.png)
.png)
.png)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ABC propagandist taken over the coals by Mark levin.Kamala just one big liar who is being allowed to avoid interviews etc.
Israel is on it's own after billions of dollars flow to Iran.
Trump had Iran flat on their financial back. Biden and Kamala brought them back.
The more the merrier.
+++
Should Haniyah have been killed?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
1
Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. In case of abuse,
Report this post.
Yesterday, one of my readers asked me if I thought that the Tehran killing of Ismail Haniyah, the political head of Hamas, was justified or not?
Israel, of course, has not affirmed or denied responsibility, but either way the question begs more than a yes or no answer.
Many moons ago when I was a young officer in the US Army, at a military strategy course at Fort Gordon, Georgia (now renamed Fort Eisenhower given Gordon’s Confederate history) the instructor was very clear that an army never kills the leadership of the enemy. The logic is that at the end of the war when it is time to sign the documents of surrender, the leadership has to be alive so it can participate in that “ceremony” and the population of the defeated country will then accept that decision.
So, it was on September 2, 1945 on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo harbor, that the political leadership of Japan, properly attired in morning suits, met with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the US allies to sign the protocols of surrender.
But what if an individual person in the political leadership of a country is, himself or herself, individually responsible for the planning of the death and destruction of thousands of people, and whose own hands have blood on them. And what if that person represents an entity that continues to hold hostages, continues to wage war and continually changes the terms of a negotiated settlement so that a ceasefire becomes virtually impossible to achieve?
That clearly describes Haniyah. Of course, there are those who say there are elements in the description that fit Prime Minister Netanyahu as well, specifically the lack of consistency regarding the terms of a settlement. I offer no personal opinion on that here, but the situation with Bibi is completely different. He is the democratically elected head of government of a legitimate state, a member of the UN and recognized by the entire world except for some of our traditional enemies. So we can disagree with his decisions, but he certainly has the right to make them.
Finally, what if the person in question is not the head of the political leadership of a country, but rather part of a terrorist group that leads a rogue state not internationally recognized and even publicly committed to the destruction of Israel and the elimination of our existence in this land? Doesn’t that remove the protection that would normally be provided by accepted military strategy?
Looking at all of these “facts” and few of them are in dispute, the informed conclusion must be that if you can eliminate someone who heads an organization whose stated aim is to eliminate your presence on this earth, then it could be justified to kill him before he kills more of you.
So, was it justified? It probably was. Was it wise to do it at a location in another sovereign country whose aim is also to eliminate us from this region? One could argue that as well. However, Israel announced clearly right after the massacre of October 7th, that those responsible for planning that event were walking dead men. Therefore, if Israel was responsible for the killing of Haniyah, it was simply exacting the price for his being responsible, along with others, for planning the massacre of over 1,200 of our people and the taking of over 250 hostages as well, half of whom remain in captivity.
Given that, we need to be grateful that one less enemy of our people is no longer around to do his dastardly work. And we can say, may his memory be blotted out for all time.
++++
The Green Shawdow knows,
+++
What Will Iran Do Next?
by Jonathan Spyer The Spectator
Following the killings of Hezbollah's Fuad Shukr and Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh, Israel and the Middle East are poised and waiting for the next move. The two killings represent a significant humiliation for the Iran-led regional axis, which until this point had been projecting a sense of achievement and satisfaction.
The October 7 massacres and the subsequent war may not have come at the express order or at the precise time wanted by the regime in Tehran. But events have proceeded largely in a way satisfactory to it. Israel appeared to be isolating itself diplomatically, unable to deliver a deathblow to Hamas in Gaza and caught in a contradiction between its twin aims of freeing hostages and destroying the Islamist entity in Gaza. All this seemed to confirm that the Iranian strategy of seeding proxy armies on the Jewish state's borders and then using them to bleed Israel to death was working.
The most dramatic and kinetic option for Tehran would be a joint missile and drone attack involving both Iranian and proxy forces from various points in the region.
The deaths of Haniyeh and Shukr do not reverse this picture entirely, of course. But they do return focus to that part of the picture most advantageous to Israel, and most uncomfortable to Iran. Namely, that while Tehran may be without peer when it comes to building and managing proxy military and political forces, in areas of conventional military and intelligence activity and special operations, it is very much the inferior. The attacks in Beirut and Tehran demonstrate that Israel has penetrated the security structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (ITGC) and its most powerful proxy to their inner core. They leave Iran in danger of appearing hapless and flailing. For this reason, the attacks have provoked fury among the regime's most committed defenders, and a desire for swift retribution.
'Revenge must be harsh, crippling and without further ado,' thundered Kayhan, main organ of the hard line 'principalist' stream within the regime. The paper's editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – who himself promised 'harsh punishment' for Israel. The New York Times reported that Khamenei has ordered a 'direct strike' on Israel in response to the killing of Haniyeh on Iranian soil.
Such a strike could take various forms. The most dramatic and kinetic option for Tehran would be a joint missile and drone attack involving both Iranian and proxy forces from various points in the region. It is worth noting that the attacks on April 13 following Israel's killing of IRGC general Mohammed Reza Zahedi did not involve proxy forces and were conducted by Iranian state assets alone. But Tehran's proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria have all struck at Israel in the course of the current conflict. A coordinated attack would represent Iran's maximum response. It is the option most likely to open the door to all out regional war.
A third option would be a targeted strike on a prestige Israeli target, such as a senior official. This would constitute a direct, symmetrical response to the killing of Haniyeh.
A second option would be an attack involving one or another of the proxies alone, or a combination of them. The Iranian dilemma here would be that such an attack might not be perceived as a sufficiently severe response to even the score for the strike on Tehran.
A third option would be a targeted strike on a prestige Israeli target, such as a senior official. This would constitute a direct, symmetrical response to the killing of Haniyeh. Until now, however, Iran has not demonstrated the pinpoint intelligence capacities that alone would make such an operation feasible.
Finally, Iran could leave the issue of vengeance to Hamas itself. It was, after all, a leader of that movement who was Israel's target. Given the current parlous state of Hamas's capabilities, however, this option appears unlikely.
It is important to bear in mind that the killing of Fuad Shukr in Beirut opens up a separate account between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah. Until now, Hezbollah had made clear that its current engagement against Israel constituted a 'support front' for Hamas in Gaza, which would be closed down on the achievement of a ceasefire in Gaza. The loss of Shukr in the Lebanese capital introduces a new calculus for Hezbollah, since cessation of fire without retribution for the killing of this senior military official again runs the risk of projecting weakness.
Should the Iranians now, prematurely from their point of view, provoke a ruinous regional war, they would stand to face extensive damage and destruction.
For both the Iranians and their Lebanese proxy, the main dilemma lies in assessing Israeli aims. Specifically, is Israel prepared to up the ante to the point of regional war in the event of a large scale Iranian and proxy counter attack? Or would the restrictions imposed by the current Gaza conflict –and by the US desire to avoid such a conflagration – force it to absorb such an attack?
The Iranians need to consider carefully. They have had a decade and a half of uninterrupted success, extending their reach to Iraq, Syria and Yemen, coming close to a nuclear capacity. Should they now, prematurely from their point of view, provoke a ruinous regional war, they would stand to face extensive damage and destruction. The US doesn't want Israel to further escalate, but it would be likely to assist Jerusalem in the face of large scale, sustained attack.
Which option will Tehran choose? We will know soon. In Jerusalem, the municipality just issued a list of public shelters, along with a laconic statement advising the city's residents to stock enough water and food for three days.
Jonathan Spyer is director of research at the Middle East Forum and author of Days of the Fall: A Reporter's Journey in the Syria and Iraq Wars (2018).
++++
How Trump Can Win—or Lose—the Election Moving forward, Donald Trump needs to focus his attack on the disastrous Biden governance of the last four years. Make Harris own it. And contrast it with 2017-21 and what will follow in 2025. By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted By Ruth King
++++
Looney Clooney is dangerous:
+++
Hollywood Mirage
How George Clooney plans to make Kamala Harris president despite everything her party has gone through - and why that should worry Americans. Op-Ed.
Dr. Joseph Frager
When George Clooney publicly called for President Biden to drop out of the race for President, he had a plan in mind. It was simple. Make the Vice President-Kamala Harris the candidate and let Hollywood do the rest. He knew fully well that there was 231 million dollars waiting in the wings from his cronies for her campaign.
It was originally intended for President Biden but it was held up because of his poor debate performance and the very real prospect that he was going to lose and bring everyone down with him. As George Clooney wrote in his New York Times op ed , “We are not going to win in November with this President. On top of that we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate.” Hollywood was in dire straits. It pushed for Vice President Kamala Harris who was well known to the California community to replace President Biden as the candidate.
The fact that she was described by New York Times reporters who surveyed Democratic views of her in less than glowing terms did not matter. They reported ,”The painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill and around the nation-including some who helped put her on the party’s 2020 ticket -said she had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country. Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.”
Hollywood was not worried. This was right up their alley. The Presidential makeover was possible. Pour in the campaign cash, bring in the A-listers, and build the hype through the vast network of media that Hollywood was famous for. This would not be any different than any movie set. It would just be another Big Screen Production. Kamala Harris would be just another Hollywood mirage.
It did not matter that she had a voting record left of the self proclaimed socialist Bernie Saunders or that as “Border Czar” she allowed over ten million illegals to enter America or that inflation has soared to the point people are having difficulty putting bread on the table. Hollywood could change the thinking of Americans.
Unfortunately America has suffered greatly by Hollywood’s mind games. Family life has been tormented, morality has been shaken, delusion has replaced reality. Kamala Harris on the domestic front has been one of the reasons crime is taking over Big Cities. On the foreign policy front China will not hesitate to invade Taiwan if Kamala Harris is President. Israel will fear for its very existence and Iran will make not one but many nuclear bombs. I pray and hope that Americans can see through the Hollywood mirage and recognize who the real Kamala Harris is.
++++
.png)
HARRIS BLOWS ANOTHER ONE
+++
Harris and the First Amendment
The Supreme Court rebuked her use of lawfare in California.
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
A Plea Deal for the 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
We keep looking for an issue, any issue, on which Kamala Harris differs with the Democratic left, but we keep coming up empty. That includes her party’s use of lawfare against political opponents, as an episode while she was California Attorney General reminds us.
Ms. Harris made headlines a decade ago by threatening to punish nonprofit groups that refused to turn over unredacted donor information. She demanded they hand to the state their federal IRS Form 990 Schedule B in the name of discovering “self dealing” or “improper loans.” The real purpose was to learn the names of conservative donors and chill future political giving—that is, political speech.
Her bullying came amid the Internal Revenue Service’s notorious targeting of conservative nonprofits; Wisconsin’s probe of GOP donors; Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s intimidation of donors to the American Legislative Exchange Council; and a campaign of harassment against donors who supported California’s Prop 8 (which banned same-sex marriage).
Free-market nonprofits challenged the Harris dragnet, suing the AG’s office in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021, the High Court ruled 6-3 that the AG’s disclosure demand broke the law. The Court pointed out that a lower court had found not “a single, concrete instance in which pre-investigation collection of a Schedule B did anything to advance the Attorney General’s investigative, regulatory or enforcement efforts.”
The Court said California’s claim that it would protect donor information lacked credibility, since during the litigation plaintiffs discovered nearly 2,000 Schedule B forms “inadvertently posted to the Attorney General’s website.” It noted that the petitioners and donors faced “threats” and “retaliation.”
The Supreme Court said Ms. Harris’s policy posed a risk of chilling free-speech rights, and it cited its 1958 NAACP v. Alabama precedent, which protected First Amendment “associational” rights. Ms. Harris is citing her experience as state AG as a political asset, but the Bonta case is a warning to voters that she’s willing to use the law as a weapon against political opponents.
++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment