (38 percent approval), Nancy Pelosi (29 percent), and Chuck Schumer (26 percent). Delivering the message that the party has fresh ideas are three emissaries who are a combined 211 years of age, deploying a phrase — “a better deal” — that harks back to the hottest policy proposals of 1933. To prove they’re in tune with the concerns of middle America the Democrats are dispatching emissaries from Harvard, San Francisco, and Brooklyn. Oh, and the Democrats’ chief problem, according to the Democrats? Americans just aren’t mentally supple enough to understand how great our program is for them.

“Too many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer declared in a Trump-voting county of Virginia on Monday. “Not after today.” Mark it down, kids: July 24, 2017, was the day the Democrats finally clarified their message. Democrats will no longer have to moan What’s the Matter with Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin? Because Monday is the day the right-learning parts of the country learned that Schumer, et al., have better ideas than the Republicans do.

The latest Democratic anthropological field trip to establish contact with the alien life forms known as Trump voters is focused on economic issues. That sounds wise. But far from being too subtle for Meathead America to understand, the progressive economic agenda is, as always, simple: You get the goodies you want now, someone else will pay, and never mind the future consequences. Who wouldn’t find such a platform enticing? You might as well tell a junior-high school, “Free PlayStation and Mountain Dew.” If the Democrats could stick to buying votes with other people’s money, they’d be dangerous.

As a matter of fact they are dangerous, now and always, for precisely this reason. Raising the minimum wage, one of the Democrats’ cornerstone ideas in their latest re-re-re-rebranding, is popular because it’s a simple fix that provides tangible benefits with invisible costs. Lower-rung workers get a bigger paycheck and the pain is hidden from view in the accounting divisions of faceless corporations. Never mind that a $15 national minimum wage would backfire and render many working Americans unemployed in the future. Government-dictated lowering of drug prices is popular too, never mind the invisible follow-up cost of hampering innovation that will extend lives in the future. The Democrats’ economic policy is sufficiently tempting that if elections were held tomorrow, with generic Democrats on the ballot, they might well manage to retake the House and the White House.

Sessions, Trump, and the ‘Counterintelligence’ Confusion Exactly what crime is Trump suspected of committing? By Andrew C. McCarthy

We all knew what Watergate was. We knew what Iran-Contra was. And the Lewinsky scandal. And the purported outing of Valerie Plame. Up until now, each time a special prosecutor has been sicced on a presidential administration, we’ve known what the allegations were. Our views about whether the conduct involved warranted such debilitating scrutiny may have diverged sharply. But at least we knew what the investigations were about, what the presidents and/or their subordinates were accused of doing.

That’s because what they were accused of doing was criminal. You need a prosecutor only to investigate crime.

The id-in-chief is on the verge of forcing his attorney general out — and with him, much of the conservative base that got past its wariness of Donald Trump because of Jeff Sessions’s support. Yet, as the appearance of scandal engulfs the administration, we still don’t know what crimes Trump and his subordinates are suspected of committing. Or even if they are suspected of committing crimes at all.

Mind you, the “Russia investigation” — the investigation with no specified crime — has already factored heavily in the dismissals of a top White House staffer and the head of our country’s premier investigative agency. Now it seems the nation’s top federal law-enforcement officer is on the brink. There is background noise about indictments, pardons, and impeachment. But we still don’t know what the allegation is. Or if there is one.

At the risk of trying our readers’ patience, I am going to beat a dead horse I’ve been wailing on since the first days of the Trump-Russia controversy. I do it because someday we may look back and realize the debacle was driven by the confusing label of “counterintelligence investigation,” which has obscured, well, everything.

The confusion starts with the label itself. When you hear “investigation” you think crime. But counterintelligence is not about rooting out crime; it is about divining the intentions of foreign powers. It is not enough to say that crime is not its focus. Crime is not permitted to be its focus.

In the counterintelligence context, because the government is not trying to build a criminal case, the constitutional protections that apply in criminal investigations are significantly diminished. Thus, if the government pretextually exploits its counterintelligence authorities to conduct criminal investigations, serious legal problems arise. The 9/11 controversy over “the wall” — the infamous regulations that prevented information-sharing between counterintelligence and criminal agents — occurred precisely because the Justice Department was overeager to demonstrate its determination to keep the two realms separate.

Counterintelligence work would be more accurately described as “information gathering and analysis” than as an “investigation.” Investigations are about collecting evidence in order to prosecute crimes.

This is expressly reflected in federal regulations — specifically, the ones that control when a “special counsel” should be appointed and when an attorney general should recuse himself. These things come into play only when criminal activity has occurred. They are not applicable to counterintelligence probes, which usually don’t involve prosecutors at all.

There is a need for an attorney general to disqualify himself, or for a special counsel to be appointed, only when the AG or the Justice Department at large is beset by a conflict of interest. How do we know whether there is such a conflict? We look at the known crime, or the factual basis for suspecting a crime. We then ask whether some political or personal connection to the criminal transaction under examination disqualifies the AG or the Justice Department from participation. To answer the question, “Is there a conflict?” we look at the criminality that must be investigated or prosecuted.

Trump’s Circular Firing Squad Trump and his critics are attacking each other, failing to focus on the only story that counts: the welfare of the United States. By Victor Davis Hanson

The American political system has never quite seen anything like the current opposition to President Trump and his unusual reaction to it.

We are no longer in the customary political landscape. Usually, the out-of-power opposition — in this case, the Democratic party — offers most of the criticism and all of the alternative policies in order to win in the next election. Instead, Trump has an entire circle of diverse critics shooting at him. But they just as often end up hitting one another — and themselves.

So far, Trump’s most furious Democratic opponents have not been able to offer alternative visions to Trump’s agenda that might help them win back Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. Higher taxes, more government regulations, less gas and oil production, loose immigration policies, and the promotion of identity politics are not really winning issues.

Instead, the aim is to either to remove Trump before his first term is up or to so delegitimize him that he is rendered powerless.

Yet obsessions with Trump often lead to boomerang excesses — mad talk and visuals, from obscene rants to decapitation art — that hurt the attackers more than Trump.

Republicans should have been delighted with control of both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, state governorships and the legislatures, and the White House. In principle, they laud Trump’s efforts to appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts, to increase oil and gas production, to reform Obamacare and the tax code, and to restore deterrence abroad.

Yet the Republican-controlled Congress is nearly paralyzed. It simply cannot unite to deliver on promised major legislation. Some senators and representatives find Trump too uncouth to support his otherwise agreeable proposals, and they fear (or hope) that he may not finish out his term. Some worry that Trump’s low approval rating might hurt their own reelections. Some are careerists who value getting along more than fighting for the White House agenda.

The result is that when factions of the Republican Congress are not battling one another, they are feuding with Democrats and often with the Trump White House.

One reason Trump has been slow to make major appointments is that he cannot trust the establishment of his own party, many of whom in 2016 signed petitions declaring Trump unfit for office.

At best, some anti-Trump intellectuals and pundits still cannot separate Trump’s conservative agenda (which they privately support) from Trump’s reality-television persona (which they find boorish and beneath the dignity of the presidency). At worst, some are so invested in the idea that Trump would or should fail that their opposition threatens to become an obsessive self-fulfilling prophecy.

The anti-Trump conservative-intellectual establishment also does not quite know where to aim its fire. At Democrats whose agendas they used to oppose? At Congress for supporting or not supporting Trump? At the liberal media that court anti-Trumpers because they find their Trump hatred useful for the time being?

The media have given up on impartial news coverage. Some journalists have announced that Trump is so beyond the pale that he deserves only unapologetic critical treatment. Research has shown that network coverage has been overwhelmingly anti-Trump.

At the center of this directed fire is the flamboyant, sometimes polarizing but usually cunning Trump. He is not a stationary target. He constantly ducks and weaves, with a flurry of executive orders, major White House shakeups, and trips throughout Europe and the Middle East, where he often gives good speeches and sometimes is warmly greeted.

The result of the circular firing squad is a crazed shootout where everyone gets hit.

Palestinians: Metal Detectors or Lie Detectors – Who Is Violating What? by Bassam Tawil

Crucially, and contrary to Palestinian claims, there has been no Israeli decision to ban Muslims from entering the Temple Mount. For the first time since 1967, the Palestinians are denying Muslim worshippers free access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Palestinians and the Islamic religious authorities are protesting against security measures that are intended to save the lives of Muslim worshippers and prevent the desecration of their holy sites by terrorists and rioters. They are protesting because Israel is trying to make it hard for them to murder Jews.

To clarify what is actually going on: it is not the security measures that really anger the Palestinians; for them, this crisis is not about a metal detector or a security camera. It is not the security measures that the Palestinians want dismantled. It is Israel that they want dismantled.

The metal detectors that were supposed to prevent Muslims from smuggling weapons into the Temple Mount compound, and which were removed by the Israeli authorities this week, have a more accurate name: “lie detectors.” They have exposed Palestinian lies and the real reason behind Palestinian anger.

Israel apparently removed the metal detectors from the gates of the Temple Mount as part of a deal to end an unexpected crisis with Jordan over the killing of two Jordanian men by an Israeli embassy security officer in Amman. The security officer says he was acting in self-defense after being attacked by one of the Jordanians with a screwdriver.

The crisis erupted when the Jordanian authorities insisted on interrogating the officer — a request that was rejected by Israel because the officer enjoys diplomatic immunity. US intervention and a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jordan’s King Abdullah helped end the crisis peacefully and quickly, and the officer and the rest of the Israeli embassy staff were permitted to leave Jordan and head back to Israel.

Shortly after the embassy staff returned to Israel, the Israeli authorities started removing the metal detectors that were installed at the entrances to the Temple Mount after terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers on July 14. The move sparked a wave of rumors and speculation, according to which the Jordanians allowed the embassy staff to return home in exchange for the removal of the metal detectors.

Israel and Jordan have denied any link between the shooting incident in Amman and the removal of the metal detectors.

The crisis that erupted between Israel and Jordan over the killing of the two Jordanians was solved in less than 48 hours — much to the dismay of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians were hoping to exploit the crisis to exacerbate tensions between Amman and Jerusalem. Their ultimate goal: to cause the Jordanians to scrap their peace treaty with Israel and return to the state of war with the “Zionist enemy.” The Palestinians were also hoping to exploit the crisis to incite Jordanians against Israel and the Hashemite monarchy.

Fortunately, the Jordanian authorities did not fall into the Palestinian trap. They realized that it is in their own interest to resolve the crisis swiftly and peacefully. King Abdullah was wise enough not to allow the Palestinians to drag him into a confrontation with Israel.

Since the installation of the metal detectors at the Temple Mount, the Palestinians have been waging yet another campaign of fabrications and distortions against Israel. This Palestinian blood libel claims that Israel is seeking to “change the status quo” at the Temple Mount by introducing new security measures such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras at the gates to the holy site.

Modernizing America’s Nuclear Capabilities Is a Must by Peter Huessy

In 1989, America had 1,000 nuclear missile silos, and a small number of additional bomber and submarine bases and submarines at sea, facing 13,500 Soviet warheads. Today, the U.S. has 450 such silos facing 1,750 Russian warheads. That is a switch from a ratio of 13 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo, to a ratio of 4 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. Getting rid of Minuteman ICBMs would reverse that progress and make the ratio even worse, with 175 Russian warheads to every U.S. missile silo. How is that an improvement?

The U.S. “cannot afford to delay modernization initiatives” while the “American people and our allies are counting on congressional action to fund our nuclear enterprise modernization efforts.” — General Robin Rand, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command.

America’s ability to defend itself is at stake.

In April 2017, the Pentagon launched the U.S. Defense Department’s legislatively mandated quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review to determine American policy, strategy and capabilities. The process now underway involves testimony from experts arguing over how the estimated $27 billion spent annually (growing over the next decade by an additional $10 billion a year) on America’s nuclear arsenal should be allocated.

One claim, made by a number of experts, is that investing in the effort to upgrade America’s exiting nuclear arsenal — the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) — would be destabilizing and wasteful. They are, it is claimed, highly vulnerable to enemy attack and therefore do not provide deterrence. Among the 40 House members who suggest killing the land-based missiles is the ranking Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee.

The opposite position was expressed recently by General Robin Rand, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC). He persuasively argued that, far from being either destabilizing or unnecessary, “Our bomber and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) forces, and our nuclear command, control, and communications systems defend our national interests, assure our allies and partners, and deter potential adversaries.”

Addressing the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on June 7, Rand said, “ICBMs are the sole weapon system capable of rapid global response and impose a time-proven and unpalatable cost to attack by peer, near-peer and aspiring nuclear nations.”

The discrepancy in viewpoints stems from the difference in perception about American nuclear power and deterrence. Those who disagree with Rand are stuck in Cold War thinking, which has become largely irrelevant in today’s world. To understand this better, a review of the history of the U.S.-Soviet arms race is necessary.

In January 1967, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson announced that the USSR had greatly expanded its powerful multiple-warhead land-based missiles, as well as having begun to build an anti-ballistic-missile defense system (ABM) around Moscow — which would enable it to launch a first strike against the U.S. without fear of an effective retaliation against Soviet leadership bunkers — and called for strategic arms limitations talks (SALT).

Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon, continued with the process, formally launching the negotiations in November 1969 that led to the signing of the SALT I executive agreement in May 1972. When Gerald Ford became president, he agreed with Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev on a general framework for a second agreement — SALT II — marginally to limit the deployment capabilities of each side, but still allow major increases in warheads, especially powerful, multi-warhead land-based Soviet missiles.

Senate Dems Collude With Russia by Blocking Magnitsky Act Figure’s Bill Browder Testimony Daniel Greenfield

A very brief refresher.

The Donald Trump Jr. meeting was about the Magnitsky Act which sanctions Russia. Obama and Hillary and Putin opposed the Act. So did Fusion GPS which was hired to go after it. It was also behind the Trump dossier. Bill Browder is the key surviving Magnitsky Act figure. He was set to testify against Fusion GPS.

And the Dems pulled the plug.

Senate Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver Wednesday to cut short a high-profile hearing, where a key witness was set to testify on Russia’s misdeeds and also raise fresh allegations against the company behind the infamous anti-Trump dossier.

Bill Browder, the CEO and co-founder of Hermitage Capital, was set to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that the co-founder of the firm Fusion GPS was hired to conduct a “smear campaign” against him. Further, he planned to testify the campaign was orchestrated by Natalia Veselnitskaya — the Russian attorney who sought the highly scrutinized Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort in June 2016.

Browder released written testimony ahead of the hearing but his public remarks were delayed when Democrats invoked the “two-hour rule” to protest Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare. The seldom-used rule bars committees from meeting more than two hours after the full Senate begins a session.

“I don’t know if the minority is intentionally trying to block testimony that may be critical of a firm behind the unverified Trump dossier, but I’ll bet two bits that had Paul Manafort or Donald Trump, Jr. appeared at today’s hearing, it would not have been prematurely shut down,” Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “The Democrat leadership is playing politics, plain and simple.”

The Dems really don’t want to touch the subject of Fusion GPS. Or delve into any details about the Magnitsky Act. That way lies accusations of collusion. And to protect themselves, they attempted a cover-up. And as they ought to remember, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.

Radical Left-Wing Ha’aretz Columnist Gideon Levi Justifies Terrorism, Again A twisted interpretation of a horrific tragedy. Roni Bialer

In a recent op-ed in the left wing newspaper Ha’aretz, Gideon Levi called on all ‘honest Israelis’ to read the Facebook suicide note of the Palestinian who brutally stabbed three Israelis to death last Friday night as they were eating the Sabbath dinner.

Levi hopes that Israelis who read this facebook suicide note will gain a better understanding of the reality the Palestinians live in and the issues that drive them to violence. If Levi’s desire for both Israelis and Palestinians to understand the other was genuine, that would be a praiseworthy aspiration, and his call to Israelis to understand the Palestinians should be taken seriously. Yet, Levi has a certain narrative that he has forced down the throats of Israelis and readers abroad for years, blaming Israelis for Palestinian violence and terror, be it because of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), IDF military operations, or any Israeli policy that upsets the Palestinians. And here, with the latest terror attack, Levi once again attempts to pump that narrative, convinced of its truth, even though in the process he is forced to bend and twist the words of the Palestinians themselves.

One example is that Levi says that the terrorist – Omar Al-Abed – wanted to kill ‘settlers’ (i.e., Jews living in Judea and Samaria). However, in the Facebook post (full translation at the end of the article) that Al-Abed wrote prior to the attack, settlers are never mentioned. Instead the terrorist mentions killing ‘Jews’ (in general) while using the ancient Muslim slur calling the Jews ‘monkeys and pigs’.

Levi also asserts that the terrorist acted as a result of ‘the magno-meters placed on the Temple Mount’, ‘the killing and torturing of Palestinians’, and ‘the destruction of Palestinian property and arrests’. This leads the reader to believe that the terrorist had a list of grievances, and his actions were an outcome of these feelings which could no longer be suppressed. Thus, the current terrorist is not a religious fanatic who decides to kill Jews one morning, he is a calculated person, with a deep political understanding. Yet in reality, none of these accusations are mentioned in the Facebook post, Al-Abed simply says that the motivation for the attack was that the “Al Aqsa mosque was closed to the Muslims.” Furthermore, this supposedly intelligent person, is a 19 year old who writes a will or suicide note with spelling mistakes, smiley faces, and hearts.

Needless to say, the reports accusing Israel of ‘closing’ the Al Aqsa Mosque to Muslims were completely false. The purpose of these media reports, happily disseminated by Al Jazeera, Arab MKs, the Palestinian Authority and other media sites, was to incite and instigate young Palestinians to violence and terror. Israeli security officials at the entrance to the Temple Mount actually tried to convince young Muslims to enter the compound to pray, yet they refused. The video below, from the international Arab TV station Al-Arabiyah depicts this refusal. To make things worse, Arab reporters who reported that Israel was permitting Muslims to pray in the Al Aqsa mosque were criticized of being treasonous. For example, Ziad Halabi, a Palestinian nationalist, reporting live of Israel’s efforts to convince young Palestinians to enter the Temple Mount to pray, was the subject of a flood of curses and threats from the Arab media claiming that he had “lied and distorted reality.”

The Transgender Ban Isn’t Fair. Neither is War The military demands results, not diversity. Daniel Greenfield

The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.

Only in the summer of last year did the ban technically end. And, in practice, it remained in force. All the while there was no angry clamor about the suffering of potential recruits who couldn’t enlist. Those who are fuming with outrage now had hypocritically remained silent. Obama had done it. So it must be good.

Obama had kept the ban in place for almost his entire two terms in office. And he found a way to retain it throughout his final months. With a year’s review, the transgender recruits could only be accepted after he was out of the White House. That way he could have his social justice cake and eat it too. He would get the credit for ending the transgender ban without dealing with any of the problems.

And there were plenty of problems.

45% of transgender persons in the 18 to 44 age range are suicidal. This is a serious risk for personnel who are around weapons or operating machinery or aircraft. If this were the only issue, it would be enough to justify the medical ban.

Transgender operations and hormone therapy requires constant monitoring by a doctor. They carry serious health risks. Some of those risks require serious medications and ongoing management.

That is not what the military usually expects to deal with from recruits.

The Rand study being touted by transgender advocates who claim that medical expenses will only be in the millions relies on a statistical bait and switch. The actual cost is estimated to be in the billions.

The Army and Air Force wanted to delay implementation for another two years. That was on top of the original year review that was lapsing. The issue had become a heavy burden that we didn’t need.

So President Trump got rid of it. His policy is the same one that existed for most of Obama’s time in office. The televised outrage over it is shameless and cynical posturing by media hypocrites.

The transgender ban isn’t a moral or religious policy. It’s a medical one. The military doesn’t have the resources and isn’t equipped to deal with the complicated medical and social problems involved.

The Department of Defense fitness standards have an extensive list of disqualifiers. A “history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex” is there in between pelvic inflammatory disease and missing testicles. These medical issues are there alongside missing fingers, a history of gout and numerous other problems. They’re there because the military wants healthy and able recruits.

It’s that simple.

Military readiness demands personnel who can deploy on short notice without ongoing medical problems holding them back. It wants recruits in prime health who can give all they have. Medical issues don’t just drive up costs so that hard choices have to be made. They also cost lives.

Our armed forces run on teamwork. When members of the team can’t perform, they put lives at risk.

Browder Testimony: Fusion GPS, Firm Behind Trump Dossier and Planned Parenthood, Served Putin’s Corruption By Tyler O’Neil see note please

Bill Browder’s biography of his conversion from leftist doctrine is detailed in his book

Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice by Bill Browder

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, financier Bill Browder is expected to uncover another shocking revelation about Fusion GPS, the left-wing firm responsible for both the Trump-Russia dossier and the misleading defense of Planned Parenthood after the Center for Medical Progress sting videos. According to Browder’s prepared remarks submitted to the committee ahead of his testimony, the firm spread vicious lies about Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was imprisoned and killed for exposing corruption in Putin’s regime.

Browder’s testimony will dwell on the Russian government’s attempts to repeal a law passed in retaliation for abuses against Magnitsky, the Magnitsky Act. Russian attempts to repeal the law reached a fever pitch last year in Washington, and Browder will allege that the actors involved in this effort did not disclose their roles as agents for foreign interests, thus violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. One of the notorious players in this game was none other than Fusion GPS.

Before addressing Fusion GPS, Browder will detail Magnitsky’s story. The financier — founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, one of the largest investment advisers in Russia — will explain that in 2000, when Russian President Vladimir Putin first took power, he had to rein in the oligarchs. At first, Browder and Putin had the same enemies, so exposing corruption helped Putin.

In 2003, that all changed, and by 2005, Putin was targeting Browder. The financier hired Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to investigate raids against his offices. Magnitsky uncovered astounding examples of identity theft and government corruption. For these discoveries, the lawyer was captured by Russian authorities and imprisoned.

Magnitsky was treated horribly and kept an official record of abuses against him by filing official complaints. He died on November 16, 2009, leaving behind a wife and two children. “Sergei Magnitsky was murdered as my proxy. If Sergei had not been my lawyer, he would still be alive today,” Browder’s testimony declares. So he pledged to “seek justice and create consequences for the people who murdered him.”

Browder’s efforts led to the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which froze assets and banned visas for those who killed Magnitsky, as well as for other Russians involved in human rights abuses. The bill passed the House (364 to 43) and the Senate (92 to 4) in November 2012 and was signed by President Obama in December that year.

Putin retaliated in the worst way possible. He banned the adoption of Russian orphans by American families. This was particularly horrible, Browder will argue, because Russia did not allow the adoption of healthy kids, only sick ones. American families adopted children with HIV, Down syndrome, and other ailments.

But thanks to Putin, these sick children would not be adopted by Americans. Instead, they would stay in the Russian orphanage system, which did not have the resources to properly care for them. Most would die before their 18th birthday, Browder will argue. “In practical terms, this meant that Vladimir Putin sentenced his own, most vulnerable and sick Russian orphans to death in order to protect corrupt officials in his regime.”

The Magnitsky Act hit Putin hard, according to Browder’s testimony, because he keeps a great deal of his money in the West (where property rights are a thing) and because it struck at Putin’s ability to reward his cronies in similar ways.

So Putin launched a campaign against the Magnitsky Act. Here’s where Fusion GPS comes in.