Iran Ramps up Tensions in the Arabian Gulf While Obama continues to appease. September 2, 2016 Ari Lieberman

On Monday, the Iranian propaganda outlet, Tasnim, reported that Iranian anti-aircraft crews succeeded in detecting and warding off a U.S. spy drone that strayed into Iranian airspace from neighboring Afghanistan. If true, it would mark yet another US-Iranian clash in the region. Though the instant confrontation was relatively minor and did not result in injury or damage, it is demonstrative of the more aggressive and assertive tone the Iranian military is taking with respect to its dealings with the United States and the region since the signing of Obama’s much touted Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the plan that provides the Islamic Republic with a legal pathway toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

According to a U.S. defense official, U.S. and Iranian naval vessels interacted on at least 300 occasions in 2015 and on more than 250 occasions this year alone. Many of those encounters were relatively benign but some were the result of egregious Iranian provocations.

In December of 2015, Iranian navy boats fired rockets within 1,500 feet of aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman. On January 12, 2016, an Iranian drone flew uncomfortably close to the Harry S. Truman. A U.S. Navy spokesman called the flyover “abnormal and unprofessional.” The Navy could have easily downed the drone but inexplicably chose not to. Such an action would have sent the Iranians the proper message without causing loss of life but the drone was nevertheless allowed to conduct its surveillance unmolested.

The very day that the drone was shadowing U.S. naval forces, the Iranians seized 10 American navy personnel and two Riverine Command Boats near Farsi Island in the Arabian Gulf. The RCB is heavily armed and armored but despite overwhelming firepower, the RCB crews humiliatingly surrendered to the Iranians without firing a shot. The crew and its commander displayed an abject lack of fighting spirit. A Pentagon investigation revealed that there were morale and training problems as well as a number of human errors that led to the shameful fiasco. Several officers were reprimanded and relieved of command as a result.

Thornton: We Citizens Have to Guard the Media ‘Guardians’ Mainstream media journalists rationalize their war on Trump. Bruce Thornton

The mainstream media’s lopsided coverage of the presidential campaign has gotten so blatantly anti-Trump and pro-Hillary that even some progressives are starting to notice. The New York Times’ media reporter Jim Rutenberg last month had a front-page column slyly justifying the bias by a clever use of rhetorical questions: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Rutenberg’s dubious implication is that Trump is so outrageously unprecedented and dangerous a candidate in American history that he can’t be covered objectively. “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.” But Rutenberg says he rues this development, for it compromises “that idealistic form of journalism with a capital ‘J’ we’ve been trained to always strive for.”

Say what? Was it an “idealistic form of journalism” when the media carried on its “slobbering love affair,” as Bernie Goldberg put it, with Barack Obama in 2008? Where were the intrepid “guardians” of the public weal when the media ignored the gaps in Obama’s history, his fabrications in his memoirs, and his associations with the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres? Or when Journolist, an online discussion group of journalists and activists, colluded to downplay these unpleasant facts and coordinate negative coverage of the Republicans?

Or how about CNN Political Correspondent Candy Crowley in the 2012 presidential debate, violating every canon of professional objectivity when she intruded herself into the debate in Obama’s favor by backing up his false claim that he had called the Benghazi attacks an act of terror? And don’t forget Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who recently wrote in Time magazine, “Like it or not, this election is a plebiscite on the most divisive, polarizing and disrupting figure in American politics in decades. And neutrality is not an option.” Or CNN calling “false,” without any evidence, AP’s story that more than half of Hillary’s non-governmental meetings while Secretary of State were with donors to her foundation. Are these examples of “idealistic” journalism?

Despite all this contrary evidence, Rutenberg recycles one of the progressive media’s most cherished self-justifying myths, that there really is an “objective” journalism they supposedly practice. Such a notion has seldom existed in American history, and has especially been scarce since the 1960s, when activist journalism came out of the closet with its ideological coverage of Vietnam and then Watergate, all perfumed with the spurious claim to journalistic integrity and public service.

The truth is, journalism has been a form of political activism long before Jim Rutenberg noticed. Orville Schell, dean of the prestigious UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism from 1996-2006, was not shy about embracing this role for journalism: “In a democracy,” Schell wrote over a decade ago, “indeed in any intelligent society, the media and politicians have to lead. The media should be introducing us to new things, interesting things, things we don’t already know about; helping us change our minds or make up our minds, not just pandering to lowest-denominator wisdom.”

Who is Responsible under International Law for the New Gaza Wars? by Louis René Beres

Recurrent Hamas rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants are terrorism. Such terrorism — all terrorism, irrespective of so-called “just cause” — represents a distinct crime under international law.

When Palestinian terrorism reflects populations that enthusiastically support terror attacks, and where the terrorists can find hospitable refuge among local populations, the legal responsibility for all ensuing counterterrorist harms lies with the perpetrators.

Under international law, which also happens to be part of the law of the United States, all Palestinian terrorists are hostes humani generis: “Common enemies of humankind.”

Hamas’ lack of distinction between “Jews” and “Israelis” is intentional. For Hamas, the true enemy is identifiable by religion, not territory, and is therefore irremediable. For “the Jews,” this means that the only way to avoid Arab terror is to disappear, or submit to Islamic control — to become persecuted, second-class dhimmi citizens in their own country, just as the indigenous Christians are now in Egypt and much of the Middle East.

“The safety of the People Shall be the highest law.” — Cicero, The Laws.

It is beginning again. As Hamas terrorists are attacking Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire, most recently in the southern city of Sderot, Israeli self-defense reactions are already being labeled “excessive” and “disproportionate.” As usual, international public opinion is quickly, if bizarrely, mobilizing against Israel’s underlying supposed “occupation” of Jews living in their own Biblical land.

But what of the facts? In Gaza, since 2005 at least, when every last Jew left, there has been no “occupation.” There are no Israelis in Gaza.

Systematic Hamas misrepresentations get progressively worse.

Any such blame, however, has no basis in law. Regarding “proportionality,” the actual legal requirement of proportionality contained in international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) has nothing to do with how many unfortunate deaths there might be on either side. Proportionality has nothing to do with each side incurring an equivalent number of deaths.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2006 published an open letter containing his findings. Included was this section on proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

Former UCLA student president leaves school over pro-BDS harassment

Milan Chatterjee, the former president of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Graduate Students Association and third-year law student, informed UCLA that he would be leaving the school due to a “hostile and unsafe campus climate” fostered by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) groups.

“It’s really unfortunate,” Chatterjee told the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. “I love UCLA, I think it’s a great school and I have a lot of friends there. It has just become so hostile and unsafe I can’t stay there anymore.”

While he was student president, Chatterjee, who is Indian-American and a Hindu, made the distribution of funds from the Graduate Students Association (GSA) for a school diversity event contingent on its sponsors not being associated with the BDS movement.

This move brought protests from BDS supporters, and a June 2016 investigation by the UCLA Discrimination Prevention Office (DPO) concluded that Chatterjee violated school policy requiring a neutral viewpoint on the distribution of funds.

In a statement, UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez expressed disappointment over Chatterjee’s decision to leave but stood by the DPO’s judgement.

“Although we regret learning that Milan Chatterjee has chosen to finish his legal education at a different institution, UCLA firmly stands by its thorough and impartial investigation, which found that Chatterjee violated the university’s viewpoint neutrality policy,” the Aug. 31 statement read.

GLOBALISM AND THE END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM: MICHAEL CUTLER

On August 22, 2016, U.S. News & World Report published the sobering article, “Dream On: Growing inequality has made the American ‘rags to riches’ story more myth than reality.”

While the Labor Department boasts about an unemployment rate of approximately 5 percent, the reality is that the statistic ignores the plight of tens of millions of working age Americans who have given up looking for work and are therefore not a part of the labor force.

Furthermore, that 5 percent unemployment figure does not note how many American workers are underemployed or working at part-time jobs.

The original concept of the “American Dream” depended on the growing middle-class where anyone who was willing to acquire a good education and work hard might write the next “American success story.”

Prior to World War II, the immigration laws of the United States were enforced by the Labor Department and were designed to shield American workers from foreign competition. The politicians of “The Greatest Generation” understood that for America to succeed, Americans needed to succeed.

Back then, major U.S. corporations saw in American school children their future employees and made certain to provide scholarships and training programs to entice American students to pursue studies in what is now referred to as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines.

Today, most major corporations have morphed into multinational companies that no longer say a “Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and to the republic for which it stands…” but to the bottom line.

The result has been to make it more difficult for American workers to move up the economic ladder to attain their thin slice of “The American Dream.”

This is not limited to unskilled and semi-skilled workers either.

From matzo balls to footballs, two Jewish brothers recall their journey to the NFL By Victor Wishna

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (JTA) – At 6-foot-6 and 340 pounds, veteran NFL
offensive lineman Geoff Schwartz isn’t just a force of nature, but a
product of good ol’ Jewish nurture.

“My size comes from a childhood that included an excess of matzo ball
soup, latkes, and tons of white rice,” the 30-year-old jokes. “But of
course my brother’s similar physique suggests that genetics had plenty
to do with it.”

That would be his (only relatively) little brother, Mitch, 27, the
Kansas City Chiefs’ newest starting right tackle, who stands 6-foot-5
and weighs in at 320 pounds.

As it happens, Geoff and Mitch Schwartz aren’t the first pair of
Jewish brothers to play in the National Football League — they’re just
the first to do so since 1923.

“Once we heard the stat, we realized just how rare this really is,”
said Mitch, standing at the edge of the Chief’s indoor practice field
after morning drills. “So we both thought it was important to share
our story — for Jewish kids, and in general, about how we both wound
up where we are.”

Indeed, the story of how two nice Jewish boys grew up to be a couple
of “hogs” (an endearing and decidedly non-kosher nickname for
offensive linemen) could fill a book.

Now it does.

RUTHIE BLUM: KERRY’S RUFFLED FEATHERS

Kerry’s ruffled ostrich feathers

You’ve got to hand it to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for being consistent when it comes to his view of global terrorism. In Bangladesh on Monday, he reiterated his position to members of the press.

“Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much,” he said at a briefing at the Edward M. Kennedy Center in Dhaka. This way, he explained, “People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

This was Kerry’s clumsy way of acknowledging that though the phenomenon exists, its individual perpetrators — who “decide one day … to be … terrorists and [are] willing to kill [themselves], and go out and kill some people, [in order to] make some noise” — should not be given a spotlight. Indeed, he said, “no country is immune” from the phenomenon, because “it’s easy to terrorize.”

In other words, since suicide bombers who slaughter innocent people are a dime a dozen, the best way to burst their publicity-seeking bubbles is to ignore them. Especially when there are more pressing matters to tackle, chief among them the weather. Yes, in the eyes of America’s top diplomat, climate change is what ought to be concerning the global community, and tackling it requires everyone’s undivided attention.

In June, Kerry went as far as to say that refrigerators and air conditioners are a threat on a par with mass murder. In Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons in household appliances, he announced, “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we … are doing here right now is of equal importance [to Islamic State and other terrorist groups], because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

Muslim Terrorists and Jewish Anti-Semites Against Trump Moderate Saudi businessmen who fund terror warn of Trump’s “extremism.” September 2, 2016 Daniel Greenfield

“I was often the ‘designated yeller.’”

That’s how Hillary Clinton described her relationship with the Israeli prime minister. Yelling and cursing was her particular specialty.

One marathon Hillary yelling session allegedly lasted 45 minutes. Afterward the Israeli ambassador said that relations between the United States and Israel had reached their lowest point.

Her favorite name for Netanyahu was, “F____ Bibi.”

But it wasn’t just about her hatred of any particular Israeli leader. The same year that Hillary was yelling herself hoarse at a man who had fought terrorists on the battlefield, she addressed the American Task Force on Palestine, a leading terror lobby, and blasted Israel and praised Islamic terrorists.

Hillary told the terror lobby, “I may have been the first person ever associated with an American administration to call for a Palestinian state.” She praised Mahmoud Abbas, the PA terror dictator who had boasted, “There is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.”

She celebrated Naomi Shihab Nye who had written of the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities, “Oppression makes people do desperate things.” Echoing her, Hillary denounced the “indignity of occupation”. A few years later she accused Israelis of a lack of “empathy” in understanding “the pain of an oppressed people”.

Perhaps they were too busy mourning their dead to emphasize with the terrorists who were killing them.

But fighting for her political life, Hillary and Huma dug through her closet and threw on a blue and white pantsuit. Her campaign placed an editorial in the Forward headlined, “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Probably by yelling “F___ Bibi” at him for another 45 minutes.

When Hillary Clinton promised to reaffirm her “Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu” it was in the pages of The Forward. And, striving to sell a rotten radical to skeptical Jews, the left-wing paper has decided to run a piece claiming that “Trump Would Be Israel’s Worst Nightmare”. As if anyone in Israel goes to bed dreaming of eight years of Hillary.

The Forward shares Hillary’s view of Netanyahu. And it violently loathes Israel.

Monsieur Millière Warns The West: “France is completely lost … Political correctness works” (video)

One of my friends who was a survivor of Auschwitz said to me: “The people who were pessimistic survived. The people who were optimistic died.”…

France is completely lost ….

The French press lie all the time…. The media is largely in the hands of the Left….

The French don’t know how to fight but they do know something: preemptive surrender….

Muslims use two tools to conquer Europe. First, attacks. Second, “Dawah”: invitation to submit to Islam….

Political correctness works …

The Left and Islam have something in common: they want to destroy Western civilisation…. Islam is a totalitarian political movement. … Islam is fighting a war against the West, against freedom…. I am here [the USA, to which he emigrated two months ago] because I want to win…. We have to choose strength.’The speaker is a French philosemitic pro-Israel intellectual, Guy Millière, about whom I have blogged before.

By “political correctness” he means the leftist-driven outrage against “Islamophobia” which has ensured that virtually nothing critical of islamifiction or of the current suicidal madness engulfing Europe gets published in book form, whereas there are now books a-plenty advocating for the Muslim-abundant Europe we are witnessing, from the jihadist aspects of which French elites seem to think France can be immune through the emergence a “friendly” sui generis French Islam.

This video (hat tip Vlad Tepes blog) shows his speech at last month’s “Can Israel Co-Exist With The West?” conference in America.

State Dept. Denies Iran Got Secret Exemptions to Push Nuclear Deal Along By Bridget Johnson

A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the State Department should turn over all materials related to allegations in a new think-tank report charging that Iran got secret exemptions in the nuclear deal to get the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action completed on schedule.

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security report said “some nuclear stocks and facilities were not in accordance with JCPOA limits on Implementation Day, but in anticipation the Joint Commission had earlier and secretly exempted them from the JCPOA limits.”

“The exemptions and in one case, a loophole, involved the low enriched uranium (LEU) cap of 300 kilograms (kg), some of the near 20 percent LEU, the heavy water cap, and the number of large hot cells allowed to remain in Iran. One senior knowledgeable official stated that if the Joint Commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the JCPOA by Implementation Day,” wrote authors David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and Andrea Stricker.

They added that the “secretive decision making process risks advantaging Iran by allowing it to try to systematically weaken the JCPOA. It appears to be succeeding in several key areas.”

“Given the technical complexity and public importance of the various JCPOA exemptions and loopholes, the administration’s policy to maintain secrecy interferes in the process of establishing adequate Congressional and public oversight of the JCPOA. This is particularly true concerning potentially agreement-weakening decisions by the Joint Commission. As a matter of policy, the United States should agree to any exemptions or loopholes in the JCPOA only if the decisions are simultaneously made public.”

The institute has remained neutral on whether or not the nuclear deal should have been implemented.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) called the revelations “yet another example of the administration’s false choice it presented to the American people in selling the flawed Iranian deal that provides the mullahs a patient pathway to the bomb.”

“The American public deserves answers from the administration, and I expect the State Department to release all relevant materials and to fully explain these allegations,” Gardner added.

State Department press secretary John Kirby told reporters today there was no loosening of the low-enriched uranium stockpile rule, insisting it “hasn’t changed; they’ve not exceeded that limit.”

“As many of you know, it’s written right in the JCPOA, which established the Joint Commission, that the work of the Joint Commission would be confidential,” Kirby said. “Unless the Joint Commission decided otherwise, and it’s right there in the JCPOA itself. And it’s designed that way.”

“…I also would assert that the Joint Commission has not and will not loosen any of the commitments and has not provide any exceptions that would allow Iran to retain or process material in excess of its JCPOA limits that it could use in a breakout scenario.”

Kirby said Congress “has been kept informed” of the commission’s work.