%20(1)%20(4)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
Sending hugs:
https://twitter.com/Gabriele_
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Probably one of the best decisions Biden has ever made.
++++
Breaking News
White House Announces Military Partnership
(NewsGlobal.com)- The Biden administration has made a military move that some will see as controversial, while others have already celebrated the decision.
Earlier this week, the White House elevated Israel in terms of military planning. It comes at a time when the U.S. is re-focusing its efforts from the “war on terror” to potentially combating military efforts from the “big four” countries of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China.
As a result of this move, the intelligence community in the U.S. is ramping up its Hebrew language program so that it can spy on its top ally in the Middle East.
The Abraham Accords established diplomatic relations between Israel and several countries in the Arab world. Yet, with combat ending in Iraq and Afghanistan, Biden administration officials are seeing this as a great opportunity to incorporate Israel into this new regional alliance.
A senior intelligence official commented recently:
“Israel is coming out of the closet, allowed now to openly cooperate with the [U.S.] military while at the same time being denied access to another closet.”
What the official was referring to was the full world of intelligence in the U.S.
The official explained that some things such as targeting include a back-and-forth exchange under this new military alliance. At times when the interests of Israel and the U.S. might take different paths though, the U.S. will redouble its collection efforts.
This includes examples such as counterintelligence against spying from Israel or potentially uncovering secrets about the nuclear arsenal that Israel has stockpiled.
The change in military planning as it relates to Israel was codified by President Joe Biden last year when he signed the Unified Command Plan. This plan is the highest-level document that determines each command’s operation plan.
In 2021, the plan shifted Israel over to CENTCOM, or the Central Command, which is responsible for the entire Middle East. Before then, Israel was part of EUCOM, or the European Command.
That command oversaw military dimensions of the relationship with Israel, including working with them to defend Israel in only very specific circumstances against some of its neighboring countries.
The previous system, according to the Pentagon, allowed CENTCOM to build Arab allies without worrying about complicating the relationship with Israel, which to many of these countries is a sworn enemy. At the same time, it segregated Israel from being able to formally partner with CENTCOM, as well as participating in contingency plans against common enemies of the two sides.
The command, which is based in Tampa, commented after they were handed responsibility for Israel:
“CENTCOM will now work to implement the U.S. Government commitment to a holistic approach to regional security and cooperation with our partners. The easing of tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors subsequent to the Abraham Accords has provided a strategic opportunity for the United States to align key partners against shared threats in the Middle East. Israel is a leading strategic partner for the United States, and this will open up additional opportunities for cooperation with our U.S. Central Command partners while maintaining strong cooperation between Israel and our European allies.”
+++
Yet:
The European Union’s subversion of Israel -Meanwhile:
The religious culture war comes to Israel
Benjamin Netanyahu and King Charles turn out to have something in common, Op-ed.
By Melanie Phillips
(JNS) At the root of the convulsions over Israel’s new government lies the secular world’s hatred and terror of religion.
Put to one side, for now, the question of whether the hysterical predictions of extremism and the end of Israeli democracy are remotely likely to happen.
Park the fact that we don’t yet know how this new government will behave, and whether the pledge made by returning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will resist any extremist demands made by his religious allies is genuine or achievable.
Point your periscope instead at Britain, a country whose ability even now to punch culturally well above its weight tends to be ignored by people in both America and Israel.
Direct your gaze in particular at King Charles III, whose first Christmas message to the nation was broadcast last week.
While going out of his way in the address to affirm the depth of his Christian faith, he also name-checked Britain’s “churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and gurdwaras” as doing good works that expressed “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” He further declared that “the power of light overcoming darkness is celebrated across the boundaries of faith and belief.”
This was a deliberate attempt to stamp himself as the head of a family of faiths and cultures. The King is personally very open to other forms of spirituality. His attraction to Islam is well known. He is also deeply sympathetic to Judaism.
He was very close to Britain’s late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Recently, he visited London’s JW3 Jewish community center, where he beamed as he danced with Holocaust survivors and others.
And he paid a moving personal tribute to Rabbi Abraham Levy, the former head of Britain’s Sephardi community, who died last week. “May his memory be a blessing” said the King, using the traditional Jewish words of respect for the deceased.
Crucially, however, he understands that Christianity underpins British national identity, which itself depends on continuity.
That doesn’t mean other faiths aren’t welcome in Britain. It means that, if a nation is to remain united, it needs to have a religious cultural umbrella under which all can shelter.
America’s own doctrine of the separation of church and state may make this hard for some Americans to understand. However, Americans fool themselves if they think secularism holds their nation together, because biblical values infuse America’s core culture and its constitution.
Indeed, classical liberalism—the basis of Western modernity—holds that all citizens must adhere to the overarching core of the culture, such as democracy, sexual equality and one law for all.
Under that cultural umbrella, they are free to practice their own faith or traditions provided they don’t contradict these core precepts.
Left-wing ideologues, however, claim that biblical precepts do contradict core Western values. This is the reverse of the truth. Today’s progressive ideologies derive from the revolt against the biblical values that underpin Western civilization.
Leftists claim that only if the Bible is junked can everyone be treated with equal respect. But “equal respect” was in fact invented by the Hebrew Bible and is absolutely central to Judaism.
The problem is that the left confuses “equal respect” with identical treatment and outcomes, which they call “non-discrimination.” But also central to Judaism is the notion of discrimination between acts that build communal bonds and those that destroy community and nation.
This belief in moral discrimination and the importance of behavior is particular to Judaism. But the universalism that characterizes left-wing thinking negates Jewish particularism.
Left-wing universalism therefore undermines the idea of the nation state and the corresponding rule of law rooted in popular assent, both of which Judaism pioneered.
The notion being trumpeted by opponents of Israel’s new government that sexual libertarianism is normative is also entirely false. Traditional norms of sexual identity and behavior are laid down as non-negotiable in Jewish religious law, and are in turn foundational to Christianity.
It’s perfectly possible to stick to these religious precepts while pursuing policies that are humane, compassionate and just towards individuals and minority groups. But for the left, only its own “identicality” dogma is humane and compassionate.
In Britain, this has led to the insistence that public officials with conservative religious beliefs act against their faith. So Christian registrars are forced to officiate at gay adoptions, or Orthodox Jewish schools which never teach about sexuality are pressured to teach about homosexuality. Christian bakers have been forced to fight in court for the right not to bake a cake to support same-sex marriage.
In Israel, the left claims the new government will deprive LGBTQ people of the right to general medical treatment (essential to a classically liberal society). Religious Zionists in the coalition claim this is untrue, and they merely want to defend the right of Orthodox Jews not to be forced to act against their religious beliefs (essential to a classically liberal society).
It remains to be seen which of these perspectives turns out to be correct—if indeed this issue is allowed to emerge at all. But the left’s claim that if Israel departs from left-wing shibboleths it will enter a dark and oppressive place is wide of the mark.
Far from creating a liberal, tolerant society, progressive ideologies are profoundly illiberal and coercive. Far from producing the brotherhood of mankind, left-wing universalism sets group against group in a battle for power over each other.
A constitutional monarchy, such as exists in Britain, promotes unity because it exists above politics and therefore above division. This was the great insight of King David, who unified the tribes of ancient Israel to form a coherent nation and whose limited monarchy was the inspiration and template for the British Crown.
King Charles’s patent desire to bring the British people together has transformed him from a figure widely disparaged and distrusted as cold and remote into a person viewed affectionately as the benign and genial grandfather of the nation.
The State of Israel, of course, doesn’t have a monarchy. Nor does America, which is being pulled apart over these cultural issues.
For all the unifying strength of the monarchy he represents, however, King Charles is actually in a lonely and perilous position. For the prevailing culture in Britain is actively undermining the religious continuity he realizes is essential.
No political party in Britain is prepared to face down and defeat the culture warriors writing women and conservatives out of the public sphere. No party is prepared to stop children being taught the lie that Britain and the West were born in the original sins of colonialism and oppression. No party is prepared to conserve and defend the classical liberal settlement underpinning freedom, tolerance and democracy. And no party is prepared to challenge radical, pagan environmentalism—to which the King, with his belief in the spiritual unity of all creation, is unfortunately also deeply attached.
In America, the parallel collapse of conservatives’ understanding of what was at risk and needed to be defended led to the implosion of the Republican Party and the rise to power in 2016 of Donald Trump as the only way to defeat the cultural predations of the left.
In Israel, the collapse of the moderate, religious Yamina Party meant that those who believe the combination of Jewish religious integrity with a modern economy, scientific advancement and the duties of citizenship is crucial to Israel’s identity and survival felt they were left with no political representation - although the Religious Zionist party believes the same.
They have been presented instead with what the media led them to believe is a stark choice between religious zealots in one camp and left-wingers in the other screaming about the end of democracy while urging insurrection against an elected democratic government—and with Netanyahu holding the line against the extremism on either side.
Considering the way Netanyahu has been characterized as beyond the pale, this is indeed an irony. He and King Charles, it turns out, have something rather crucial in common
Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her personal and political memoir Guardian Angel has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, The Legacy. Go to melaniephillips.substack.com to access her work.
Finally:
Israel’s Population Approaches 10M as 2022 Draws to a Close
By Hana Levi Julian
The population of the Jewish State grew by 2.2 percent over the course of 2022, reaching 9.656 million souls, according to the latest data from the Central Bureau of Statistics.
Israel also lost 52,000 citizens, who died in 2022, including 4,000 expats living abroad for more than a year.
A total 73.6 percent (7.106 million) Israelis are Jewish; 21.1 percent are Arabs (2.037 million) and 5.3 percent (513,000) are various others, including Russian-speaking immigrants to the country who are not Jewish.
About 38 percent of the population increase – 78,000 people, higher than the 1.8 percent growth of 2021 – is due to immigration, 80 percent of whom hailed from Ukraine and Russia. The other 62 percent of growth is due to births of new citizens – 178,000 babies in the Jewish State.
Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Foreign Billionaire Funding the Dem Attack on Hunter Biden Investigation
By Daniel Greenfield
“We are proud Americans speaking up against an extreme agenda that is putting money and power over everyday Americans,” Courage for America’s mission statement claims.
If you have any doubt whatsoever that CFA is an American organization, its home page is decorated with a flag draped over a barn. The ‘O’ in its logo even includes flag symbolism.
CFA has announced that it’s “forming a council of proud Americans” to fight Republican investigations into the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden and the rest of the Biden clan.
Waving the flag to cover up the intimidation of elected officials investigating dirty deals with Chinese and Russian oligarchs is a new low even for Biden and his cronies.
Will Hansjörg Wyss, the Swiss billionaire allegedly backing CFA, be on the council of proud Americans? It would be awkward for the foreign tycoon to sit on a “council of proud Americans” since he is not, as far as even the media has been able to determine, an American citizen.
Instead, he appears to be living in America under an investor visa.
That hasn’t stopped the wealthy European from using his fortune to drastically influence American politics with the complicity of the IRS, the FEC and the rest of the government.
This wouldn’t be the first time that Wyss, who was accused of getting rich while killing patients, has broken the rules. And nothing says “proud Americans” fighting for “every American” like a secretive organization that doesn’t list its staff and appears to be funded by a foreign billionaire.
Wyss co-founded Synthes, a medical device manufacturer focused on repairing broken bones. In 2010, Synthes pled guilty to illegally experimenting on patients: its president, and its spine division president and two other executives were sentenced to prison. Even though a manager testified that Wyss had made the decision not to go through clinical trials, and owned half the company, he was not charged and has gone on funding the extreme causes of the Left.
The 5 Americans who died were not so lucky. Some of the dead, like Barbara Marcelino, showed signs of the cement used by Wyss’ company, in their lungs.
Wyss’ Hub Project has poured its money into everything from Democrat redistricting efforts to automatic voter registration with a massive impact on our elections. But this time the Hub appears to be focused on playing defense for Democrats against GOP investigations.
“Our goal is to go on offense against the new House majority,” said Zac Petkanas, Hillary’s former rapid response director, and a political strategist now working on behalf of Courage for America, bragged. “We are going to be pointing out the things that those investigations are distracting from.”
And who better to distract Americans from those investigations into Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals than a shadowy dark money group allegedly funded by a foreign billionaire?
NBC News has reported that Courage for America has a “seven-figure budget and support from the Hub Project, a giant Democratic dark money network, the group plans a robust operation including polling, paid advertising and social media campaigns, along with traditional opposition research and communications.”
But what NBC didn’t bother to mention was that the Hub Project appears to have been set up by the Wyss Foundation. A complaint by Americans for Public Trust noted in a filing that the Hub Project’s business plan “recommended that the group ‘be solely funded by the Wyss Foundation at the outset’ and that it would work behind the scenes to “dramatically shift the public debate and policy positions of core decision makers.”
Courage for America wants to target the Republican House majority and help Democrats fight off investigations into scandals like Hunter Biden and his foreign business operations.
GOP members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee have found 50 countries where the Biden family has looked into doing business. And they also intend to investigate Joe Biden’s role in some of those ventures. These hearings will potentially look into everything from Hunter’s Chinese-backed cobalt mine deal to a Russian oligarch. And the Democrats will defend against allegations that Biden, his brother and his son engaged in dubious business deals with shady foreign tycoons by turning to yet another shady foreign tycoon.
“The American people need to be introduced and educated about the extremist agenda of this new House and also who these members are,” CFA’s Petkanas blustered.
The CFA is so open that its site doesn’t even mention Petkanas, or Naveed Shah: its spokesman. Not only are CFA’s donors secret, but so are its staff and leadership. Instead of listing its staff, CFA references its “council” to divert attention from who is running the show.
That’s suspicious behavior for an organization that claims that it’s all about transparency. CFA is even working with another group calling itself the Congressional Integrity Project which vows to expose the “reality behind Republicans’ politically motivated oversight and investigations targeting President Biden and Democrats.” Nothing says integrity like a dark money machine helping Biden and his cronies intimidate elected officials investigating his corrupt activities.
The level of coordination between CFA, CIP and the Biden administration was revealed when the Washington Post mentioned that, “while the CIP is not formally tied to the White House, its leaders have spoken with President Biden’s aides and it recently brought on Jeff Peck, a former chief-of-staff to Biden from his time in the Senate.”
Biden appears to be covertly coordinating with a dark money machine group funded by a foreign billionaire to stop investigations into his dealings with foreign business interests.
If that’s not impeachable conduct, what is?
“These are sham investigations,” Kyle Herrig of CIP fumed. “We’re going to leave no stone unturned. No one has done the investigative research we’ve done on these investigators. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
“We have a multimillion-dollar budget, and we’re staffing up with a team of researchers and communicators,” he warned.
Where does that “multimillion-dollar budget” come from?
Dark money means that no one knows. The Washington Examiner couldn’t find anyone at CIP’s supposed offices and its spokesperson wouldn’t even provide a name.
This plot to fight investigations into corruption and abuses by the Biden administration has only revived questions about Wyss and his money machine. And the legality of his ongoing efforts to influence our political system for the benefit of the Democrats and the Left.
This is the phenomenon discussed in Internal Radical Service by David Horowitz and John Perazzo. The pamphlet from the David Horowitz Freedom Center began our project of exposing the abuses of the tax code by the political operations of the Left. While the IRS investigates conservative nonprofits on behalf of its allies in the White House, it allows leftists foundations and nonprofits, especially those allied with Biden, to flout the law and corrupt our system.
Biden’s effort to obstruct the investigations into the family business rely on a tangled network that includes David Brock’s Facts First USA, which we previously investigated, and groups which appear to derive their support from a foreign billionaire. This is the definition of corruption.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The GOP could solve several problems by appointing Trump as Speaker. He would get things done and could be required to sign a pledge he would not run for president.
+++
Kevin McCarthy or Someone Else? How U.S. House Picks a Speaker
GOP leader is top candidate before Jan. 3 vote but must win over some opponents
By Eliza Collins
Usually the speaker is elected with little suspense. This time things are expected to be at least a little bumpy, because of the thin Republican margin and a determined bloc of GOP dissidents who oppose Mr. McCarthy.
In the past several cycles, candidates have been able to sew up support before the vote, even if they faced opposition ahead of time. If the California Republican’s bid fails on the first ballot, it will be the first time in about a century that the majority party’s candidate is unable to get enough votes in the initial tally. The House could take further rounds of votes until ultimately selecting Mr. McCarthy or compromising on a different candidate.
Here is how the speaker vote will work.
When does the vote take place?
The House votes on the speaker at the start of a new Congress or if a speaker dies or leaves office. At the beginning of a new term, the House meets at noon Jan. 3, and the speaker vote is the first vote members take, even before they are sworn into office. The speaker vote is done by voice, with members calling out the name of the candidate they are supporting.
Who is running for speaker?
The majority party and a minority party will both put up a candidate for speaker. Republicans have chosen Mr. McCarthy, and Democrats will put forward Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who is succeeding Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California as the party’s leader. Other lawmakers can put their names in as well. Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, who opposes Mr. McCarthy’s bid, has said he is running for speaker. In a vote in November for the GOP nomination for speaker, Mr. McCarthy drew 188 votes, while Mr. Biggs garnered 31.
Who is opposed to Kevin McCarthy?
Five Republicans have said they would stand together and oppose Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Biggs, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Bob Good of Virginia, Montana’s Matt Rosendale and Ralph Norman of South Carolina. Others have been critical of Mr. McCarthy but haven’t said how they would vote. If that core group of five sticks together, Mr. McCarthy won’t have enough votes to be elected speaker, assuming all Democrats oppose him. But it isn’t known who would draw enough support as an alternative pick. Other Republicans who back Mr. McCarthy have said he is the only candidate they would vote for.
What do the McCarthy critics want?
The lawmakers have different reasons for opposing Mr. McCarthy, and some have indicated nothing would change their minds.
Mr. Gaetz, for example, has long been a critic of Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Biggs has said that he doesn’t believe Mr. McCarthy will be a strong enough foe of President Biden.
Some other Republicans, such as Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Chip Roy of Texas, remain uncommitted. They have asked for rules changes, including one that would make it easier to oust the speaker. So far, Mr. McCarthy has declined to support such a change.
How many votes does a candidate need to win on Jan. 3?
To be elected speaker, a lawmaker must win a majority of those voting. The House normally has 435 members, but there is currently one vacancy. Still, the total number needed to win if every member votes is 218 votes.
The House of Representatives is preparing to elect its new speaker. WSJ’s Natalie Andrews explains who is in the running and what is at stake for both parties. Photo illustration: Adele Morgan
The House is set to be split 222-212. That means Mr. McCarthy can lose no more than four votes, assuming all Democrats vote against him. If members are absent or vote “present”—instead of for a specific candidate—the threshold goes down.
What role do Democrats play?
Mr. McCarthy has said he wants to be elected speaker with just Republicans and doesn’t want the help of any Democrats. None have said they would vote for him, as typically the minority party votes for its own nominee.
It is possible some Democrats could vote present rather than for a candidate, which would lower the current 218 threshold required for Mr. McCarthy to be elected. That would require an agreement from Democrats to help Mr. McCarthy. Anything offered to get those Democrats could also turn off conservative Republicans—and Mr. McCarthy could end up losing even more of his own members. There is no indication that Mr. McCarthy has made any deals with Democrats.
At least one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, has said allies of Mr. McCarthy asked him to switch parties to vote for Mr. McCarthy, but he turned them down. A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy said at the time that the calls weren’t made at his request.
What happens if no one gets a majority in the vote?
If the House completes the first round and no candidate has gotten a majority of those voting, another vote can be called. The last time that happened was in 1923. That process can continue as long as it takes for a lawmaker to secure enough votes. The votes can take place while conversations are going on in the background or votes can end for a day and give more time for negotiating.
“This would definitely be novel for the party nominee to go to the floor and not get it done on the first ballot, but again, we don’t know if we are in that situation because people love to bargain,” said Matthew Glassman a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.
In December 1855—before the date was set in January—lawmakers gathered for the speaker vote but repeatedly failed to get a majority. It took 133 votes and until February before the House elected a speaker—and only then because the House voted to change the rules to allow the speaker to be elected by a plurality rather than the majority, Mr. Glassman said.
If this goes on for a while, what happens in Congress?
Because the speaker vote is the first vote members take in a new Congress, if it isn’t resolved quickly, the House will come to a standstill. Lawmakers can’t vote on legislation, work on their committees or do any other business until a speaker is chosen.
Write to Eliza Collins at eliza.collins@wsj.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment