;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I listened to the entire testimony of Barr before the Senate Committee yesterday morning/afternoon and I still believe the intent of Democrats is to disparage Barr, impugn his character and continue their pursuit of Trump because he won the 2016 election. Character assassination remains the weapon of choice by Democrats. My conclusion: no collusion and as for obstruction, the political discernment resulted in two viewpoints. Again my conclusion: if you want to attack Trump's motive and intent there was the appearance of efforts to obstruct something that never occurred and was initiated by the opposition.
The above printed visual postings pretty much support my own views.
I have no doubt, Democrats will continue their "witch hunt" because they have nothing else they can do but to badger Trump, destroy his effectiveness as a president, set him up for being impeached , do nothing to carry out impeachment but at least gain political talking points for the 2020 election.
Trump learned he and members of his staff had been secretly investigated and when Mueller was appointed and put a group together, all of whom were Democrats and supporters of Hillary Clinton, one has to assume he was p----- and struck out in anger. That said, Mueller was never fired, was allowed to continue his investigation and the entire White House staff were allowed to testify. No conclusive obstruction because Mueller was able to spend two years, spend a lot of money and came out with a final report. that included ten instances where Mueller thought Trump might have attempted obstruction but chose to punt. Barr and Rosenstein did not punt Mueller's way so he may now be upset and certainly Democrats and the mass media are disappointed because everything they were convinced happened did not. Now it seems their own candidate was in the forefront of causing the circumstances calling for Mueller's witch hunt.
At some point, when it becomes evident Democrats are turning off voters and become the recipient of a boomerang effect they will cease their pursuit of obstruction. Consequently, they are now lining up another tack to trap Trump into something useful in the 2020 campaign. What they are now seeking is to entice Trump to spend trillions for infrastructure and pay for it by raising taxes while adding to the nation's mounting debt.
This effort will impact Trump's tax cut and force him into a "read my lips" situation but at the same time it will bring more people into the work force and lower the unemployed so it cuts both ways.
Personally, I would like to see Trump campaign in a manner so he can recapture The House and, after winning re-election and holding The Senate, be in a perfect position to pass legislation relating to health care, immigration and border security issues and other matters pertinent to SS and Medicare etc. (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend, Toameh, reports on Saudi bribe to Palestinians. Allegedly, Abbas rejects the offer.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gordon Chang discusses rift between China and Hong Kong and potential spill over regarding Taiwan.(See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Caroline Glick expresses her concerns regarding liberal Jews.(See 4 ad and 4a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The below posting supports my view of the threat China, Russia and Cuba pose with respect to their involvement in Venezuela.
Apparently Russia is in control of what happens with respect to Maduro ability to decide what to do.
There are always two sides, at the very least, to any story. Justices of The Supreme Court, often write opposition decisions to majority votes. This is the beauty of both our judicial system as well as our democratic approach allowing divergent views to be aired and/or heard. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Linda Sarsour a nefarious fundraiser for terrorist causes? (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) $2 Trillion From Whom?
Who’s going to pay for a bipartisan public works spending blowout?
By The Editorial Board
Who says there’s no bipartisanship in Washington? Democrats in Congress visited the White House on Tuesday, and they emerged to say that they and President Trump had agreed to spend $2 trillion on public works. When it comes to spending more money, Washington can always find common ground.
“We agreed on a number, which was very, very good—$2 trillion,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Originally we had started a little lower. Even the President was eager to push it up to $2 trillion.” Given Mr. Trump’s fondness for big, round numbers, who can doubt it?
The question is who is going to pay for all this? The annual federal budget deficit is already nearing $1 trillion. House Democrats couldn’t even pass a budget outline because their left flank wants $67 billion more in domestic spending than the leadership offered. Republicans want more for defense. And that’s before any infrastructure blowout.
Democrats have been saying they won’t agree to raise the gasoline tax unless Mr. Trump agrees to roll back some of his 2017 tax cut. But if Mr. Trump is entertaining such a trade, he’s walking into a political trap. He’ll be undercutting his supply-side boost to the economy. And once the President lets Congress know his tax reform is open for renegotiation, the special interests will emerge from every corner of Washington to spend revenue from a higher corporate tax rate.
Mr. Trump campaigned on rebuilding America’s infrastructure, but he and Democrats don’t even agree on what to spend it on. Rest assured that Democrats don’t mean merely roads and bridges.
As Mr. Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it in a joint statement after Tuesday’s meeting, “infrastructure is about creating jobs immediately” but also about “advancing public health with clean air and clean water” and “addressing climate change” and “expanding broadband to rural, urban and other underserved areas.”
Oh, and about paying “the prevailing wage” and “the imperative to involve women, veteran and minority-owned businesses in construction.” In other words, it is about income redistribution and the social pork barrel.
If this is what a grand infrastructure bargain looks like, we’ll take gridlock.
1a) Collusion or Russian
Disinformation?
How Moscow manipulated U.S. media, lawmakers and intelligence services into propagating a wild theory.
How Moscow manipulated U.S. media, lawmakers and intelligence services into propagating a wild theory.
Without intending to, the Mueller report has solved the mystery of the Trump-Russia affair. It shows that Donald Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia but Russian intelligence used disinformation to create the impression that he did.
It is hard for Americans to grasp that in the eerie world of Russian intelligence, it would be normal to discredit a U.S. leader by depicting him as a friend and to support his opponent by depicting her as an enemy. But this is the reality.
I first became acquainted with Russian disinformation while working from 1976-82 as a Moscow-based newspaper correspondent. In 1979, the Soviet authorities threatened to expel me. They accused me of traffic violations and rudeness to guides from the official travel agency, Intourist. I had wide contacts in Moscow, and these innocuous charges made me think the KGB knew little about me. In fact, they had detailed knowledge of my activities, as I learned from the way they followed me and the arrests of my contacts. But information from wiretaps and shadowing is not acknowledged openly. It is used for disinformation, conveyed by intermediaries.
One of my friends in Moscow was a gay Swedish correspondent who had a Soviet lover. Homosexuality was a crime in the Soviet Union, and my friend regularly criticized the authorities. At first officials simply objected to his articles. Then, at a USA and Canada Institute reception, a Soviet academic told the Swede he had met a “fascinating” friend of his and gave the name of his lover. The correspondent left Moscow the next day.
The Mueller report shows that the techniques of Russian disinformation have not changed. The Trump-Russia affair began May 6, 2016, when George Papadopoulos, a Trump adviser, reportedly told Alexander Downer, the Australian high commissioner in London, that Moscow had compromising information on Hillary Clinton. Ten days earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told by Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who boasted of high-level Russia contacts, that the “dirt” consisted of “thousands of emails.” Mr. Mifsud had returned from an April 18 meeting in Moscow of the Valdai Discussion Club, which the Mueller report said was “close to Russia’s foreign policy establishment.”
It is hard for Americans to grasp that in the eerie world of Russian intelligence, it would be normal to discredit a U.S. leader by depicting him as a friend and to support his opponent by depicting her as an enemy. But this is the reality.
I first became acquainted with Russian disinformation while working from 1976-82 as a Moscow-based newspaper correspondent. In 1979, the Soviet authorities threatened to expel me. They accused me of traffic violations and rudeness to guides from the official travel agency, Intourist. I had wide contacts in Moscow, and these innocuous charges made me think the KGB knew little about me. In fact, they had detailed knowledge of my activities, as I learned from the way they followed me and the arrests of my contacts. But information from wiretaps and shadowing is not acknowledged openly. It is used for disinformation, conveyed by intermediaries.
One of my friends in Moscow was a gay Swedish correspondent who had a Soviet lover. Homosexuality was a crime in the Soviet Union, and my friend regularly criticized the authorities. At first officials simply objected to his articles. Then, at a USA and Canada Institute reception, a Soviet academic told the Swede he had met a “fascinating” friend of his and gave the name of his lover. The correspondent left Moscow the next day.
In fact, the Valdai Club, established in 2004, is Russia’s most important center of disinformation. The club gives Western journalists and academics the opportunity to question President Vladimir Putin and other officials in a supposedly informal setting. Participants, anxious not to offend their hosts, engage in self-censorship. Circulating in the crowd are persons who claim to share confidential information and explain what the Russian leadership is thinking—as at the USA and Canada Institute in Soviet times. The Valdai Club would be a key node in any Russian effort to cause chaos in the U.S. election.
Mr. Mifsud introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to Ivan Timofeev, a member of the Russian International Affairs Council, who told Mr. Papadopoulos in an April 25, 2016 email that he had shared plans for a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government with Igor Ivanov, the council’s president and a former Russian foreign minister.
In October 2016, Mr. Papadopoulos was fired from the campaign. But Russian intelligence had achieved its objective. The FBI had been informed of Mr. Papadopoulos’s remarks to Mr. Downer, and a counterintelligence investigation aimed at the Trump campaign was under way.
Another attempt to compromise the Trump campaign was the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort and a Russian group opposing the 2012 Magnitsky Act. The meeting was arranged by London music promoter Rob Goldstone, who wrote to the young Mr. Trump that the Russian “crown prosecutor” (a nonexistent title) wanted to share incriminating information about Mrs. Clinton.
It’s remotely possible the Russian delegation—headed by Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer with high-level Moscow connections—believed that they could gain the Trump campaign’s support. It’s likelier that the meeting was part of the effort to inflame U.S. politics by creating the impression that candidate Trump was a Russian pawn.
Donald Trump Jr. was foolish to agree to the meeting. He did, however, have the sense to decline to discuss the Magnitsky Act. Mr. Kushner described the meeting as “a waste of time.” Yet it was a media sensation, and some of President Trump’s detractors accepted it as proof of collusion.
Then there was the dossier that purportedly contained information on Mr. Trump himself. It was prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, supposedly based on information from high-level Russian intelligence sources. It said Mr. Trump had been a Russian asset for at least five years and had been monitored in Moscow engaging in “perverted sexual acts.” When the dossier was released, Mr. Steele disappeared, claiming to fear for his life.
In fact, the dossier was transparently phony. It claimed Mr. Putin had a “desire to return to Nineteenth Century ‘Great Power’ politics anchored upon countries’ interests rather than the ideals-based international order established after World War Two”—echoing hackneyed attempts by Russian spokesmen to divert attention from the regime’s connections to terrorism and organized crime. Its statement that Mr. Putin “hated and feared” Mrs. Clinton reflects the standard Kremlin practice of reducing policy differences to personality. Russia had attributed tensions between the U.S. and Russia to Mr. Putin and Barack Obama’s mutual dislike. The idea that Russian intelligence agents would share genuine intelligence as opposed to disinformation was in the realm of fantasy.
The Trump-Russia affair did lasting damage to the U.S. For the first time, it became acceptable, even common, to accuse political opponents of treason. The media, Congress and the intelligence services have all undermined themselves by repeating wild and unsubstantiated charges provided for them by Russian intelligence.
During the campaign, there was legitimate concern about the competence of Mr. Trump and those around him on the subject of Russia. Since taking office, however, he has approved the provision of defensive arms to Ukraine and coordinated diplomatic retaliation after the attempted murder in Britain of a former Russian intelligence agent, Sergei Skripal.
In any case, the disinformation attack directed at Mr. Trump had nothing to do with his policies. The ultimate target was American society. Moscow’s tactics were striking in their deviousness and the result was the greatest triumph of disinformation in the history of Soviet and Russian active measures.
Mr. Satter is author of “Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Saudi Arabia offered Abbas $10 billion to accept Trump’s peace plan - report
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas $10 billion if he accepts US President Donald Trump’s plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the “deal of the century,” the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported on Tuesday.
A senior Palestinian official in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.
Referring to meetings between the Saudi crown prince and Abbas, the newspaper said that “according to information obtained by Al-Akhbar, Salman briefed Abbas about the details of the deal of the century and asked him to accept it. According to the information, Salman asked Abbas: What is the annual budget of your entourage? Abbas replied: I’m not a prince to have my own entourage.”
At the stage, according to the newspaper, the Saudi crown prince asked Abbas “How much money does the Palestinian Authority and its ministers and employees need?”
Abbas replied that the Palestinians need $1 billion each year, the report said. “I will give you $10 billion over 10 years if you accept the deal of the century,” Salman was quoted as telling Abbas.
Abbas, however, rejected the offer and said it would “mean the end of my political life,” the report added.
Al-Akhbar said that the conversation between Salman and Abbas was based on reports written by the Jordanian envoy to Ramallah, Khaled al-Shawabkeh.
The envoy’s report, which was sent to the Jordanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, was reportedly based on briefings he had with senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah.
The newspaper quoted the Jordanian envoy’s report as saying that the Saudi crown prince also told Abbas that the Trump administration was prepared to give the Palestinians the land which they already live on.
Salman also told Abbas – according to the report – that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries would provide financial support to the Palestinians and help them launch projects in the West Bank that will lead to economic prosperity, while expanding Palestinian control over areas B and C. “Saudi Arabia will support the Palestinian Authority with more than $4b.,” Salman reportedly told Abbas.
“Abbas explained to Salman the current situation, and said that he would be unable to make any concessions regarding the settlements, the two-state solution and Jerusalem, and that any pressure will push the Palestinian Authority to dissolve its institutions and hold Israel responsible for managing the affairs of the Palestinians [in the West Bank].”
In another report by the Jordanian envoy, Abbas’s adviser, Mahmoud Habbash, is said to have criticized Egypt for its “inexperience” and for having too much confidence in the Americans, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Habbash claimed that the Saudi message to Abbas was that he should accept Trump’s upcoming plan, the report said.
It further quoted Habbash as warning: “The ‘deal of the century’ will change the foundations of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Sinai and even the Gulf states. Sinai will become a solution to the proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and what’s left of the West Bank will become cantons under Jordan’s administrative rule and Israel’s security control.”
The newspaper said that the reports sent from the Jordanian envoy in Ramallah to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Amman “demonstrate the extent of Jordan’s concern over the repercussions of the deal of the century.”
The Jordanian concern is understandable, the newspaper added, “especially after the American and Israeli media revealed the heavy tax that Jordan will be required to pay with regards to the possibility of resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom, withdrawing the Hashemite guardianship over the holy sites in Jerusalem and granting it to Saudi Arabia, and the possibility of slicing lands from Jordan’s eastern border that would be given to the Palestinians, in return for lands that will be given to Jordan from northern parts of Saudi Arabia.”
Jason Greenblatt, US Special Representative for International Negotiations, last week denied rumors that the “deal of the century” would include a confederation involving Jordan, Israel and the PA. “King Abdullah II and Jordan are strong US allies,” he said on Twitter. “Rumors that our peace vision includes a confederation between Jordan, Israel & the PA, or that the vision contemplates making Jordan the homeland for Palestinians, are incorrect. Please don’t spread rumors.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A senior Palestinian official in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.
Referring to meetings between the Saudi crown prince and Abbas, the newspaper said that “according to information obtained by Al-Akhbar, Salman briefed Abbas about the details of the deal of the century and asked him to accept it. According to the information, Salman asked Abbas: What is the annual budget of your entourage? Abbas replied: I’m not a prince to have my own entourage.”
At the stage, according to the newspaper, the Saudi crown prince asked Abbas “How much money does the Palestinian Authority and its ministers and employees need?”
Abbas replied that the Palestinians need $1 billion each year, the report said. “I will give you $10 billion over 10 years if you accept the deal of the century,” Salman was quoted as telling Abbas.
Abbas, however, rejected the offer and said it would “mean the end of my political life,” the report added.
Al-Akhbar said that the conversation between Salman and Abbas was based on reports written by the Jordanian envoy to Ramallah, Khaled al-Shawabkeh.
The envoy’s report, which was sent to the Jordanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, was reportedly based on briefings he had with senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah.
The newspaper quoted the Jordanian envoy’s report as saying that the Saudi crown prince also told Abbas that the Trump administration was prepared to give the Palestinians the land which they already live on.
Salman also told Abbas – according to the report – that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries would provide financial support to the Palestinians and help them launch projects in the West Bank that will lead to economic prosperity, while expanding Palestinian control over areas B and C. “Saudi Arabia will support the Palestinian Authority with more than $4b.,” Salman reportedly told Abbas.
“Abbas explained to Salman the current situation, and said that he would be unable to make any concessions regarding the settlements, the two-state solution and Jerusalem, and that any pressure will push the Palestinian Authority to dissolve its institutions and hold Israel responsible for managing the affairs of the Palestinians [in the West Bank].”
In another report by the Jordanian envoy, Abbas’s adviser, Mahmoud Habbash, is said to have criticized Egypt for its “inexperience” and for having too much confidence in the Americans, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Habbash claimed that the Saudi message to Abbas was that he should accept Trump’s upcoming plan, the report said.
It further quoted Habbash as warning: “The ‘deal of the century’ will change the foundations of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Sinai and even the Gulf states. Sinai will become a solution to the proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and what’s left of the West Bank will become cantons under Jordan’s administrative rule and Israel’s security control.”
The newspaper said that the reports sent from the Jordanian envoy in Ramallah to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Amman “demonstrate the extent of Jordan’s concern over the repercussions of the deal of the century.”
The Jordanian concern is understandable, the newspaper added, “especially after the American and Israeli media revealed the heavy tax that Jordan will be required to pay with regards to the possibility of resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom, withdrawing the Hashemite guardianship over the holy sites in Jerusalem and granting it to Saudi Arabia, and the possibility of slicing lands from Jordan’s eastern border that would be given to the Palestinians, in return for lands that will be given to Jordan from northern parts of Saudi Arabia.”
Jason Greenblatt, US Special Representative for International Negotiations, last week denied rumors that the “deal of the century” would include a confederation involving Jordan, Israel and the PA. “King Abdullah II and Jordan are strong US allies,” he said on Twitter. “Rumors that our peace vision includes a confederation between Jordan, Israel & the PA, or that the vision contemplates making Jordan the homeland for Palestinians, are incorrect. Please don’t spread rumors.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Dark Days in Hong Kong
- The continued defiance of Hong Kong's people in the face of Chinese repression is inspiring resistance in Taiwan.
- "In the early 1980s the 'one country, two systems' concept was created for Taiwan, not for Hong Kong," said Ma Ying-jeou to Al Jazeera when he was Taiwan's president in September 2014. "But Taiwan has sent a clear message that we do not accept the concept."
- Xi Jinping, the current Chinese ruler, once held the Hong Kong portfolio in the Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee. He certainly knows that one of the signs of Chinese regime failure is trouble on the periphery, and he is determined that the open defiance in Hong Kong does not spread to other areas far from the center of Chinese power. Xi has no effective response to Hong Kong, however.
A court in Hong Kong on Sunday sentenced eight of nine democracy activists for their role in the massive "Occupy Central" protests in 2014. The prosecution was seen, both in Hong Kong and elsewhere, as a sign of Beijing tightening its control over the city. Pictured: Democracy protesters hold umbrellas to support the arrested activists of the "Occupy Central" movement, on December 3, 2014 in Hong Kong. (Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images)
|
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday to protest planned changes to the city's extradition law. Many believe new rules facilitating the sending of suspects to China would effectively allow Beijing to grab people at will and thereby completely control the city. "You will be screwed," said a marcher, a law clerk, to Reuters.
The turnout was high — organizers said 130,000 people took part — in part because the demonstration followed the sentencing of democracy activists for their role in the massive "Occupy Central" protests in 2014. On Wednesday, a lower court handed out prison terms of between eight to 16 months to four of the "Umbrella Nine." Three others received suspended sentences. One person was given 200 hours of community service.
The eight individuals — the sentencing of a ninth person was postponed for medical reasons — were convicted of public nuisance offenses in a closely watched proceeding on April 9. The prosecution of the 9 figures was seen, both in Hong Kong and elsewhere, as a sign of Beijing tightening its control over the city.
"It's indeed one of the darkest days in Hong Kong history," Tak Ho Fong, host of "Peking Hotel" on Hong Kong-based digital radio station D100, told the Gatestone Institute in e-mail comments.
Dark indeed. Nobody strangles democracies like communists, and no communists are more relentless in this regard than Chinese ones. Beijing, with methodical ruthlessness, is trying to bring Hong Kong to heel, and this is a hint of weakness at the center of Chinese politics and governance. China's communists, whether or not they succeed in Hong Kong, will undermine their efforts to win over Taiwan.
Hong Kong, once a British colony, was "handed back" to China on July 1, 1997 pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. In the Joint Declaration, a treaty with Britain, Beijing promised to afford Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" for 50 years. Hong Kong since July 1997 has been designated a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and governed under the "one country, two systems" formula. Pursuant to this formula, Hong Kong governs itself, except it does not maintain diplomatic relations and does not provide for external defense.
Beijing this month proved it could put activists in jail — prison sentences of other Occupy Central activists were earlier overturned — and in response to the Wednesday sentences human rights organizations issued warnings. "The long sentences send a chilling warning to all that there will be serious consequences for advocating for democracy," noted Maya Wang of Human Rights Watch.
Relief was nonetheless evident when Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng of the West Kowloon Court handed down his decision. The activists could have received seven-year prison terms stemming from the 79-day "Umbrella" demonstration, so named because protestors used umbrellas to shield themselves from tear gas. Many of the extradition marchers on Sunday carried umbrellas, not only to block out the sun.
A total of 1.2 million people participated in the 2014 demonstration — peak numbers exceeded 100,000 at times — to stand against Beijing severely restricting the field of candidates for the office of chief executive, the successor post for the colonial governor. As a result of Beijing effectively dishonoring promises of universal suffrage, none of the chief executives — Carrie Lam, the current one, is the fourth since the handover — has been considered legitimate except by supporters of Beijing.
The perceived lack of legitimacy has made the chief executives ineffective. Beijing has responded by infringing on the self-rule it had promised. For one thing, it has rejected, despite the clear wording of the agreement with Britain, the notion that there are any restrictions on its power over Hong Kong like its promise of autonomy for the city. "The Sino-British Joint Declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any realistic meaning," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang in June 2017. "It also does not have any binding power on how the Chinese central government administers Hong Kong."
Moreover, China, from behind the scenes, has infringed on Hong Kong's autonomy by, for instance, arranging the removal of legislators, disqualifying candidates, even outlawing a political party.
Moreover, Beijing, represented in the city by its "Liaison Office," is now pushing for a law to punish disrespecting the "March of the Volunteers," the Chinese national anthem.
Beijing's heavy-handed tactics have not been particularly effective, however. The more it has clamped down, the less popular it has become.
Polls on self-identification carry a chilling message for Beijing. Less than four percent of Hong Kong's young self-identify as "Chinese" or "broadly Chinese." That's down from around 30 percent in 1997. The widely followed Hong Kong University poll shows that fewer people in Hong Kong are proud of their new Chinese nationality than at the handover — 38 percent versus 46.4 percent — and that younger age cohorts are less proud than the population as a whole.
Senior Chinese leaders, by overreaching, have managed to create both an independence movement in Hong Kong and a campaign to return the city to British rule. For now, Hong Kong people express this latter sentiment by, among other things, carrying colonial-era flags and sporting Union Jack-adorned clothing. All this suggests increased activism in Hong Kong.
The continued defiance of Hong Kong's people in the face of Chinese repression is inspiring resistance in Taiwan. Beijing maintains that the self-governing island is part of the People's Republic and, going back to the era of Deng Xiaoping, has proposed to rule it under the same "one country, two systems" approach. Yet as Chinese leaders smother Hong Kong, 1C2S, as the plan is known, becomes even less attractive to Taiwan.
"Today's Hong Kong, tomorrow's Taiwan" has become the rallying cry of young Taiwanese. The 1C2S idea has united most of Taiwan, including the pro-China elements there, in the belief that becoming part of the People's Republic would be a nightmare. "In the early 1980s the 'one country, two systems' concept was created for Taiwan, not for Hong Kong," said Ma Ying-jeou to Al Jazeera when he was Taiwan's president in September 2014. "But Taiwan has sent a clear message that we do not accept the concept."
Xi Jinping, the current Chinese ruler, once held the Hong Kong portfolio in the Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee. He certainly knows that one of the signs of Chinese regime failure is trouble on the periphery, and he is determined that the open defiance in Hong Kong does not spread to other areas far from the center of Chinese power.
Xi has no effective response to Hong Kong, however, and the growing rejection of China there must be of great concern, especially since harsh rule has already lost hearts and minds in China's west, in both Tibet and what the Chinese call the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Traditional inhabitants of Xinjiang, the Muslim Uighurs, say their land is a separate country, East Turkestan.
"We do not give up," Chu Yiu-ming, one of the Umbrella Nine, declared from the defendant's dock on April 9. Chinese dynasties unravel at the edges, and Beijing looks desperate to keep the increasingly resistant Hong Kong, at China's southern edge, from drifting too far from its control.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Why do American Liberal Jews:
- Think they knew more about what Isreal needs than the Israeli voter, which overwhelmingly reject a two State solution and reelected Netanyanu?
-Push for territorial lines that are clearly dangerous to Israel’s security?
-Overlook years of history where proposals they would support were rejected by Arabs and resulted in war?
-Turn the back on rising anti-Semitism in America or blame President Trump for it (go figure….strongly pro-Israel and grandfather to orthodox grandchildren)
-Hold Democrats “harmless” for not stamping down on anti-Semitic remarks by some of their Representatives or accepting that Democratic Presidential candidates avoided AIPAC, have not expressed strong support for Israel or have not opined on measures, such as BDS, that are against Israel
Pathetic!
4a)
Caroline Glick: The Tragedy of Jewish American Liberals
On April 9, Israeli voters went to the polls and reelected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a landslide to serve a fifth term as prime minister.
The vote was notable for two reasons. First, it was taken in defiance of the clearly expressed will of Israel’s media and its governing elites. Israel’s liberal media outlets essentially served as the campaign directors of Netanyahu’s political opponents.
For their part, Israel’s overwhelmingly liberal bureaucratic elites, represented in the elections by Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, made a naked bid to unseat Netanyahu through legal fiat. Barely a month before the April 9 vote, Mandelblit announced that he intended to indict Netanyahu in three criminal probes of specious origins and legal foundations pending a pre-indictment hearing.
The second reason the election results were notable was because in an eleventh-hour appeal to voters, Netanyahu pledged to apply Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria.
Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank, are parts of the historic land of Israel that Israel took control over 52 years ago in the 1967 Six Day War. Nearly a half million Israelis live in Judea and Samaria today. Perpetual Israeli control over the vast majority of the areas is essential from a strategic perspective. Without control over its eastern frontier and the approaches to its major population and industrial centers, Israel’s very existence will be threatened. This is particularly true in light of the instability of the Arab world.
Since 1993, the future of Judea and Samaria has been the subject of negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Despite the fact that negotiations ended to all practical effect in 2000, when the Palestinians rejected an Israeli offer to transfer control over 95 percent of Judea and Samaria to them in exchange for peace, and opted instead to wage a massive terror war against the Jewish state, due to international pressure, Israel has been unable to extricate itself from the negotiations framework.
That framework requires Israel to hold Judea and Samaria in effective escrow, harmingbasic legal rights to the Israelis who live in the areas, in the hope that one day the Palestinians will accept peace. Since 2000, the Palestinians rejected even more generous offers of territory from Israel and from the Obama administration, and opted instead to maintain and escalate their political and terror war against the Jewish state.
Over the past dozen years, as more and more Israelis recognized that there is no Palestinian partner for peace, and that in the face of gross instability in the Arab world, Israel can no longer condition its long-term strategic and national viability on a chimerical peace deal with Palestinian terrorists, a growing chorus of Israeli politicians and opinion shapers, (including this writer) has called for Israel to apply its law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria.
In 2017, Netanyahu’s Likud party endorsed applying Israeli law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Fearing an international backlash, Netanyahu refused to back the move.
But three days before the elections, Netanyahu pledged in a television interview that if reelected he will apply Israeli law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
And he won, in a landslide.
American Jewish leaders on both sides of the partisan aisle routinely applaud Israel’s democracy. They argue that it is Israel’s democracy that forms the basis of U.S. support for the Jewish state. In light of this consistent position, American Jewish leaders across the partisan divide could have been expected to celebrate the elections and the vibrancy of Israeli democracy and the independent mindedness of Israeli voters.
But this did not happen. While conservative Jewish American groups congratulatedIsraelis for their open democracy, liberal American Jewish groups responded to the Israeli election results by throwing a collective fit.
This fit took the form of a letter to President Donald Trump by ten liberal Jewish groups. The letter was notable for two reasons. First, the groups that signed it have been among Trump’s worst critics not only in the American Jewish community but in the wider American body politic. The Reform and Conservative religious movements, which together encompass the majority of American Jews, have boycotted conference calls that Trump has held with Jewish leaders.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), another signatory to the letter, has published misleading data regarding antisemitic attacks in the U.S. with the apparent goal of blaming Trump for anti-Jewish violence and discrimination.
In their April 12 letter, the ten groups “strongly urged” Trump to “pledge that any peace initiative your administration proposes will be based upon the principle of a negotiated two-state solution,” and “to clearly express your opposition to unilateral measures outside of this framework, including annexation by Israel of any territory in the West Bank.”
Ironically, the anti-Trump groups insisted that allowing the democratically elected Israeli government to implement the policy it was elected on would “put [Israel’s] core interest in maintaining a Jewish and democratic state at risk.”
The groups’ letter to Trump reveals two distressing facts about the state of these groups and about liberal American Jewry as a whole.
First, while they may represent more than half of American Jews, these organizations are rendering themselves irrelevant. The so-called “two-state solution” to which they maintain slavish devotion has no chance of being implemented. The Palestinians simply do not want it. They don’t want a state that will live side by side with Israel. They want to eliminate Israel.
That is why the Trump administration is walking away from the two-state formula. And this is why no major Israeli political party on the right or on the left ran on a platform calling for its implementation.
In all likelihood, these Jewish groups, which overwhelmingly oppose President Trump, are insisting that the administration join them in rejecting any policy other than Israeli surrender of Judea and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists for political reasons. To maintain their position in the Democratic Party, which is rapidly abandoning its traditional support for Israel, these groups are demanding that both Israel and the Trump administration maintain allegiance to Barack Obama’s Middle East policies in relation to the Palestinians.
This is a pathetic position. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted on April 14, the two-state framework has failed for forty years. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that it will ever work. By insisting that it never be abandoned, these liberal Jewish groups are embracing failure.
Moreover, the two-state paradigm, which requires Israel to keep its most vital national and strategic interests in limbo to appease terrorists that will never be appeased, is a policy paradigm that is inherently hostile to Israel. By insisting that the two-state paradigm never be abandoned, these liberal Jewish groups are committing themselves to an agenda that is deeply hostile to the Jewish state.
The liberal Jewish groups’ position is also pathetic because the Democratic Party they desperately wish to support no longer takes their views into consideration in any significant way. The fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) despite her open hatred for Jews signals that liberal American Jews are no longer a force to be reckoned with in Democratic politics.
So, too, the fact that no major Democratic presidential hopefuls will take effective action to combat the self-evidently antisemitic BDS campaign against Israel and its American Jewish supporters indicates that the next Democratic presidential nominee will not be pro-Israel.
Beyond the political implications of the move, the letter to Trump reveals a deeper, and even more tragic aspect, of liberal American Jewry. The very fact that this is the battle these groups have chosen to pick indicates that they have either lost sight of their larger role in the lives of American Jewry, or that liberal American Jews no longer believe these groups have a larger role to play in their lives, or both.
The letter was written a week before the Passover holiday began. Passover is the celebration of the birth of the Jewish nation, with G-d’s liberation of the Jews from slavery in Pharaoh’s Egypt. Jews throughout the world, including in the United States, observe Passover. For many U.S. Jews, it is one of the few times each year when they devote themselves to their Jewish identity and faith.
And yet, a week before Passover, the big statement the leaders Reform and Conservative Judaism in America felt it was most critical for them to express was one that had nothing to do with Judaism or Jewish peoplehood or freedom. Indeed, it was a statement antithetical to all of those things.
The fact that a week before Passover the leaders of these groups felt it was a good idea to sign on to a political statement expressing contempt for Israeli democracy and demanding adherence to a policy rejected by the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews, in order to lock the U.S. into a failed policy that is antithetical to Israel’s most basic interests, shows that they don’t think they can sustain or even need a broader goal than supporting Obama’s anti-Israel policies.
In other words: They care more about Obama’s anti-Israel policies than Israeli democracy. This is the true tragedy of liberal American Jewry.
Caroline Glick is a world-renowned journalist and commentator on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, and the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. She is running for Israel’s Knesset as a member of the Yamin Hahadash (New Right) party in Israel’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 9. Read more at www.CarolineGlick.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) High Stakes in Caracas
Either democratic forces oust the regime, or Cuba cements its hold.
By
Venezuela’s democratic leaders launched a revolt against Cuban-backed dictator Nicolás Maduro on Tuesday, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Either Venezuelans reclaim their freedom, or instability and misery will continue to radiate from Caracas through the Americas.
Interim President Juan Guaidó, who was chosen by the elected National Assembly, stood outside La Carlota military air base in Caracas at dawn Tuesday to call for “beginning the final phase of Operation Freedom.” Mr. Guaidó was calling Venezuelans to the streets a day earlier than he had planned as part of a peaceful May 1 demonstration, and the Wednesday march is still on. This isn’t a “coup” despite the U.S. media’s glib characterization. It’s a popular revolt against an illegitimate ruler.Mr. Guaidó and his allies are gambling that a huge civilian protest will shake the loyalty of military officers who remain committed to Mr. Maduro. Mr. Guaidó was surrounded by members of the armed forces and a number of military vehicles. Mr. Guaidó’s team estimates it has the support of 200 to 400 soldiers inside Venezuela while thousands have already defected. If Mr. Guaidó can show that officers are breaking, he might provoke more
At his side outside La Carlota was the enormously popular Leopoldo López, who spent three years as a political prisoner and was freed from house arrest on Tuesday. That he escaped to join Mr. Guaidó suggests that fidelity to Mr. Maduro among Venezuelan security forces is not as solid as Havana would have him believe. Chile later granted Mr. López and his family shelter at its embassy in Caracas.
The call to rebellion is a high-risk gamble for Mr. Guaidó, who may be targeted for arrest or worse. This week the regime accused him of treason and terrorist acts. Mr. Maduro’s remaining military support and armed militias clashed Tuesday with Mr. Guaidó supporters in bloody scenes throughout Caracas. A descent into civil war can’t be ruled out, but then force may be the only way Venezuelans can take back their democracy from a regime that survives with the help of Cuban intelligence and Russian military aid.
A failed uprising could entrench the dictatorship as Venezuelans conclude they have no avenue for change. They tried pursuing peaceful change by electing the National Assembly, but Mr. Maduro ignored it and established his own pet parliament. If the dictator prevails, millions of Venezuelans are likely to lose hope and flee their impoverished country for Brazil, Colombia and the United States.
The stakes are also high for President Trump, who in January recognized Mr. Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton on Tuesday told reporters outside the White House that “key figures in the regime” have been talking to the opposition for three months and need to act now. He specifically mentioned defense minister Vladimir Padrino, the chief judge of the Supreme Court, and the commander of the presidential guard.
“All agreed Maduro had to go,” Mr. Bolton said. “They committed to support ousting Maduro and it’s time for them now, if the Cubans will let them do it, to fulfill their commitments.” He also called this “a very delicate moment” in Caracas and said “if this effort fails, they will sink into a dictatorship from which there are very few possible alternatives.”
He’s right. U.S. efforts to strangle the regime financially by cutting off the oil trade may be having their desired effect on the Caracas coffers. But Mr. Maduro still gets weapons from Moscow and Cuban intelligence helps him promote fear in the officer ranks. The American left that claims to fear U.S. intervention in the country needs to admit that Cuba is already the imperial power in Caracas. Mr. Trump tweeted Tuesday afternoon that he’d impose “a full and complete” embargo and “highest-level sanctions” on Cuba if its security forces don’t leave Venezuela.
Mr. Bolton said Mr. Trump wants to see a peaceful transfer of power, and that would be the best outcome. But U.S. military assistance to the Guaidó forces can’t be ruled out. A victory for Cuba, backed by Russia in the Western hemisphere, would be a great strategic setback for U.S. interests and stability in the region. The U.S. needs to do whatever it can to help people power succeed in Venezuela.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) Linda Sarsour to
Fundraise for Terror-Tied
Organization
By Clarion Project
Islamist activist, sharia-apologist and co-founder of the Women’s March Linda Sarsour is set to be a keynote speaker at several Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA) fundraisers across the country, reported The Blaze.
IRUSA is the American affiliate of UK-based Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which has been banned in several countries due to its ties to international terrorist organizations.
There is currently an ongoing federal criminal investigation in the U.S. into Islamic Relief. The investigation was triggered by Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst and Shillman Fellow Ryan Mauro in 2014. Three different government agencies have already presented strong evidence of Islamic Relief’s terror ties.
Mauro also found that several officials of Islamic Relief USA have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Trump administration may soon be designating as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. For example, the organization’s vice chairman, Hamdy Radwanone, defended the terrorist organization Hamas (which previously declared itself the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood) as “freedom fighters.”
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have all designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Hamas was designed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization in 1997.
Sarsour previously worked with IRUSA on multiple fundraisers, including several “Promise for Palestine” tours in which she helped raise millions.
Sarsour will start her new IRUSA tour in the Atlanta area, alongside radical New York-based imam Siraj Wahhaj, who Sarsour describes as her “mentor, motivator and encourager.”
Wahhaj is the father of three of the defendants in the New Mexico jihadi cult terror case currently on-going.
In 1992, Wahhaj gave a sermon in which he advocated for armed jihad in streets for the benefit of Islam.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Wahhaj gave a sermon asking the question, “Who are the real terrorists?” He named three entities: The U.S. government, big business and the media.
Sarsour has a long history of radicalism and terror sympathies:
- Sarsour supports the anti-Semitic and terror-tied Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel.
- She called for people to show solidarity with Muhammad Allan, a member of the terror group Islamic Jihad. Allan has a history of recruiting suicide bombers.
- In 2017, Sarsour attended a Jewish Voice for Peace summit where she sat alongside the convicted Palestinian terrorist, Rasmea Odeh, and gave her a warm embrace. Sarsour said she was “honored and privileged to be here in this space and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”
- Sarsour playfully joked with the anti-Semitic Hezbollah supporter, Abbas Hamideh on Twitter about the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s connection to Israel. Hezbollah was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. in 1997.
- Sarsour and her Women’s March co-founders have been heavily criticized for their warm relationship with the Nation of Islam and its antisemitic leader, Louis Farrakhan.
- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment