Displaying posts published in

January 2020

‘At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani’ By Rich Lowry

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/at-the-direction-of-the-president-the-u-s-military-has-taken-decisive-defensive-action-to-protect-u-s-personnel-abroad-by-killing-qasem-soleimani/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=first

This is an incredibly bold move that shows that Trump’s red line against harming Americans was very real. The conventional wisdom that Trump is just a Twitter tiger, which was driving news and analysis as of a couple of hours ago, is now emphatically OTBE. Soleimani is commonly called a terrorist, obviously true enough, but not only that — he was a major figure in the Iranian regime, a key strategist with unique skills who led the Iranian imperial project in the Middle East. He was also a cold-blooded killer of Americans who deserved to die. His assassination has to be a staggering blow to the regime, which will feel compelled to respond. Trump now may well face the first true foreign-policy crisis of his presidency, although we can, assuming the will, hit the Iranians back harder whatever their next move is (challenging us more forthrightly in Iraq would seem an obvious possibility). Let’s hope we are prepared for whatever comes next, and congratulate all involved in this successful operation to rid the world of a cunning and ruthless killer.

Why Trump will win again in 2020 There is a growing wrath in the country, either ignored, suppressed or undetected by the partisan media Victor Davis Hanson

https://spectator.us/trump-win-again-2020-victor-davis-hanson/#

My reasons for thinking Trump was going to be elected in 2016 were entirely unscientific. One of my Hoover Institution colleagues recently reminded me of my data-free, amateurish and bothersome predictions. I teach for three weeks at Hillsdale College every September during my vacation from the Hoover Institution. Each morning I try to ride a bike 15-18 miles out into the Michigan countryside. I have been doing that since 2004. Over the previous 12 years even this conservative rural Michigan county had showed no real excitement over George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney. But in 2016, Trump signs — both professionally made and hand-painted — had sprouted everywhere, on barns, lawns and sheds. Whatever Trumpism was, lots of southern Michiganders seemed ready for it. Six weeks ago, I rode the identical rural Michigan routes. Sometimes I stopped and talked to a few people. The script was almost predictable. After the requisite throat-clearing — ‘Trump should cut back on the tweeting,’ they said — they were even more eager to vote for him this time than last.

In my hometown near my central California farm, I spent autumn 2016 talking to mostly Mexican American friends with whom I went to grammar or high school. I had presumed then that they must hate Trump. Remember the speech in 2015 announcing he was going to stand, when he bashed illegal immigration, or his snide quip about the ‘Mexican judge’ in the Trump University lawsuit, or his expulsion of an interrupting Univision anchor, Jorge Ramos, from one of his campaign press conferences? But I heard no such thing. Most said they ‘liked’ Trump’s style, whether or not they were voting for him. They were tired of gangs in their neighborhoods and of swamped government services — especially the nearby Department of Motor Vehicles — becoming almost dysfunctional. I remember thinking that Trump of all people might get a third of the Latino vote: of no importance in blue California, but maybe transformative in Midwest swing states?

Trump Calls the Ayatollah’s Bluff And scores a victory against terrorism Matthew Continetti

https://freebeacon.com/columns/trump-calls-the-ayatollahs-bluff/

The successful operation against Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, is a stunning blow to international terrorism and a reassertion of American might. It will also test President Trump’s Iran strategy. It is now Trump, not Ayatollah Khamenei, who has ascended a rung on the ladder of escalation by killing the military architect of Iran’s Shiite empire. For years, Iran has set the rules. It was Iran that picked the time and place of confrontation. No more.

Reciprocity has been the key to understanding Donald Trump. Whether you are a media figure or a mullah, a prime minister or a pope, he will be good to you if you are good to him. Say something mean, though, or work against his interests, and he will respond in force. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be polite. There will be fallout. But you may think twice before crossing him again.

That has been the case with Iran. President Trump has conditioned his policies on Iranian behavior. When Iran spread its malign influence, Trump acted to check it. When Iran struck, Trump hit back: never disproportionately, never definitively. He left open the possibility of negotiations. He doesn’t want to have the Greater Middle East—whether Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, or Afghanistan—dominate his presidency the way it dominated those of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. America no longer needs Middle Eastern oil. Best keep the region on the back burner. Watch it so it doesn’t boil over. Do not overcommit resources to this underdeveloped, war-torn, sectarian land.

Addressing Islam’s role in rising urban black anti-Semitism. By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/addressing_islams_role_in_rising_urban_black_antisemitism.html

Bill DeBlasio insists that Trump’s rhetoric and growing white supremacy are the cause for the increase in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic attacks in New York City and surrounding communities. However, those are peculiar root causes considering that the assailants have consistently been minorities, usually blacks, none of whom are part of the recognized Trump demographic.

Like DeBlasio, Democrat Jews also try to deny this reality, for they find mystifying the fact that the black community they marched arm-in-arm with during the Civil Rights Movement should now turn on them. Their befuddlement and misdirection ignore the role that Islam plays in rising anti-Semitism among an activist segment of Leftist, urban blacks.

Before going any further, let me hasten to state that this post is not meant to accuse American blacks generally of being anti-Semitic. It is meant, however, to investigate one reason behind the reality that a narrow subset of blacks is becoming more violently anti-Semitic.

Andrew Bostom, who has spent decades studying Islam, has issued a series of tweets showing that the anti-Semitism that animates Louis Farrakhan and his supporters has been incubating among urban blacks since the early 1960s. For example, Dr. Bostom quotes from Louis E. Lomax’s When the word is given; a report on Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and the Black Muslim world. (Cleveland, World Pub. Co., 1963, pp. 72-73):

Malcolm [X] has always maintained excellent relations with top Arabs at the United Nations. Few, if any, of these meetings were ever public. But they did occur and there is every indication that they are still going on. The road to Mecca was cleared long before Malcolm and Elijah [Muhammad] left these shores; powerful pro-Nasser Arabs are quietly in Malcolm’s corner, and many Black Muslim bazaars open with the reading of cabled greetings from ‘Our Beloved Brother Gamal Abdel Nasser.’ . . . [B]oth (black) Muslim and Moslem (orthodox Muslims) worship Allah. And that – at least so the hajj committee said – is all that matters. . . . The Black Muslims carefully describe themselves as ‘anti-Zionist’ rather than as against the Jews. (Emphasis mine.)

Immunity and the Bibi boom The gall would be startling if it didn’t illustrate so perfectly the atmosphere in which prime minister has been forced to function while handling affairs of state. Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Immunity-and-the-Bibi-boom-612915

Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu’s announcement on Wednesday night that he was submitting a request to the Knesset to grant him immunity from prosecution came as no surprise. During the week leading up to the deadline for his final decision on the matter both the rumor mill and reliable sources reported that he was on the verge of doing so.

Nevertheless, the 10-minute televised speech he delivered from a podium at the Orient Hotel in Jerusalem was riveting. Not only was it better in tone and craftsmanship than many other of his recent statements, but it served as a reminder to anyone distracted by his indictments that his long-standing tenure is due to a lot more than his gift of the gab or clever manipulation of the political system.

He began by highlighting the latest, and in some ways most impressive, cause for a countrywide celebration: the launch of operations at the Leviathan natural-gas reservoir, discovered in 2010 in Israel’s territorial waters.

Addressing the “citizens of Israel,” Netanyahu said, “Today marks… the best decade in Israeli history.”

U.S. Strike Ordered by Trump Kills Key Iranian Military Leader in Baghdad Iraqi paramilitary commander also dead in attack on Baghdad airport road By Isabel Coles in Beirut, Ghassan Adnan in Baghdad and Michael R. Gordon in Washington

https://www.wsj.com/articles/leader-of-iranian-revolutionary-guard-s-foreign-wing-killed-11578015855

President Trump ordered a U.S. airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, leader of the foreign wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in an attack that is expected to stoke heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran and inflame frictions in the volatile Middle East.

Top Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes was killed alongside Gen. Soleimani when the convoy they were traveling in together was struck on a road leading to Baghdad International Airport.

Gen. Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region, the U.S. Department of Defense said Thursday night.

Iran’s state television said the strike that killed Gen. Soleimani came from U.S. helicopters. The country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared three days of mourning for his death and warned that a “hard revenge awaits criminals.”  CONTINUE AT SITE

The Unyielding Iranian Menace Shoshana Bryen

www.jewishpolicycenter.org

There were apparently two groups of invaders at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad — hordes of rioting protesters in the streets and well-covered, professional-looking, careful militia members entering the out building. Security forces (and some contractors) used tear gas and stun guns against the demonstrators as the United States protected its embassy compound — sovereign American territory by international convention.

A bit of U.S.-Iranian history is instructive here. When the Iranians overran the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, President Jimmy Carter dubbed the Ayatollah Khomeini “a holy man” with whom, presumably, one could do business. President Barak Obama was certain, in 2015, that “the only alternative to the JCPOA is war with Iran,” presumably meaning that the so-called “Iran nuclear deal” was the way to avoid war and restore Iran to the family of nations.

The result of Carter’s assistance to the ayatollah, and Obama’s lapse in memory — the Iranians had actually been in a declared state of war with the United States (and Israel) since 1979 — was to allow the juggernaut of Shiite expansionist theology to ruin Iran, invade Iraq, incubate ISIS, occupy Syria, bring its proxy to power and ruin Lebanon, run the Houthi war in Yemen, undermine Bahrain, attack Saudi Arabia, and spread its tentacles across Africa. And this transpired all while Iran violated the U.N. ban on Iranian arms imports and exports, the U.N. ban on the development of Iranian ballistic missiles, and the P5+1-ratified-by-the-U.N. ban on the development of nuclear weapons technology.

2019’s Adult of the Year Attorney General William Barr has kept his promises and his independence. By Kimberley A. Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2019s-adult-of-the-year-11578009044?emailToken=

Person-of-the-year awards are almost always bestowed on men and women who already meet with fawning praise. Let’s instead craft an award based on a person’s willingness to speak truth to power—whether to the press, the boss, or to partisan operators. Call it Adult of the Year. The winner: Attorney General William Barr.

President Trump nominated Mr. Barr in December 2018, and for a moment he received the respect he deserves. The press had grown accustomed to demeaning all Trump nominees, but was stymied by Mr. Barr’s impressive career and bipartisan legal support. A Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency veteran, he served as attorney general from 1990-91 with distinction. Media outlets had to acknowledge his “pedigree,” and CNN even quoted an unnamed Justice Department lawyer who had been “nervous” about a Trump pick but pronounced Mr. Barr “a great choice” because “he’s tough he’s principled and he’s independent.”

Mr. Barr remains all those things. He has been vilified precisely because he has maintained an impartial view of the Justice Department and has kept his promises. The great hope—and demand—of the Russia-collusion crowd was that Mr. Barr—as a longtime man of the institution—would circle the department’s wagons. His refusal to do so has made him a threat.

And so commenced one of the more obvious, not to mention nasty, delegitimization campaigns in modern Beltway history. Journalists and Democrats accused him of manipulating the rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in March. They pounced on his decision in May to name U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the 2016 Trump campaign, accusing both of engaging in “conspiracy theories.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Cardinal Pell and the Burden of Proof Peter West

The conviction of the guilty is just; it is the unremarkable business of a just criminal jurisprudence; but the conviction of the innocent strikes at the heart of justice. If it happens through error or negligence, it is bad enough; when it happens by design, it is an abomination that corrodes trust in the law itself.

Maimonides in the 12th century, in this commentary on Exodus 23:7 (Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked) concluded, “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way.”

Practical men, especially those who reasonably expect never to suffer the consequences of flawed jurisprudence, have taken a more pragmatic view than Maimonides. So English Chief Justice John Fortesque, in 1471, revised the number drastically. “Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers to escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned.” Later still, Lord Blackstone in the late 1760s widened the scope to all crime and punishment, writing, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This last has become a fundamental maxim of common law criminal justice, generally known as Blackstone’s Ratio.

Statesmen, and the secret police, can have their own sense of the practical. Otto van Bismarck supposedly remarked that “it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape.” Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka, perpetrator of the Red Terror, head of the OGPU/NKVD, was more to the point. “Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive.” One of his successors, Nikolay Yezhov, restated his argument. “Better that ten innocent people should suffer than one spy get away.” What he meant by “suffer” was illustrated, as in the pictures below, when he fell foul of the Great Purge which he had orchestrated: he was executed in 1940.

French Philosopher: ‘Left-wing Islamism and antisemitism have a future’ One of France’s most important philosophers and a widely recognized public intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, sounded strong alarm bells over the rise of left-wing Islamism and radical antisemitism.By Benjamin Weinthal

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/French-Philosopher-Left-wing-Islamism-and-antisemitism-have-a-future-612682

“In France, it [antisemitism] is part of the extreme Left and a growing part of the population with a migration background,” he told the German magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday. “It is particularly worrying that the extreme left defends radical, antisemitic Islam for two reasons: ideologically, because for them, the Muslims are the new Jews, the disenfranchised; but also for tactical reasons, because today there are many more Muslims than Jews in France. So, left Islamism also has a future, and I’m afraid of that.”

In February, a Yellow Vests protester hurled antisemitic insults at Finkielkraut, calling him a “dirty Zionist shit” who should “go back to Tel Aviv.”

“Antisemitism is not a thing of the past, it even has a future,” Finkielkraut said. “I was actually the object of aggression with a proven antisemitic character. But I was not called ‘dirty Jew’ but ‘dirty  Zionist shit.’ The peculiarity of contemporary antisemitism is that it uses the language of anti-racism. Because of the existence of Israel, the Jews are now considered racists. ‘Filthy Jew’ – that was a morally disgraceful term. ‘Dirty racist’ – that is highly moral today.”

According to Der Spiegel, in Finkielkraut’s new autobiography, In First Person, he writes about how he and the leftist, gay philosopher Michel Foucault opposed the loathing of Israel during the 1970s.

“Michel Foucault was very attached to Israel,” Finkielkraut said. “That is forgotten today. He found the United Nations resolution which put racism and Zionism on the same level as intolerable. That was one of the reasons for the break between him and Gilles Deleuze, the other great philosopher of the era. The left-wing intellectuals around Deleuze were just beginning to demonize the State of Israel beyond legitimate criticism of Israeli politics. It occurred to me as much as to Foucault.”