Some people cannot win because of their negativism:
Trump, this is a story to think about as Democrats are doing their best to rain on your parade…
A woman was at her hairdresser's getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband...
She mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded: “Rome? Why would anyone want to go there? It's crowded and dirty. You're crazy to go to Rome.
So, how are you getting there?" "We're taking Continental," was the reply. "We got a great rate!"
"Continental?" exclaimed the hairdresser. "That's a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they're always late.
So, where are you staying in Rome?" We'll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome's Tiber River called Teste." "Don't go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks it’s going to be something special and exclusive, but it's really a dump
"We're going to go to see the Vatican and maybe get to see the Pope.""That's rich," laughed the hairdresser. "You and a million other people trying to see him. He'll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You're going to need it."
A month later, the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome. "It was wonderful," explained the woman, "not only were we on time in one of Continental's brand new planes, but it was overbooked, and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot...
And the hotel was great! They'd just finished a $5 million remodeling job, and now it's a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They, too, were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner's suite at no extra charge!"
"Well," muttered the hairdresser,”that's all well and good, but I know you didn't get to see the Pope"
"Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder, and explained that the likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I'd be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet me. Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me...”
"Oh, really! What'd he say?" He said: "Who fucked up your hair?"
And then:
Palestinian Pay for Slay video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will Iran ultimately control Syria? (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Los Angeles has become a sanctuary for fleas? Los Angeles Is Dealing With A Deadly, Flea-Borne Typhus Outbreak
By EMily ZANOTTI
The city of Los Angeles is suffering from an outbreak of a "middle ages" and "pioneer days" disease —typhus — typically found in homeless populations. (edited.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A family member sent me an op ed about the fact Trump has failed to
fill well over 1000 positions in government and the author argues it is causing legislative havoc and is resulting in serious legal issues.
Then yesterday, someone on Trump's staff leaked information about how Trump spends his day in front of a TV set avoiding intelligence meetings and probably reading newspapers and tweeting while sitting on the toilet.
If this is the consequence of filling positions, Trump and the nation are better off if staffing positions go unfilled. Think of all the money we are saving in unnecessary salaries. After all we already know less government, less growth in government is a positive. We should have learned that from the recent closing.
Once again, the mass media do not understand the genesis of Trump's support.. The nation is not all those who live in 4 cities, ie. San Fran, Los Angeles, New York and DC, nor do they realize how middle Americans have been turned off not only by mass media bias and piling but also by the continuous comments that have emanated from the mouths of Obama, Pelosi and Clinton starting with "you can keep your doctor, then " we have to pass it to see what is in it, followed by " Middle Americans are "deplorable's," and finally, let 'em eat "crumbs" and "walls are immoral."
These "deplorable's" are offended by the fact they are no longer considered part of America's fabric. They feel their citizenship status has been placed below illegal immigrants. They have been made to feel they no longer count by Democrats who have allowed blue collar workers to be embraced by Republicans.
They bank on Trump's crudeness and boorishness will overcome their own stupidity but It ain't gonna work. We "deplorables" are not stupid, we do not embrace the values of the "Hollywood" crowd and we resent being disparaged. Democrats have denigrated hard work, personal responsibility, those of faith and other American values that make up the character of "deplorable's" and then they think we are going to vote for them?
Democrats also believe polls that indicate educated urban women are turned off by Trump's crudeness because they attended elite colleges where they learned to find fault with America and Capitalism. A lot of these educated urban women are conflicted by their view of Trump the man but like Trump the president who is accomplishing everything they find favorable, ie. an economy that is no longer strangled by Obama's policies, an America that is no longer willing to allow our"allies" to take advantage of us and an America that does need to be protected from illegal immigration etc.
Trump has a lot of warts when it comes to how he handles himself, says things he could say in a softer manner but he also is a pragmatic doer, is willing to touch third rails to move us forward in areas that have been foot balled by Congress and his predecessors for decades. He is trying to "Make America Great Again" and this is not being picked up by the mass media "cocooners" because they remain blinded by their hatred, intellectual elitism and laziness. The mass media have become irrelevant yet, do not understand because they remain well paid for their declining importance.
At some point, radical Democrat candidates, who have already announced, are also going to find their extreme policies lack appeal, are not based on logic and actually offend. Why? Because they make no sense and will come to be seen as simply another effort to insult those who feel comfortable considering themselves "deplorable's."
Another appeal I believe the mass media is missing is Trump is not an ideologue, nor is he a traditional Republican. Voters are turned off by traditional politicians and they do not see Trump as one. In fact they realize some of his problems are directly connected to the fact that he is a businessman having to contend with politicians who have failed their constituents. The more Democrats resort to road blocks when Trump is willing to meet and negotiate with them, this is not viewed as endearing and Pelosi is beginning to symbolize the recalcitrant view.
She is a crafty politician and I believe this will ultimately be her undoing.
The election is a long way off but if the current political trends continue and pick up pace, I suspect Trump will be re-elected and the Democrats will have themselves to blame because they have become out of touch. They no longer align with America. They have fallen in love with their radical remake which is a reflective manifestation of their hatred for Trump and rejection of "old" America.
Finally, Democrats are so caught up in "identity" politics, diversity issues, underdog mentality, playing hypocritical race cards, re-defining who humans are and now a narrow version of fratricide etc. they have trapped themselves in un-winnable issue positions fraught with dangers as evidenced by the Virginia governor mess.
I always say it is dangerous when you come to believe you can drink your own bath water. Democrats are beginning to drown in theirs.
The counter argument to a Trump victory in 2020 goes somewhat like this:
a) Voter demographics favor Democrats as whites become the minority. The millennial's, non-whites, Hispanics and educated urban women will cast with the left wingers because of cultural issues as economics becomes a less compelling reason for voting.b) Trump is a flash in the pan and his coat tails are not long enough to define a new coalition and lasting voting trend.
c) The 2018 election results demonstrated the fact that Trump's personality turned off many who voted for him because their's was more a protest vote against Hillary.
And:
WAPO talks the talk but does not walk the walk. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Israel and the death of bi-partisanship and the rise of Democrat hypocrisy. (See 3 and 3a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Were Trump and Bolton "fragged" by Trump's own intelligence appointees? Seems they were. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
1) How Tehran Plans to Control Syria
Recent statements by a number of Israeli officials have claimed a degree of success in Israel's efforts to contain and roll back Iran's entrenchment in Syria. But while Israel's tactical successes are certainly notable and impressive, the big picture is that Iran's influence and strength in Syria continues to deepen and expand.
Iran's efforts are taking place at three levels: below the official Syrian state structures – in the arming and sponsoring of Iran-controlled paramilitary formations on Syria soil, within the Syrian state – in the control of institutions that are officially organs of the regime, and above the state, in the pursuit of formal links between the Iranian and Syrian regimes. As Tehran seeks to impose its influence on Assad's Syria in the emergent post-rebellion period, meanwhile, there are indications that its project is running up against the rival plans and ambitions of the Russians.
A report by the generally reliable Syrian Observatory for Human Rights this week described in detail the nature of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps's efforts to entrench its presence in a single, significant Syrian town: al-Mayadin, west of the strategically important Albukamal border crossing between Iraq and Syria, and just west of the Euphrates River.
The Observatory described extensive recruitment of local Syrians, including individuals who were formerly involved with the armed opposition, into the ranks of Iran's various paramilitary "Syrian Hezbollah" type structures that have been established in Syria. The report noted that the incentives given to entice individuals into these structures included a monthly salary of between $150-300, allowing individuals a variety of options as to where they wish to serve, and immunity from arrest at the hands of regime security forces.
The report also noted that the IRGC and Lebanese Hezbollah have positioned themselves in key areas of al-Mayadin, and are maintaining exclusive control of these areas (i.e., without cooperation with, or permission sought from, the forces of the Assad regime).
Among a number of specific examples quoted in this regard, "Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards took over the al-Nurain Mosque and houses around it on Korniche Street in the city, where they prevented civilians, members of regime forces, and NDF from entering or passing through the area, without orders from the command forces located in al-Mayadin," while "members of the Lebanese Hezbollah took over the area extending from al-Finsh junction to Al Shuaibi Villa at al-Arba'in Street in al-Mayadin city, and prevented entry and exit except by orders of them."
Control of al-Mayadin and its environs matters because it is located along Highway 4, which is the only road leading out of the Albukamal border crossing, which is currently controlled by the IRGC and its allies. From al-Mayadin, Route 4 reaches Deir al-Zor, where it connects to the M20 highway, which heads west in the direction of Damascus, or, if a traveler prefers, toward al-Qusayr and the Lebanese border.
That is, the specific example of al-Mayadin shows the means by which Iran seeks to maintain exclusive control along vital nodes in Syria, for the passage of personnel and matériel, in the direction of its allies in Lebanon or its enemies in Israel, according to the needs of the moment.
The activities of the IRGC on the ground in such locations as al-Mayadin go hand in hand with the more conventional, regime-to-regime relations that Tehran maintains with Assad in Damascus.
This week, for example, Iranian Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri was in Syria, where he signed a number of economic agreements and met with Assad. The agreements, 11 in number, together offer a road map for long-term strategic economic cooperation between Iran and Syria. They cover a variety of areas, including "education, housing, public works, railroads and investments," according to a report by the Syrian Arab News Agency, the regime's official media outlet.
Jahangiri's visit was the latest indication of concerted Iranian efforts to secure a major role in the massive project of reconstruction within the 60% of Syria currently controlled by the regime. The UN estimates the cost of reconstruction in war-torn Syria at around $400 billion. Earlier landmarks in this process include a military cooperation agreement concluded in August 2018, a 2017 memorandum of understanding for the extraction of phosphates from the al-Sharqiya mine southwest of Palmyra (one of the largest such mines in Syria), and an MOU for the restoration by Iran of over 2000 MW of electrical power production capacity.
There is even a putative plan for an Iran-Syria rail link, to run from the Shalamcheh border crossing between Iran and Iraq, via Basra in southern Iraq and eventually to Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast. Such projects are more in the line of visions at present. But they demonstrate the depth and scope of Iran's plans for the area between its western borders and the Mediterranean.
A THIRD element in the Iranian ambition lies within the structures of the official Syrian state. Iran has invested heavily in the creation of Basij-style paramilitary structures under its control within the Syrian security forces – such as the National Defense Forces. Evidence is now also emerging that conventional military units of the Syrian Arab Army are also identified closely with the Iranian interest. The evidence in question suggests that this is leading to fissures, as these units face off against other formations more closely allied with the Russian interest in Syria.
A report in the opposition-linked Ana Press this week, confirmed by additional Syrian sources and also reported in Der Spiegel and by the Turkish Anadolu Agency, detailed clashes on January 19 in the Hama area between Col. Soheil Hassan's 5th Corps, associated with the Russian interest, and Maher Assad's 4th Division, generally seen as closely linked to the IRGC.
According to the report, a number of fighters from both units were killed in the Sahel al-Ghab area in Hama, after a dispute about control of the area. These incidents show the extent to which the Russian and Iranian projects have the potential for collision, especially in the all-important area of control and influence within the official security structures of the Syrian state.
Taken together, all this evidence points to a deep, long-term Iranian strategic plan by which Tehran means to dominate the Syrian space in the period ahead. The blueprint being applied is clearly that which has achieved such impressive results in Lebanon, and later in Iraq. According to this approach, Iran is activating a variety of tools below, within and above the structures of the Syrian state. The intention is to achieve a level of penetration and influence that will make their ambitions invulnerable both to superior Israeli air power and intelligence, and to the opposing project for domination of Syria currently being undertaken by Russia. The results of all this remain to be seen.
Jonathan Spyer is a Middle East analyst and journalist specializing in the areas of Israel, Lebanon, Syria and broader issues of regional strategy. He is the founder and executive director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis (MECRA) and a fellow at both The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and the Middle East Forum.
1a)
New doubts about the survival of the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran emerged on Monday, as the head of the Islamic Republic’s judiciary slammed the EU for imposing “humiliating conditions” on a new trading mechanism designed to circumvent US sanctions on the Tehran regime.
1a)
Future of Iran Nuclear Deal Again in Doubt, as Tehran Regime Denounces EU’s ‘Humiliating Conditions’ for Global Trade Mechanism
By Algemeiner
New doubts about the survival of the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran emerged on Monday, as the head of the Islamic Republic’s judiciary slammed the EU for imposing “humiliating conditions” on a new trading mechanism designed to circumvent US sanctions on the Tehran regime.
Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani told a gathering of judges in Tehran on Monday that the EU was insisting on Iranian agreement with two key demands before implementing INSTEX, a special financial channel developed by France, the UK and Germany that would allow Iran to continue trading despite tough US sanctions that went into action on Nov. 1.
Announced last week with great fanfare in the Iranian official media — “Defying US, Europe Launches Payment Channel with Iran,” read one headline on state broadcaster PressTV — Iran’s leaders seemed far less enamored with INSTEX this week, after Larijani claimed the EU had set what he called “two strange conditions” for making the mechanism operational.
According to Larijani, the EU wants Iran to join the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) — an intergovernmental body established in 1989 to counter terrorism financing, money laundering and other threats to the global financial system. The FATF currently has 38 member states, the newest being Israel, which joined the body in December.
The EU also wants Iran to end its ballistic missiles tests in order to enable INSTEX, Larijani said.
“These European countries must know that the Islamic Republic of Iran will by no means accept these humiliating conditions, and will not give in to any demand in return for a small opening in the sanctions like INSTEX,” Larijani declared before the assembled judges.
Following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal last May, Iran has reluctantly remained a partner to the agreement along with France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China. Tehran has stressed that its continued adherence to the deal requires the EU to guarantee that Iran’s global trade will not be affected by US sanctions. INSTEX is the financial mechanism proposed by the EU for securing this end following several months of negotiations.
An analysis of INSTEX by the Financial Times on Monday noted that “details of how it would work are still vague,” but the arrangement appears not to allow for Iran’s participation in international financial transactions.
The FT said its central idea was “to oversee a so-called mirror image transaction system.”
“Under this model, a European fuel trader buying Iranian oil could be matched with a European manufacturer selling machinery to an Iranian company,” the FT explained. “The European oil buyer would not pay the Iranian seller but would instead send its payment to the European manufacturer. At the same time in Iran, the Iranian machinery buyer would not pay the European seller but would instead send its money to the Iranian oil seller. The system would require Iran to set up its own equivalent of INSTEX — a process that might face both logistical and political obstacles.”
Meanwhile, in a rare joint statement on Iran on Monday, the EU said that it was “gravely concerned by Iran‘s ballistic missile activity and calls upon Iran to refrain from these activities.”
“Iran continues to undertake efforts to increase the range and precision of its missiles, together with increasing the number of tests and operational launches,” the statement said. “These activities deepen mistrust and contribute to regional instability.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
If Only the Washington Post Were As Noble and Virtuous As It Claims
The Washington Post spent a good chunk of change on an ad campaign that elevates reporters to something above first responders. The hubris is amazing and the arrogance takes your breath away. It is also not true.
The Washington Post has repeatedly belittled, ignored, and otherwise attacked people, organizations, and ideas based on world view, not based on facts.
The Washington Post keeps a progressive writer as a conservative blogger, willfully ignoring conservative concerns and objections and the writer’s own history...
Read More...
Read More...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
The death of bipartisanship and Israel
When extremes dominate and both despise the center, preserving a bipartisan consensus on the Jewish state gets that much harder.
One of the constant refrains of pro-Israel activists is the need to keep support for the Jewish state a bipartisan concern, rather than something the major parties battle over. They’re right about that. But what happens when bipartisanship fails? More to the point, how is bipartisanship possible in a political environment where the center has collapsed?
That’s the question the pro-Israel community should be pondering as the 2020 presidential race gets under way.
The collapse of the center is illustrated by the reaction to former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s plans to run for president as an independent. Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and his positions on most topics are predictably liberal—from divisive social issues to foreign policy. Yet he feels that in a Democratic Party that is lurching to the left, there’s no room for a pro-business candidate in next year’s presidential primaries.
Another Jewish billionaire, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, disagrees. While he has as many millions to squander on an independent candidacy as Schultz, Bloomberg has looked at history and the way the American political system works, and not unreasonably came to the conclusion that a third party run was an exercise in futility.
Bloomberg is almost certainly right that only the nominee of the Democrats or the Republicans can be elected president, yet it’s just as hard to argue with Schultz’s conclusions about the state of the Democrats these days. Even some of the contenders who want to be thought of as less left-wing than the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are embracing some radical schemes about an expansion of entitlements that both Bloomberg and Schultz are pointing out cannot be paid for by merely soaking the rich.
Indeed, the conceit of the scenario for Schultz’s candidacy is that in a contest between a left-wing Democrat and U.S. President Donald Trump, there would be plenty of room for a candidate who sought to occupy the center of the spectrum. Yet even if that was how the 2020 race campaign out, it’s far more likely that a centrist who was running as more of a Democrat from a previous generation would ensure Trump’s re-election than to steal the race for him or herself.
In other words, even if candidates who might be perceived as not even trying to capture the middle of the political spectrum dominated the presidential race, there is still probably no room for a centrist.
While we’ll have to wait more than a year to find out who will win the Democratic nomination and how electable he or she might be, there’s one thing we do know for sure about the current state of American politics: The collapse of the center is bad for Israel.
To state that there is a problem is not to claim that support for Israel is declining in the United States. To the contrary, polls consistently show that backing for the Jewish state either on its own or in questions asking whether Americans support Israel or the Palestinians, the overwhelming majority say the former. The only disturbing thing about those polls is that the numbers are so skewed on along partisan lines with 79 percent of Republicans backing Israel and only 27 percent of Democrats agreeing.
But the one point that gets lost in that discussion is the fact that most Democratic officeholders, and especially the leadership of their congressional caucuses, are solidly pro-Israel. This means that despite the vitriol that is an inescapable part of the politics in 2019, there ought to be no trouble in finding common ground between the parts in support of key issues concerning the U.S.-Israel alliance.
The trouble is that in a political environment in which the center really has collapsed, the space for Democrats and Republicans to come together is shrinking.
That’s what happened in the last week as the latest controversy concerning Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) broke out. She disingenuously apologized for a past tweet in which she used a classic anti-Semitic trope about Israel “hypnotizing” the world. But then she doubled down on her hate for the Jewish state by comparing it to Iran, mischaracterizing the nation-state law it passed last year and reiterating her support for BDS and anti-Zionism, which is by definition an expression of anti-Semitism. And rather than being punished by her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her a coveted spot on the House Foreign Relations Committee.
While some Democrats—like the new Democratic Majority for Israel group—took issue with Omar, most were either silent (like Pelosi) or forgiving, such as House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who could do nothing more than say he hoped she would “grow” in the future.
It was left to Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) to publicly challenge her in a way that most in her party refused to do. This is to Zeldin’s credit, though the interesting aspect was that none of the moderates in the Democratic leadership thought to back his stand or defend him against the libelous claim of Omar and her left-wing allies that calling her to account for her hate was “Islamophobic” because he is identified as a strong supporter of Trump.
After Zeldin prompted Omar to denounce an anti-Semitic voicemail he had received, the congresswoman invited him to Somali tea in her office. But it would take more than that to bridge the gap between her anti-Semitism and his ardent support for Israel.
The point here goes beyond the kerfuffle involving two junior members of Congress. It is that as much as some in both parties would wish it otherwise, this incident proves that the center is disappearing. Under those circumstances, the lesson goes beyond the need to back Zeldin and resist Omar. It’s that when the loudest voices in both parties are not moderates who are capable of working across party lines, then the notion of a bipartisan consensus on any issue—let alone Israel—becomes a dubious theory rather than a reality.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate.
3a) Republicans spoke up against Steve King.
Shouldn’t Democrats speak up against Ilhan Omar?
It’s getting harder to label radicals like Ilhan Omar, pro-BDS and hostile to Israel, as marginal to the Democratic Party. Days after the GOP neutralized Steve King’s Congressional influence, the Democrats elevated Omar’s
By Jonathan S. Tobin
The last thing American Jews need is another entry in the alphabet soup of organizations purporting to represent their interests. But the argument for a new group calling itself the Democratic Majority for Israel, unveiled in late January, took on new urgency thanks to the serial comments of one of the congresswomen from its own party whose influence it hopes
to offset.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is one of a group of young, female newcomers to the House of Representatives who have caught the media’s imagination. The first Somali-American representative, who had the rules of the House changed to allow a woman to wear a head covering, she is a trailblazer. Along with her Palestinian-American colleague
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Omar epitomizes the diversity in a Democratic Party that has thrown its doors open to women and minority candidates.
But Omar and Tlaib also represent the sharp lurch to the left among elements of the Democrats’ base. Both are supporters of the BDS movement and opposed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Both have also made statements that are arguably anti-Semitic - or, at least, statements far too close to well-worn anti-Semitic tropes.
Omar tweeted in the past about Israel "hypnotizing" the world (a phrase, she says, she recognized only six years later, and after her election, as an "anti-semitic trope I unknowingly used") and Tlaib raised the dual loyalty canard about opponents of BDS: "They forgot what country they represent." (Tlaib responded to a storm of criticism by saying
that she was referring to U.S. Senators, and not U.S. Jews.)
The Democratic Majority for Israel hopes to remind the public that although Omar and Tlaib are getting a lot of the attention in the new Congress, most elected Democrats remain supporters of Israel. Well-financed and staffed by veteran Democratic insiders like Mark Mellman and Ann Lewis, the DMI hopes to have an impact on the 2020 election.
But instead of the DMI or even the Democratic Party leadership taking the lead against Omar and Tlaib for their outlier views on Israel, it was a Trump true believer Republican who was in the spotlight.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) is one of only two Jewish Republicans in Congress but also has ties to Breitbart and ex-Trump advisors Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, who both fundraised for him. Zeldin would not thus be considered representative of any more than the quarter of American Jewry who support Trump - and certainly not of the U.S. pro-Israel community in general.
But when he went head-to-head with Omar - who’s also recently opined Israel was more an Iran-style theocracy rather than a democracy, and resembled U.S. segregation – shouldn’t there have been a broader constituency backing his challenge?
When Zeldin blasted both Omar and House Democrats for "empowering/elevating" "crazy" positions like those advanced by Omar, and declared, "Your anti-Semitic & anti-Israel hate is strong & wrong," and demanding Omar denounce an anti-Semitic voice mail left for him, the Minnesota congresswoman and her supporters accused him of being an Islamophobe and intolerant of female Muslim colleagues.
Omar indeed condemned the voice mail, and referred to the hate mail she also receives and invited Zeldin to discuss it over Somali tea in her office. Zeldin bracketed his acceptance with his refusal to back down on any tolerance for BDS, which he and the mainstream Jewish community links to anti-Semitism.
Yet as uncomfortable as pro-Israel Democrats may be with Zeldin, they're keeping mum, while Zeldin articulated the Jewish community concerns that Omar received a coveted appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in spite of her radicalism and willingness to defame Israel.
Indeed, the escalation of the Twitter feud between Omar and Zeldin allowed him to assume the pose of defender of the pro-Israel and Jewish communities in the confrontation.
The problem this poses for Democrats goes beyond the minimal real-world influence wielded by Omar and Tlaib.
Omar’s appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee came days after Republicans took action against one of their own radicals, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) a xenophobe credibly and serially linked to white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The GOP leadership stripped King of all of his committee assignments, neutralizing his influence.
That sent a message about their own desire to separate themselves from extremism even though, as Democrats noted, they are also stuck with Trump, who has his own history of making offensive statements about minorities.
The irony for Democrats is that the new chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), whose views on the Middle East are more in tune with the Likud than that of most Democrats. Yet both he and the other members of the Democratic leadership were notably shy about publicly criticizing Omar or Tlaib. House Democratic caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called them "esteemed colleagues." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was silent.
The best that Engel could do in response to Omar’s comparisons of Israel to Iran and to Jim Crow-era America, and her misleading attacks on the concept of a Jewish state, was to say that he hoped she would "continue to grow."
In the current toxic political environment where the center has arguably collapsed, it’s getting harder to label people like Omar as marginal. The same can be said of Zeldin, whose pro-Trump views made him something of an outlier three years ago but now place him in the mainstream of his party.
There are those who worry that conflating criticism of BDS with attacks on Omar and Tlaib (who espouse extreme left views on other issues besides Israel) will link the pro-Israel community to Islamophobia. But the notion that calling the pair to task for blatant bias is a slur against all Muslims effectively gives them and the BDS movement a pass for any expressions of prejudice.
The fact that Republicans have become a lock step pro-Israel party in recent decades, while the Democrats are increasingly split on it, may mean that young voters will come to associate the Jewish State with Trump. Liberal supporters in J Street also see Democratic Majority for Israel, with its ties to AIPAC, as a challenge to their own efforts to oppose the Netanyahu government.
But so long as Democrats appear to be acting as if they are more afraid of offending radical supporters of BDS than the pro-Israel community, they will wind up allowing Republicans like Zeldin to use it as a wedge to make the argument that their party can’t be relied on to oppose anti-Semitism from the left, let alone back the Jewish state.
That sentiment is only bolstered when other new Democratic stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gushes about a conversation with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who’s almost universally recognized as complicit with the striking rise of anti-Semitism on the UK left.
In a political atmosphere where Omar has become a media darling, Zeldin’s ability to seize the moment as the champion of the Jewish state demonstrates why pro-Israel Democrats can’t allow themselves to be quiet about Omar and Tlaib or anyone who crosses the line between criticism of Israel and support for BDS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Et Tu Gina? – More Deep State Sabotage
4)Et Tu Gina? – More Deep State Sabotage
Last week the heads of the United States Intelligence Community delivered to Congress their annual assessment of the threats facing the United States. As part of that assessment, the agency chiefs informed Congress “we continue to assess that North Korea is unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and production capabilities even as it seeks to negotiate partial denuclearization steps to obtain key US and international concessions.” That assessment places the Intelligence Community in direct opposition to the President of the United States, who has made it clear on many occasions that that he believes the ongoing negotiations with North Korea, in which he is personally taking the lead, are moving along nicely in the direction of full nuclear disarmament by Kim Jong-un.
The hastily arranged White House meeting, after the fact, and the announcement that the media had simply mischaracterized what had been said, only confirmed the lack of prior coordination and the White House’s anger at being blind-sided.
The Intelligence Community works for the Executive Branch
To understand just how radical and damaging the action by the Intelligence Community leadership was, let’s take a moment and review how the process works in Washington with regard to assessments like that delivered last week.
The Intelligence Community works for the Executive Branch. That means it works for President Donald Trump. That is true for the lowest guy or gal in an organization. It is no less true for the heads of the agencies that form the Intelligence Community.
An assessment like that delivered last week is not simply delivered to Congress without prior coordination and review by the White House. When such an assessment includes a judgment that the President is being played by the North Koreans and wasting his time on a fool’s errand that is doubly true. One would reasonably expect that the comments regarding North Korea in the threat assessment would have been the subject of direct, personal conversations between the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Advisor. This would not be the kind of issue resolved at junior levels. It would have gone directly to the top.
In the course of that coordination process every effort would normally be made to massage language and scrutinize assessments to avoid ever putting the heads of the Intelligence Community in the position of going to Congress and directly contradicting a sitting President. When the language in question, as in this case, concerned a speculative assessment as to what the North Koreans might or might not intend to do at some future date, the pressure to modify or “word smith” language would be intense.
Undermining national security?
When and if the Intelligence Community did, in fact, come to a point where it believed that it could not in good conscience, and consistent with professional ethics, change an assessment to avoid a head on collision with the President, then that assessment would most certainly be delivered behind closed doors to Congress in a classified setting. Everyone involved would be fully cognizant that a public display of division and disagreement at the highest levels of the federal government could be extremely damaging to ongoing negotiations and might hand North Korea a decisive advantage.
An assessment that the President of the United States is wrong, he is wasting time on negotiations and that North Korea is simply playing a game to extract concessions from the United States would never, under any normal circumstances be delivered in an open session before Congress nor included in an unclassified document released to the entire world.
Yet, that is exactly what happened. In fact, to all appearances, given the reaction of the President after the report was made public, this threat assessment was never coordinated in any fashion with the President or with his National Security Advisor, John Bolton. Instead, the heads of the Intelligence Community apparently bypassed the White House entirely and delivered of their own accord to Congress a report that makes the President out to be a fool and may, in fact torpedo ongoing, sensitive talks that appear to be our best chance ever for real progress with Pyongyang.
This did not happen by accident. This was not an oversight. This can only have been a deliberate effort to undercut a sitting President, to sabotage his foreign policy and to impact domestic politics. We have seen many examples over the past several years of senior members of federal agencies acting in a partisan fashion. That has been particularly true of senior executives with connections to the Clinton machine and the Democratic Party. The ongoing Mueller witch hunt is the outgrowth of just such efforts on the part of civil servants who should be acting in an impartial manner on behalf of the American people – not taking sides and attempting to dictate or overturn electoral results.
The actions of the Intelligence Community chiefs in regard to the North Korea assessment are, if anything, even more disturbing. This report was not delivered to Congress by John Brennan,mouthpiece for “Clinton, Inc.” and a known Democratic shill. This report was delivered to Congress by men and women serving this President. The essence of the North Korea assessment, in fact, could only have come from the Central Intelligence Agency, headed by Gina Haspel,who was appointed to her post by President Trump only eight months ago.
This was not an attack from outside. This was a brazen attack on this President from inside what should be his inner circle. Perhaps not since Caesar’s assassination on the floor of the Roman Senate has there been such betrayal.
Et tu Gina?
About the author
Charles S. (Sam) Faddis, Senior Partner- Artemis, LLC is a former CIA operations officer with thirty years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations in the Middle East, South Asia and Europe. His last assignment prior to retirement in May of 2008 was as head of the CIA's terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction unit. He took the first CIA team into Iraq in the Summer of 2002 in advance of the invasion of that country and has worked extensively in the field with law enforcement, local security forces and special operations teams. Since retirement, he has written extensively, provided training to a wide variety of government and private entities and appears regularly on radio and television.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment