By now, many Americans are aware of France’s Socialist President Emanuel Macron’s acid comments to U.S. President Donald Trump about how a new EU Army was needed for protection from, “China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

This was particularly insulting since Macron made his remarks on an occasion when President Trump was in France to commemorate the end of WWI and to honor the American soldiers who fell in places like Belleau Wood and the Argonne Forest and literally saved France from defeat at the hands of the German Army. Without the heroic efforts of those American soldiers,that  last German offensive in 1918 would almost certainly have broken through the exhausted French troops, many of whom had mutinied against their own officers just months ago.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to second Macron's remarks at a speech the very next day to the European Parliament, saying, "we have to work on the vision of one day creating a real European army.”

 

This is quite interesting. Germany's Bundeswehr is an under equipped, under manned and under financed joke, and Germany refuses to even meet their NATO commitments financially. As for France, most of their army is stationed within France itself, trying to maintain a semblance of order in France's cities, and France's economy is in a dismal recession. To do what Macron and Merkel are planning would cost billions that neither country would likely be able to afford, especially if, as Merkel said, they plan on staying part of NATO.

So what's behind this call for a new EU Army is actually easy to see if we look at the similarities between Merkel and Macron.

Both are by nature, totalitarians. Macron is a lifelong socialist and EU functionary who was part of the Hollande regime. Angela Merkel was a member of East Germany's notorious secret police, the STASI. And it's certainly easy to see these tendencies at work at when you look at how the EU and their individual countries are being run.

 

Both are seeing their grip on power severely threatened. Macron's popularity has plummeted severely, now that the French have begun to realize how badly they were conned and lied to in the last election.  The French are increasingly pessimistic about their future.  And Angela Merkel,while still  Bundeskanzlerin of Germany has seen her own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party reject her, along with their historic coalition partners, the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union (CSU). Both parties are now at record lows in approval ratings, and Merkel will probably not even finish her term unless something drastic happens.  

While Macron's mishandling of France's economy contributed to his unpopularity, both he and Angela Merkel are deeply unpopular because of the problems caused by Merkel's decision to open the EU's borders to Muslim migrants and Macron's eager acquiescence to that policy for France. For all the efforts of most of the press in these countries, the sexual assaults, violence, vandalism and crime that have occurred are no secret any more to the average German or French citizen.

Both leaders are also childless by choice. People with that mindset  tend to have a very different view of the future than those who have children.

So, let's put the pieces together, shall we? 

 The original bright idea Merkel and and other EU leaders had was to solve a growing problem: their native populations were simply not having children and rapidly graying. This tends to happen in socialist countries, and it was particularly true in Germany. And that meant fewer taxpayers to keep the socialist welfare state these countries had created solvent and running. Merkel hit on the idea of importing thousands of Muslim migrants to Germany, most of them young men of military age. She stupidly thought they would assimilate, adopt German culture and become taxpayers to keep Germany's social welfare system afloat.

What actually happened in both France,Germany and other countries stupid enough to try this is that the vast  majority of these young Muslim men didn't assimilate at all. After all, their own religion and culture was the best, wasn't it? Why imitate the kuffars? Nor did they particularly want to work, not when living on the dole gave them a lifestyle far better than they had back home, with free housing, medical care, and a generous cash stipend. And for amusement, there was crime, gang rapes, rioting, gay bashing, attacking Jews and simply behaving overall like the conquerors Mohammed and the Qur'an told them they were.  

Merkel and Macron's new idea is simply a variation on their former one. If they can't get these migrants off the dole and working, why not conscript them! Which is exactly how the new EU army is going to be created. While they probably wouldn't be too much use against the Russians, the new EU army could be used to threaten or even to attack EU nations like Hungary, Italy, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic who aren't abiding by the EU's diktats and bring them to heel. And of course, to discipline any dissidents in their own countries who need to be taught a lesson about co-operating with the New Order. It could also be used to deal with those uppity Jews in Israel who won't do as they're told by the EU. And of course, it would get a lot of these migrants off the dole. Given their inherent nature, making them into horde-like shock troops shouldn't be too hard, should it?

If it works the way they see it working, the entire populist movement in the EU nations can be crushed. And it's a great way for leaders like Merkel and Macron to stay in power, nicht wahr? 

Of course, in reality this would backfire in a hideous way. Armed and trained Muslim migrants aren't going to obey the orders of their infidel masters for very long.  They will simply use the opportunity they have been given to take over whatever they can manage to conquer and turn it into Dar Islam, which of course they will rule under shariah.

You would think Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron would be smart enough to see how badly their last experiment with Muslim Migrants turned out and avoid this sort of thing. But remember, they were dumb enough to do it  in the first place, and to insist on  bringing more migrants in,  even when it became obvious what a huge mistake it was. 

And the U.S.? Since most of the nations of Western Europe now regard America as  dangerous, would we get involved? It depends. 

I've seen others write about what a great  thing a new EU army would be, because we could simply take our troops out of Europe and forget about it. They forget that France has nuclear weapons and even some ICBMs and that Germany's Kiel shipyards are fully capable of building nuclear capable submarines. Would it really be such a great idea to let the Muslims get their hands on them?  So yes we probably would pull at least France out of the fire again, unless we simply decided to bomb the French nuclear facilities and Germany shipyards and have done with it.

  Also, in spite of what Angela Merkel had to say, as soon as they have their new EU army in place, NATO will largely be history. But that isn't going to apply to Eastern Europe, Italy, and quite possibly the UK if someone like Boris Johnson, David Davis or Dominic Raab takes over from Theresa May, which is very likely. And yes, if they're attacked, we might see US forces involved. 

Let's hope Merkel and Macron's idea of an EU army turns out to be just trial balloon with a hole in it. 

These leaders consider America a greater threat to them than an aggressive Islamist Iran, to the point where they appease the Ayatollahs at every turn and put their hopes in a bogus 'deal' Iran never even signed.
 
Based on that, I wouldn't count on a new EU Army being on our side in the event things hit the fan.










Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.
Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.
And connect with him on Linked In

Since March 30th, much of the world's press and a chunk of the so-called 'international community' has been focusing on a series of what can only be called violent riots emanating from Gaza against Israel's border.

Of course the media refers to them as protests, and the rioters as protestors and the UN as well as the usual channels refer to what has happened as 'war crimes.' So as a beginning, it's perhaps helpful to describe these so-called protests and let the reader judge.

Israel understandably has a border fence with Gaza, a precaution against the numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Iranian proxy Islamic Jihad that have occurred in the past. The protests weren't composed of people carrying signs and making a few speeches. They were mob attacks on Israel's border, specifically on points Hamas had advised the mob were vulnerable. The mobs attacked the fence directly with Molotov cocktails, small arms fire, axes, wire cutters, explosives and knives. They used women and children as human shields, and had support from Hamas missiles and mortar shells. In other words, this was an attack, an act of war carried out against a sovereign nation.

The IDF responded the way any country's military would faced by this attack on their borders. After warnings to the mob in Arabic not to approach the border fence and tear gas didn't stop them, the IDF soldiers opened fire when the mob charged the fence in response. It is a testimony to the cool heads, marksmanship and professionalism of the Tzahal that there were so few casualties, and that even Hamas admits almost all of them were Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. If a group of Jewish women and children had approached Gaza with an actual protest asking Hamas to stop firing missiles and mortar rounds at Israeli towns, does anyone doubt Hamas would have killed every one of them and celebrated afterwards?

Hamas's Leader Ismail Haniyeh has made it clear that the riots and assaults of the fence will continue 'until Jerusalem is liberated.' And true to his command, the riots have continued, usually of Fridays after the imams have had a chance to stir up the mobs.

Another assault has been launched from the air. Incendiary kites, balloons and even inflated condoms have been launched towards Israel, resulting in fires that have already destroyed hundreds of dunams of Israeli land. One balloon containing an explosive device and a booby trapped detonator attached to the string was launched to be landed near an Israeli kindergarten only a half hour before the children were scheduled to arrive for class. Here's what it looked like:



The leftist press reacted as expected. The AP, for instance in an article I won't bother to link to had a whole sob story about how there's such limited electricity nowadays and that it was making medical procedures like tending the wounds of would-be jihadis so difficult. Of course, what this Hamas PR piece didn't mention is that the electricity in Gaza is so limited because a Hamas missile accidentally hit one of the Israeli towers that provides electricity to Hamasastan. And to add to the smell of what the AP and others are peddling, the Israelis aren't able to make repairs because of the danger to Israeli repair crew.

The UN also played its traditional role. An extremely biased UNSC resolution damning Israel for 'war crimes' was unable to pass thanks to a U.S. veto, but the same resolution passed in the General Assembly, 120-8, with 45 abstentions. About half of the EU voted for the resolution, including Spain, France and Belgium, with Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland and Norway also voting in favor. The UK and Germany abstained. Of the major U.S. allies, only the Australians had the guts and decency to vote against this travesty openly...Advance Australia Fair indeed.





An amendment advanced by U.S Ambassador Nikki Haley condemning Hamas actually passed by a majority, but was disallowed by General Assembly president Miroslav Lajcak. While the resolution has the legal force of a stale piece of take out pizza, the fact that the UN was willing to vote to not condemn a clear aggressor against a democracy, and to actually vote in favor of establishing 'an international protection force for the occupied Palestinians' tells us quite a bit of what the UN has become. As Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon put it, if the UN approved the Palestinian resolution, “it will have signed in writing its unequivocal support for terrorism against Israel.”

“Let us not pretend,” Danon said. “If ISIS were to attack Stockholm tomorrow, ISIS would be held responsible for the attack. If al-Qaeda assaulted Paris, the UN would issue the strongest condemnation of al-Qaeda.”

“Only when Hamas attacks Israel does the UN seek to blame Israel.”

Well they did approve it, and a large part of the UN does approve terrorist attacks on Israel. And they have for a very long time.

So, how to fix this sorry situation?

Obviously the Israelis cannot depend on any cooperation at the UN. Nor can they depend on Hamas to stop attacking them or trust any negotiations they make with them. The latest laugher was Hamas's offer for 'comprehensive negotiation.' You know what Hamas proposed? They will return the remains of two Israeli servicemen,Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul they've held since the 2014 Operation Protective Edge. And they will return two kidnapped Israeli civilians Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, prisoners who the Red Cross has not even been permitted to visit.

What do they want in exchange? Oh, just to build a seaport and an airport. When you realize the Iran has now joined Turkey as Hamas's paymasters, it's easy to figure out they don't exactly want these things for the tourist trade, but to fly and import weapons and missiles. The Iranians are particularly noted for using civilian airplanes for this purpose. And these attacks on Israel's border are largely at Iran's request, to open up another front against Israel and distract from Iranian attempts to militarize Syria.

And no mention of an actual peace treaty, of course. Israel is never going to be able to negotiate anything like that with people who would use a pretty, kid friendly balloon as a booby trap in hopes of murdering  Jewish children.

What Israel has done to date since the Hamas takeover is to wall Gaza off, destroy the terrorist tunnels into Israel and do their best not to allow Iranian heavy weapons to get into Hamas's hands. Whenever the missile firings and mortar shelling get too intense, Israel engages in  what they refer to as 'mowing the grass' to take out as many Hamas military assets as possible and calm things down until the next time. Followed, of course by the usual media and UN hysterics,

This strategy actually helps Hamas, who care very little about the people they rule or about peace with Israel.It has become, essentially a war of attrition which favors Hamas.

I have a different solution, and it's one I would implement if it were my decision to make.

Wars are won (or lost) when certain things occur. To end a war or the active threat of war, one side occupies enemy territory and subdues it while protecting its own. Or  one side simply destroys an enemy's capacity to wage war and forces them to seek terms of surrender and peaceful coexistence.

Of course, not all wars are decisively won or lost, but that is how a war in which one side is victorious ends.

My proposal is that Israel treat this like the war that it is and do what's necessary to end it. It would not be without cost, but is entirely possible. And certainly an improvement on the status quo.

First, I would inform the civilian population to leave to avoid undue hardship. Then, I would send the IDF over the borders, after announcing publicly to Hamas and the world that any hospitals, mosques, civilian dwellings or schools from which any missiles were fired would be considered  legitimate military targets and dealt with accordingly. After all, the UN is going to condemn anything Israel does anyway, so it makes sense to deal with this Hamas tactic properly, once and for all.

I would then shut off all electricity and water to Gaza. which is now provided by Israel. Men have survived for centuries without electricity, but never for very long without water. The IDF could simply dig in and besiege Gaza City and Khan Yunis while the air force and attack choppers took out the missile launching sites and anything else that was appropriate. Hamas would eventually have to come out to either face the IDF's firepower or to surrender.

After vetting them, the Israelis could definitely let a large part of the civilian population flee to Egyptian Sinai and then close off the Rafah crossing while turning over the Hamas small fry that were captured directly to Egypt's Mukhabarat for a nice, leisurely interrogation. Getting their hands on bunch of Hamas operatives is something I'm sure Egypt's al-Sisi would appreciate, especially when they spilled the beans about their fellow Muslim Brotherhood comrades in Egypt. The Hamas leaders could be subjected to a nice sit down with the Shin Bet, who are noted for their hospitality and encouragement of interesting conversation in these situations. Most of the Hamas leaderrs could probably be turned over to the Egyptians afterwards. Sharing is caring, nachon?

At that point, the Israelis would control previously hostile territory, eliminating an Iran proxy and a probable war front. Mahmoud Abbas would certainly want it turned over to him and the corrupt PLO, but Israel could and should refuse outright, and annex the Gaza Strip. They could then start doing what Israelis seem to do so well, rebuilding and improving the mess, exactly what they did to Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. There would be no more missiles from Gaza, and not much of a Hamas threat. Perhaps even some of the inhabitants from Gush Katif could resettle there, along with other Israelis. It could even become a haven for Arab and Middle East Christians and Yazedis, whose young men would become as good soldiers defending their new country as the Druse, Bedouin and Arab Christians have been. South Africa's Jews, who are increasingly under threat from the government of their native land might be another good source of population.

And Gaza itself? It would become what it could easily have been with different rulers, a second Singapore rife with trade and prosperity. While Egypt might whine a bit about a large part of Gaza's population settling in Sinai, the increased trade between Israel and Egypt, which Egypt badly needs would be a consolation. Egypt could also probably apply to the UN or elsewhere to get some support money for these new refugees.

The UN and the usual media clowns would go insane. But they do that anyway whenever Israel takes the least step to defend itself. They would never recognize Israel's annexation of Gaza, but so what? They don't even recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, or Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, which is 50 years old. Some European nations might not accept products from Gaza, but there would be plenty of trade with Asia, Eastern Europe and the Arab world to make up the slack.

Wars end with victory. It's time this one did.

The bleeding orifice known as Syria has once again erupted, due to a chemical weapons attack in Douma that took a number of civilian lives, or so it seems.I say this because media has become a weapon in modern warfare, the Sunni Syrian rebels are more than capable of rigging something up and as the self inspecting Iranians would tell you about the pictures and videos they send to the IAEA as 'compliance,' such things are very easy to stage.

President Trump has promised 'a high price' for the attack, referred to Syria's dictator as 'that animal Assad,' (why slander animals?) and actually took the opportunity to cite Putin as responsible. I suppose that was just for domestic politics.

To date there was one very successful air raid on a Syrian regime airbase east of Homs which was crawling with Iranians. Putin reportedly says it was the work of the always effective Israeli air force, but my Lil' Birdies in Israel just gave a wry chuckle when I tried to confirm this. My guess is that it very well might have been, given the Iranian connection, but if it was, the IDF likely had other reasons rather than retaliating for the gas attack. One of them was probably to send a direct message to Iranian President Rouhani, who's been doing some chest pounding lately that Israel is not prepared to let them turn Syria into another Gaza or Lebanon.

Meanwhile, a second guided missile U.S. destroyer, the USS Porter has been sent to the Syrian coast to join the USS Donald Cook, a similar ship already there.

What happens next is anyone's guess.

Needless to say, the whole assortment of isolationist paleo cons, pro-Iran leftists and Israel haters in general are screaming bloody murder. They want us out of Syria yesterday. John Bolton being named National Security Advisor made them particularly insane.

But no matter matter what happened or didn't happen in Douma, pulling out of Syria would be a huge strategic error and a bad mistake. Here's why.

Syria was where ISIS got its start emerging from a group of 'moderate' Sunni rebels who were mostly al-Qaeda, its affiliates like al-Nusrah or other Islamists and salafists. Obama, along with his BFF Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Qatar armed, trained and financed these people, bypassing congress in the process.

As he was leaving, our now ex-president was careful to drop the mess into other hands, stating that it would take years to defeat ISIS and take back the territories they help in Syria and Iraq. President Trump said it could be done in a matter of months and did exactly that. Our allies in that effort were the Kurds. The Iraqi army that dropped their weapons and ran from ISIS before were mostly useful in mopping up afterwards.

When Obama was president, he gave the Kurds just enough ammo and supplies to barely hold their own. The Israelis, with long time close connections with the Kurds were able to supply some more. And When Donald Trump came in and put US air, naval and ground forces into the equation, the Kurdish Persh Merga played a key role in destroying ISIS on the ground and driving them out of their Iraqi and Syrian strongholds.

Their reward was to have the Shi'ite Iraqi government steal the oil rich city of Kirkuk, violating the original Iraqi federation agreement and making a Kurdish state even within the federation financially impossible. And for the Turks to attack them and seize Kurdish territory in Syria's northern border region.

Here's the present situation. The Turks have retreated after being 'urged to do so' by Iran's President Rouhani. The U.S. still has about 2,000 ground troops in Syria, mostly embedded with Kurdish forces, which also include Yazedi and Christians as well as civilians.

Aside from the certain bloodbath, if we leave we hand Iran a major victory, a land passage between their colony in Iraq and their colony in Lebanon. And we give them access to the Mediterranean. Also, we would give Iran yet another reason to consider the US an easy foe who is afraid of them.

Finally, it would mean that the Kurds, our true allies would be destroyed.

History gives us numerous examples of what happens to world powers who allow their allies to be neutralized and liquidated. Or even worse, co-opted to fighting on the other side.

Czechoslovakia in 1938 had a strong, well trained and well armed military, excellent border fortifications and protective terrain in the mountain passes and dense forests bordering Germany. They even had a major arms manufacturer in Skoda, comparable to Krup. Hitler could never have attacked the west successfully with that on his borders, because it would have meant a two front war, something he and the Germans dreaded and weren't ready for.

When Britain and France sold out the Czechs, not only did they ensure that Hitler would attack them when he was ready, but that Britain and France were so frightened of war that they would do anything to prevent it. And it also sent a message to Stalin, who had been talking earnestly to Britain and France about an alliance or mutual defense pact to keep the Germans at bay that a non-aggression pact with Hitler was a far better bet.

At the start of the Punic Wars, Carthage allowed its allies in Sicily to be destroyed simply because a war might cost two much money. Sicily's resources and manpower were denied to them, as were its ports, shipyards and its strategic position within easy sailing range of Carthage heading south and close to Rome heading Northeast. While the Carthaginians won (or tied, depending on how you see it) the first Punic War, they lost the others once Rome had a navy. Had they backed their Sicilian allies, Hannibal might have invaded from the south in easy distance to Rome instead of having to leave from Spain, travel the Alps and lose a portion of his men and war elephants in the process before he ever was able to fight in Italy.

There are numerous other examples.

But what about the Russians?

Putin's main interest in Syria is twofold. The main thing for him is the warm water ports at Tarshish and Latakia. Secondary is appeasing his Iranian allies. And when it comes to Iran, Putin's position is by necessity somewhat ambivalent. The U.S. pulling out of Syria is not really in Russia's best interest.

He understands that the Israelis will simply not allow Iran to put missile or air bases in Syria. If a hot war breaks out, Russian personnel will be caught in the middle of it, and if Russia intervenes and is involved in a proxy war on Iran's side, the U.S. will do the same with Israel, and Russia can't afford a war just now. Or really, to alienate Israel, with whom Russia still has relatively cordial relations.

As I pointed out previously, during the Obama years Russia and Israel put together an actual hotline between the Kremlin and it's equivalent in Tel Aviv. The idea was to avoid conflicts and any casualties for Russian personnel. And part of it involved Russia agreeing to turn a blind eye to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah or Iranians or weapons shipments going to these parties as long as no Russians got killed. The agreement has worked well so far. Even though Putin claims the Israelis bombed that air base and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov called it “a very dangerous development” Putin hasn't done anything about it, nor would it serve him or Russia to do so.

Even less to Russia's liking, President Trump is not Obama and might just decide to fix America's Iran problem once and for all.

So given some access to the ports and actual negotiations with the president on settling the Syria question, Putin would likely be willing to cut a deal...given the alternatives.


As for Syria's ultimate destiny, I'm ambivalent as long as Iran is kept out of the picture, which is vital for U.S. interests. Just rebuilding its infrastructure after the war is going to take billions, which I see no reason for the American taxpayer to shell out...no nation building, please. If anything, Syria should become the new Kurdistan, at least a decent piece of it. They're owed at least that much, at least.

 

President Trump's UN speech attracted a fair amount of controversy among the chattering classes. It shouldn't have.

The United Nations has become a byword for useless, dysfunctional bureaucracy a mere 72 years after its founding.

Like Belshazzar's feast, it spends lavishly and conducts itself with opulence, but is rotted through with corruption and does little of any value while squatting in mordant self satisfaction.

Leave it to President Donald J. Trump to point out the wrong direction the UN has traveled since its founding in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, and to challenge it to change direction and become the force for good it was intended to be.



The president called for the UN and its members to reverse course, and to become what the UN was supposed to become on its inception...a group of sovereign, independent nations who prized freedom, democracy and peace and were willing to work together to promote them and to take action against rogue nations who threatened those ideals. If you read the original UN charter, you get a sense of just how far the UN today has removed itself from what it says.

Scandals like 'oil for food' where even the Secretary General's son was implicated in money laundering for Saddam Hussein to avoid UN sanctions abound. Countries like Iran routinely threaten genocide. And violate with impunity even UN Security Council series 7 resolutions like UNSC 1701, which called for the disarming of terrorist group Hezbollah and prohibiting UN members from rearming them. Iran and Syria rearmed Hezbollah without incurring any penalty whatsoever.

UN peacekeeping forces are more noted for trading food supplies for enforced prostitution, ignoring their supposed duties and allowing violence against civilians than for fulfilling their actual missions.

That's exactly why President Trump quoted Harry Truman, who stressed that the success of the United Nations depended on the “independent strength of its members.”

And unlike his predecessor, President Trump was unafraid to voice this simple truth;

“The United States of America,” Trump said, “has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.”

And our president was equally honest about confronting thoe rogue nations who threaten peace and security. He called out the disgusting regime of Kim Jong-un in North Korea, saying thatthe patience of the United States is great, but not inexhaustible. Asthe president explained, If North Korea persists in its policy of nuclear blackmail, the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” He continued: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

Needless to say, the Leftist press worldwide fainted away collectively at that. But what President Trump said was the simple truth. The same is true about what President Trump had to say about the equally rogue, criminal regime of Iran, one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, a foe of America who was openly complicit in 9/11.

The UN's ignoring of the Iranian regime's march towards nuclear weapons is so ingrained that they aren't even making an attempt to have it look like they're doing something. Not only has Iran has prohibited the UN from any inspection of their military facilities where there's been clear indications of manufacturing and testing nuclear weapons components, but the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog now allows Iran to self inspect their nuclear facilities that the UN is allowed to get a glimpse of. To accuse the IAEA and the UN of gross negligence whenit comes to Iran is a gross understatement.

You see, President Trump wasn't just giving a display of American resolve. This was a direct challenge to the UN, plain and simple. The UN, after all is supposed to be the forum where dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea are supposed to be addressed and dealt with. While Trump was quite clear that America could handle these rogue regimes on their own, He said it would be far better if the UN actually did what it was supposed to do and dealt with these major threats to world peace. “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few,” Trump said in another memorable line, “then evil will triumph.”

Trump even had the intestinal fortitude to address Socialism.

No ideology has ever been so discredited by the evidence of history, but like a serially cheating wife or husband still offers hope to a long suffering spouse that this time, it will really be different. Except, of course, it never is.

Trump used the UN's failure to address the human tragedy now going on in Venezuela, once one of the richest countries on earth where Maduro's socialist regime is literally starving its population to death. It wasn't so long ago the Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and other Leftists were using Hugo Chavez and Venezuela as an example of how well socialism could work. Now, as the once rich country descends into poverty and chaos, they don't mention Venezuela any more.

“The problem in Venezuela,” Trump said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

So how did President Trump's speech go over? To most of the delegates of the UN, not very well. Being publicly unmasked like that is the last thing they wanted, let alone being challenged to make the UN what it was created to be. And of course, Trump's usual political enemies in the press and in the Democrat party went predictably ballistic. But as usual, the president has hit another bulls eye when it come to talking to the American people and to friends of freedom everywhere.

Speaking truth to power is a Leftist cliche', but that is exactly what President Trump's UN speech did, in one of his finest moments.

 

President Trump came into office with the idea of succeeding where other presidents had failed. His goal was to forge a comprehensive Mideast peace process that would both end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and create a bloc between the most powerful Sunni States of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates (and possibly a newly formed, U.S. backed Kurdistan) with Israel to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, oppose Iran and reaffirm U.S. leadership in the region. How's that working out? It Isn't, and President Trump may be pulling out of the Mideast peace process, at least the part concerning Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

First, some background.

President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and his remarks there made a huge impression on the Arab states that attended the Riyadh summit. They had experienced 8 years of President Bush's amateurism, which only served to unleash Iran by establishing a Shi'ite dictatorship in place of a Sunni counterbalance in Iraq. And even worse, they had experienced President Barack Hussein Obama going even further to appease and empower Iran with billions of dollars and a clear path to nuclear weapons.



President Trump's speech did not excuse previous winking at or financing of terrorism by Sunni states like President Obama's Cairo speech. What it was instead was a reset, a clear invitation...stand with America, against Islamic terrorism and against Iran and you can expect our help. Otherwise, you stand alone and incur America's enmity. Implicit in that was a new policy by the Sunni states towards U.S. ally Israel, something that had been gradually happening anyway.

Much of the basis of this was solidified behind closed doors with a large deal for the Arabs to buy U.S. arms among other things. One of them was a deal for the Arabs to significantly alter the notorious Saudi 'peace' ultimatum' to Israel in exchange for some minor land concessions to the Arabs who call themselves 'Palestinians.'

I should also mention that I'm reliably informed that Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu was fully informed about all of this before President Trump went to Riyadh, okayed the arms deal and was on board for certain concessions in exchange for significant quid pro quos from Abbas and the Palestinian authority.

The Sunni states made two significant steps that showed they were taking all this seriously. Of course, with a media concentrating on fake news about phantom links between Russia and the Trumps, you might not of read about them, but I'll present them here.

The first major action was a radical shakeup in the Saudi Royal family.Saudi King Salmon made a surprise decision to elevate his son Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 31, to crown prince and heir to the throne, in place of his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef. King Salman obtained the support of 31 out of 34 members of Saudi Arabia’s Allegiance Council for confirming Prince Muhammad Bin Salman as crown prince as well as deputy prime minister and minister of defense.Bin Salmon is outspokenly in favor of a new US-Arab-Israeli alliance that will confront Iran, as well as social and economic reforms. Like Egypt's al-Sisi, he favors an end to non-relations between Israel and the Arab world. Other changes in Saudi leadership are already occurring, and will likely continue with Prince Mohammed as heir to the throne.

The second was four Arab nations(The Saudis and the Emirates) boycotting Qatar, with the Saudis in the lead, in response to President Trump's demand for strong action to stop the funding of Islamic terrorism. Qatar’s funding of terrorists is notorious. Along with Turkey and President Obama, Qatar provided the financing,arming and training of radical jihadist elements of the Syrian Free Army that created ISIS.

The aggressive Saudi and UAE stance against Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani makes this a whole new ballgame.

The appointment of Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates as crown prince is another indication of change, since he's a contemporary of Crown Prince Mohammed and they have similar views on these subjects.

So, peace between the 'Palestinians' and Israel?

President Trump is on the verge of walking away from it as a bad deal.

Things started badly when President Trump first met with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority's unelected dictator in year 10 of a four year term. Abbas planned to trick President Trump by setting up the route to the conference so that the President would pass directly in front of Yasser Arafat's tomb, where camera men were ready to snap pictures that would be represented as President Trump paying homage to Arafat. Fortunately, the State Department found out about the scheme and changed the route.

In the conference itself, one thing President Trump explicitly asked Abbas for was that the Palestinian Authority stop using international donor funds to pay convicted killers and their families, and to end incitement in it's schools, media and mosques against Jews and Israel. That's why President Trump looked directly at Abbas at their joint press conference and said that "peace cannot flourish where terrorism is funded, encouraged and rewarded."

The PA further infuriated the Trump Administration by having one of its functionaries tell Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the PA was going to comply with President Trump's wishes on funding terrorism. Once Tillerson conveyed this to the media, the PA embarrassed him publicly by denying it. And of course, incitement and the funding of terrorists and their families still continues.

Even worse was to come. The recent meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and US President Donald Trump's senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner on June 25 might have been characterized as 'productive' in some wishful thinking media, but the reality is that it was anything but. The The London-based Arabic-language daily al-Hayat had a much more accurate account.

Kushner again directly challenged Abbas on using international financial aid to pay salaries to terrorists sitting in Israeli jails and their families, as well as on the constant incitement against israel and Jews. And Kushner also mentioned the White House's disappointment that Abbas had failed to condemn the deadly terrorist stabbing in Jerusalem that occurred shortly before the meeting. It took the life of a young female Border Police officer, Hadas Malka. This is the one the BBC reported with the headline, "Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem" *



Abbas was outraged and said he would never stop paying convicted killers in Israeli jails, saying it was his 'social responsibility.' Several people outside the room heard them actually yelling at each other,something I was able to confirm.

Since then, Abbas has ramped up incitement against Israel, continued to finance terrorism and attack Israel at the one forum where anyone takes him seriously, at the UN. In violation of the UN Charter, several UN organizations like UNESCO have 'Palestine' as a member even though it isn't a country. Thanks to the anti-Israel resolution Barack Hussein Obama cheerfully instigated and allowed to pass, Israel is supposedly denied access to its major religious sites like the Kotel and the Cave of the Patriarchs, and UNESCO'S World Heritage committee has deemed them 'Palestinian territory' and thus Judenrein in the Nazi sense of the word. Needless to say, in the real world outside Turtle Bay, none of this means anything at all, None of it is legally binding or calls for the UN to enforce it. But it does show that the Palestinian Authority and Abbas have no real interest in peace or in compromise of any kind. That's never been part of their agenda.



Abbas's rejectionism hasn't gone unnoticed by the Sunni Arab states, who need this arrangement a lot more than they need Abbas and Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas's constant shilling for more money from them hasn't been met with open wallets lately, and Egypt's President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi has abruptly scrapped a series of meeting with Abbas that were scheduled.

And one last bit of evidence on how the Mideast peace process is DOA. Israeli PM Netanyahu (perhaps at President Trump's urging) put together yet another concession to help things along and get the ball rolling. This involved building approval for 14,000 homes in Qalqiliya, a small Arab town on Israel's borders. The new homes would have been in Area C, the part of Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank for CNN viewers) under Israeli sovereignty per the Oslo Accords. In other words, a large enclave of hostile Arabs right on Israel's border.

Israeli public reaction was absolutely livid, since building permits for Israelis in the area and elsewhere are rationed, and Israeli residents who lived in Amona and Beit -El are still waiting for the government to keep its promise and build new homes for them to replace the ones they lost when they were forcibly evacuated as part of the 'peace' process.

Netanyahu and Israeli defense minister Avigdor Liberman, who brainstormed this idiocy ended up not even bringing it to a vote in Israel's security council, let alone the Knesset. The behavior of Israel's 'peace partners' pretty much killed this, which is actually a good thing given the track record of the Arabs whom call themselves 'Palestinians'.

The recent murder of two Israeli border police (both Druse, whose funerals were accompanied by thousands of Israelis) is yet another sign of where all this is going. The two policemen were shot in the back by Arab terrorists after Muslim prayers with weapons they smuggled into the al-Aqsa mosque.



Mahmoud Abbas (after prompting by the White House) issued a half hearted condemnation of all violence...followed by a rebroadcasting on the official Fatah Facebook page of a Mahmoud Abbas speech calling for exactly that, violence and rage to take over the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Temple mount and to stop Jews from defiling it - in Arabic, of course.



The Palestinians also erupted in violent demonstrations when the Israeli police attempted to put metal detectors up to stop the murder of Israelis from recurring. This was after a number of weapons were actually found stored in the mosque itself.

The Israeli response to this nonsense was to take Jerusalem off the table entirely.

The Knesset Ministers committee unanimously approved legislation on Sunday approving a bill advanced by Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) leader Naftali Bennett. It mandates a special, 80-MK majority on any future legislation dividing Jerusalem. The Knesset has 120 seats, so an 80 seat vote is virtually an impossibility. The Israelis were never going to redivide Jerusalem anyway. But this makes it official.

Meanwhile Abbas is continuing to stir the pot, visiting leaders like French President Macron and China's President Xi and lobbying them to get involved in the peace process. Abbas understands that President Trump now realizes he has no interest continuing the peace process with Abbas as a factor, something I predicted would happen back when President Trump first started dealing with Mahmoud Abbas. Negotiating can't work when one of the parties continues to operate in bad faith.

And pot stirring tactics is about all Mahmoud Abbas has left, and they're totally ineffectual. UN groups like UNESCO could declare all of Israel except a strip near Tel Aviv Palestinian territory and it would have no effect except the cutting of even more UN funding. Abbas can continue to rant about the Temple Mount and do his best to inspire hatred and violence towards Israel, but it won't get him any closer to what he wants. And Abbas, at 82 and a chain smoker isn't going to be around much longer anyway. Another Capo al Tutti will take over the Fatah mafia, thump his chest and attempt to steal as much international aid for his personal fortune as possible, just like Arafat and Abbas did. But his take is likely to be less than theirs as even the gullible Europeans are getting tired of funding one of the longest running con games in history.

Actually, there is a way to bring this sorry situation to a satisfactory climax, believe it or not. But more on that in a coming article.

* Since Donald Trump Jr. is in the headlines these days, I thought I'd share his response to the BBC's disgusting bias:

• 10,638 10,638 Retweets
• 23,354

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com and other publications.

Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

Now that President Barack Hussein Obama is out of office, a number of disturbing things have surfaced about Obama's signature foreign policy achievement, known as the Iran Deal. Among other things, in his lust for the Iran deal at any cost, President Obama dismantled U.S. intelligence capabilities being used against Iran and it's terrorist satellites and proxies.

As the Washington Free Beacon reported, David Asher, an adviser to Gen. John Allen at the Defense and State Departments during the time these actions took place told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on June 8th that top officials running several key law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration "systematically disbanded" law enforcement and intelligence activities targeting the terrorism financing operations of Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela. This happened during the nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

"Senior leadership, presiding, directing, and overseeing various sections [of these agencies] and portions of the U.S. intelligence community systematically disbanded any internal or external stakeholder action that threatened to derail the administration's policy agenda focused on Iran," he testified.

According to Asher's testimony, the Obama Administration deliberately obstructed U.S> intelligence and law enforcement from a prime opportunity to take apart Hezbollah's worldwide financial network, including proxy use of the U.S. banking system, moneylaundering, and narcotics sales in conjuction with the world's major drug cartels.

As a side note, Hezbollah, like most other terrorist organizations has been trafficking in drugs for years, Their headquarters, in Lebanon's Beka'ah Valley is one of the prime drug growing and refining areas in the world.

"We lost much of the altitude we had gained in our global effort, and many aspects including key personnel, who were reassigned, budgets that were slashed—many key elements of the investigations that were underway were undermined," Asher testified.

"Today we have to deal with the legacy of that and how we rebuild this capability—knowing that you can have a nuclear deal with Iran and you can contain and disrupt their illicit activities," he continued.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R., Calif.) plans to introduce additional sanctions aimed at Hezbollah and Iran.

Another aspect that come out in the hearing that Rep. Royce referred to was a report he cited about the Obama administration's release of seven Iranian-born prisoners in U.S. custody last year as part of a prisoner swap for dual U.S.-Iranian citizens. A Politico article in April detailed how several of the seven freed Iran in's were accused by the Obama administration's own Justice Department of posing threats to national security.

Citing court filings, the report also showed that the Obama Justice Department dropped charges and international arrest warrants against 14 other men, some of whom had actually committed espionage.

David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector testified to the same panel recently about how the Obama administration also interfered with U.S. law enforcement efforts against Iran's terrorist networks.

When Rep. Royce asked Asher about this, Asher said, "We had operations that were denied overseas. We had funding that was cut," he said. "People were making decisions that the counter-terrorism mission and the Iran nuclear deal was a central and all-important element whereas containing Iran's malevolent forces was less important."

Another facet of how shameless the Obama Administration was involved what occurred just a week after the US Senate failed to stop the Iran nuclear deal, while secret 'side deals' were still being negotiated to finalize things. Iran revealed it's duplicity and its contempt for Obama and Secretary of State Kerry by launching a huge cyber attack on the U.S. State Department in late September of 2015. Not only did the Obama Administration refuse to publicly disclose the attack, but they made it classified to make sure no one else in the State Department or its private contractors did either.

At that point, of course, the deal could still have been scuttled. President Obama made a decision not to do so.

How cowardly this appeasement was can be seen by Iran's subsequent actions - holding U.S. citizens captive for ransom, ballistic missile testing, jousting with U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf and even taking a U.S. navel vessel captive and publicly humiliating its crew.

The UN isn't even bothering to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities anymore. In fact, UN inspectors never even got to see a number of Iranian facilities, which was supposed to be part of the deal. At this point, Iran is 'self-inspecting' its facilities. So much for the rigid inspections and verification creatures like Ben Rhodes sold to his friends in the U.S. media, who lapped it up and happily regurgitated it to the American people.

 

The Iran deal, you see, was no 'deal' at all.It was jizyeh*, monetary tribute by the Infidels (who feel themselves subdued') to the Islamic Republic. And the vast majority of the billions of dollars Iran received was given to them before they even agreed to do anything, let alone complied.

Nations frequently fall on such willful follies and appeasement.



* Qur'an 9:29. "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

 

It's been proven that the United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months, a Treasury Department spokesman admitted Saturday. So President Barack Obama was not telling the truth when he said that such payments were impossible.

This proves that the president knowingly lied, that the payments in cash were open appeasement to Iran as well as ransom for hostages, and constituted outright felony money laundering.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) discovered the two wire transfer payments during briefings with Obama administration officials.


At an August 4, 2016 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government that coincided exactly with the release of hostages Iran was holding, Obama said, “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn't send them a check and we could not wire the money.”

But a Treasury Department spokesman has now revealed that on at least two occasions, the U.S. did make payments to the Iranian government using wire transfers.

In July 2015, the U.S. government paid the Islamic republic $848,000 over a claim over architectural drawings and fossils that are now housed in Iran. Isn't it nice that our president is so scrupulous about paying Iranian claims when he won't allow U.S. citizens to sue Iran in our courts for damages? The second payment was made in April 2016,when the U.S. wired Iran $9 million to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water from the Arak heavy water plant which is used to produce plutonium that can be used to make nuclear weapons:

The Treasury Department spokesman explained that the lifting of those sanctions allowed Iran “to gain incremental access to the international financial system, which opened up more options for executing transactions, such as the heavy water transaction” that occurred in April 2016. The spokesman declined to offer an explanation as to why the July 2015 payment was possible despite the full array of sanctions in place at the time.

Actually, both these payments violated sanctions still in place based on Iran's human rights abuses. The July 2015 payment was made while both human rights and nuclear-related sanctions were still in place, while the April 2016 payment was made while the human rights sanctions were in place.

That $400 million cash payment that Obama said could not have been delivered except in cash was part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement with Iran, the remainder of which was also delivered in cash. The president also claimed that the $400 million wasn't a ransom, but was paid to settle a dispute over military equipment ordered by the shah of Iran before the Ayatollahs took over.

That too is a fairy tale by our president, as anyone who knows anything about how arms deals and other large commercial deals are done between countries.

There's no way it was 'their money' we were holding:

The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs, the money was never released to America by Iran's bank either.

So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

And the reason it was released in cash? Simple...the Ayatollahs wanted a huge, physical amount of cash to photograph and humiliate America for propaganda purposes. Also, cash is fungible and easier to use without a paper trail to trace it. This was money laundering, plain and simple. And that is a felony.

So Obama lied about that too. End of story.

Russia's Vladimir Putin just suffered a major setback in the Middle East...delivered by no less than Iran's Supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.

A few days ago, there was a news story out that sent a shock through the foreign policy establishment here in the U.S. and elsewhere, that Russia would now base a squadron of its Tupolev 22M3 heavy bombers and support aircraft in Iran's Nojef airbase. This was, of course, a huge game changer and Russia's Foreign ministry proudly trumpeted the news in world media as a major sign of Russian dominance in the region.

 


Except it wasn't. The whole thing blew up in the Russian's faces, and in a particularly humiliating way.

The deal was arranged by Iran's President Rouhani, who made the mistake of forgetting his place. He summoned the national supreme military council and, without consulting with Khamenei, simply informed them of his decision to make the Nojeh air base available to the Russian air force.

Aside from being angered that Rouhani made this decision without getting an OK from him, Khamenei was reportedly upset that the Russians showed every intent of making the base their permanent turf complete with sophisticate S-300 and S-400 defense systems to protect it. The last thing Khamenei and the ayatollahs want is a base deep in Iran controlled by a foreign country.

Khamenei orchestrated major disapproval from the Majlis, Iran's version of a parliament that actually does the bidding of the Ayatollah Khamenei and his Council of Guardians. It was more than enough to kill the deal and force the Russians out bag and baggage after just three sorties into Syria.

So the Iranian defense ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi announced in a press conference August 22nd that the Russian mission is over for now, that it was always only a temporary use base on a Russian request.

And if that wasn't enough of a slap, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan insulted the Russians openly for “showing off” over the air base in an “ungentlemanly manner” and a "betrayal of trust."

"We have not given any military base to the Russians and they are not here to stay."

But wait, there's more.

The Russians make a fair amount of badly needed cash selling weaponry to other countries,including Iran. The Ayatollah Khamenei wasn't finished with them yet. He forced President Rouhani to make amends and show who really runs Iran by forcing Rouhani to be photographed posing with an Iranian-made Bavar-373 missile defense system and to tell the press that with this new, home manufactured system, Iran won't need to purchase any more expensive Russian S-300s, "because the Bavar-373 is just as good."

The Ayatollah was not just telling the Russians that Iran wouldn't be buying any more of what they had to sell, but that Iran was going to be further hitting them in the wallet by putting out a competing, less expensive alternative to potential customers.

While I felt I understood why he was doing it, I've written before that Vladimir Putin was making a huge mistake making common cause with Iran. It's the same mistake Stalin made with Hitler,supplying him with oil and other raw materials literally until the day Hitler's armies attacked him.

What Khamenei was reminding Putin that 'You're a useful infidel at present, but you're still an infidel.'

It's as simple as that.

Well,this is what happens when you pay ransom and otherwise appease fascists ...you encourage them,because you've shown them it pays.

Today, the U.S. Department of State issued a warning advising U.S. citizens not to travel to Iran. According to the announcement, the advisory is intended to “highlight the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, particularly dual national Iranian-Americans.”

It says that Iranian authorities continue to "detain and imprison U.S. citizens, particularly Iranian-Americans, including students, journalists, business travelers, and academics, on charges including espionage and posing a threat to national security."

"Iranian authorities have also prevented the departure, in some cases for months, of a number of Iranian-American citizens who traveled to Iran for personal or professional reasons," the warning continues. "U.S. citizens traveling to Iran should very carefully weigh the risks of travel and consider postponing their travel."

 
"But, ummm...I thought if we, y'know, paid the ransom they'd be nice to us from now on."



"The Infidel made a funny!!"

If I was Rouhani, I'd be laughing too, because there's probably another big payday coming. Iran's fascist regime has confirmed that Iranian-American Robin Shahini has been imprisoned. He was arrested for no one knows what charges on July 11 and that he has not been heard from since. He was there to visit his family.

I seem to remember President Obama making a huge deal out of the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned a Qu'ran. A pity he had no clue about how Jefferson actually felt about Islam or how he handled the Muslims known as the Barbary Pirates when they started to make a business out of taking Americans as hostages.

But then, Thomas Jefferson was a very different kind of man from the one we have in the White House today.

 

Just when you think the Obama Administration has reached rock bottom when it comes to rank dishonesty, they dig deeper.

Many Americans were upset and disgusted by the spectacle of America appeasing Iran once again by handing over $400 million as ransom to release four American the Iranians were holding as hostages.

As I pointed out here, President Obama blatantly lied at a press conference he gave when he said that That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever and that the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered.

He also lied egregiously when he said that the Israelis were now in love with the Iran deal, but let's look at the latest horse manure Obama is having his minions push.

As the Wall Street Journal among other reported, the Regime was disturbed that the President's spiel not only didn't poll well, but that congress was taking notice. So they did what they always do - they doubled down and let their allies in the media push the narrative and then cover it up thoroughly. get a whiff of this load:

New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn’t amount to ransom, because the U.S. owed the money to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.

But the handling of the payment and its connection to the Americans’ release have raised questions among lawmakers and administration critics.

The use of an Iranian cargo plane to move pallets filled with $400 million brings clarity to one of the mysteries surrounding the cash delivery to Iran first reported by The Wall Street Journal this month. Administration officials have refused to publicly disclose how and when the transfer took place.

I'll just bet they're refusing to publicly disclose it!

The first lie is that this was a 'failed arms deal,' the same stuff the president tried to feed us. Arms deals between governments are done using Letters of Credit, where the buyer (in this case, Iran) places funds with their bank as a guarantee of payment to complete the transaction with instruction to release it to the seller (In this case,the U.S.) upon delivery. The buyer's bank issues the Letter of Credit and sends it to the seller. The seller delivers the goods and the buyer's bank releases the funds. No delivery, no funds released. And anyway, who pays for a legal claims settlement with a planeload of cash in foreign, untraceable currency?

The president also lied about the need for an Iranian cargo plane to ferry $400 million in cash to Iran because 'we don't have a banking relationship with Iran'. If the U.S. was going to pay ransom, they could very easily have deposited $400 million in a Swiss bank that does have that relationship, had them issue a letter of credit to the Ayatollahs and instructed the bank to release the ransom money to Iran when the hostages were freed. Converting American cash dollars the way the Obama regime did for this sort of purpose has a name. It's called money laundering and it's a major felony.

The reason the president and his minions did it was precisely because it was a ransom, and the Iranians, like all kidnappers set the terms...because they wanted to be able to humiliate the Great Satan another time and publicize and display how America bent over to their demands. Which is exactly what they have done. They're not at all embarrassed about calling it a ransom.


The president also lied when he said his administration doesn't pay ransom for hostages. I was able to think of several instances just off the top of my head where they've done exactly that.

Finally, just today, the Obama regime finally admitted the president flat out lied when he told the American people this wasn't a ransom. Just like the rest of his little performance. And now, the next question is what the remainder of the $1.7 billion Iran received was for. Terrorist kidnappers don't ordinarily take ransom in installments. What else did this president buy besides the release of 4 hostages?

And let's not leave out the latest nonsense, that the money wasn't released until the hostages were freed The hostages themselves have debunked that one, with one of them in particular being quite vocal about how the Iranians told them explicitly that they wouldn't be allowed to board the waiting plane to leave until the ransom was paid. There were other installments, fo ra total of $17 billion. By all accounts, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Rest assured they'll put it to uses that violate U.S. statutes on material aid to terrorism.

The contempt this president's policy of ransoming hostages shows for America is bad enough, and rest assured we'll see more attempts at kidnapping American before Barack Hussein Obama leaves office. It pays.

But what's even more evident is how much this disgusting episode shows blatantly how much contempt this president and his regime have for American people. They're not even bothering to try to sprinkle a little perfume around to disguise the stench of horse manure like this any more.

 

It's been revealed that American hostages held unjustly by Iran were released this January, but only after a sum of $400 million in cash sent by the U.S. was received by the Islamic Republic. This transaction was meant to be hidden, but now it's come out, it has immediately raised questions. Was this a ransom? Why was this hidden from the American public?



The totally misnamed Josh Earnest, Obama's spokeshole was quick to say that no ransom was paid, and Hillary Clinton said - it seems to be her trademark -that this was old news and 'no one cares about it anymore.' Well, it worked for Benghazi and her illegal private e-mails and server, so why not?

But it was left for Barack Obama to pull off the biggest, most shameless lies of the bunch. He gave a press conference and asserted the following:

• That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever.

• That the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered. And that America's own lawyers advised paying this settlement because Iran had pursued litigation in court and by settling, 'we saved America billions of dollars.'

• That this was old news, that the Iran deal was working and that even Israel admitted it. Obama also said those who had been most critical of the deal should admit they were wrong:
  
  “What I’m interested in is if there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock,” he said.“That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, ‘You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”
  
  “The Israeli military and security community … acknowledges this has been a game changer,” he said. “The country that was most opposed to the deal.”

Well, let's examine these claims. First of all have we paid ransom before for hostages during Obama's term in office?

Remember these?


In 2011, the Obama Administration paid $1 million dollars to Iran as 'bail money' to get them to release two hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer who accidentally wandered over the Iranian border two years before and were being held in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. An additional $500,000 in 'bail' was paid earlier for the release of Sarah Shourd, Bauer's girl friend when she became seriously ill in Evin. So, a total of $1.5 million in ransom money.

In 2012, the Obama Administration used USAid as a conduit to pay $4.6 million to the Egyptian Government for the release of 43 NGO operatives...including Sam LaHood, the son of the then Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

Then there was deserter Bowie Bergdahl. Remember him? Not only were 5 extremely skilled and dangerous Taliban commanders sent back to Afghanistan, but there a great deal of evidence that the Obama Administration also paid a ransom of something like $5 million to the Taliban for his release.

Even if Bergdahl's ransom consisted of just the five Taliban commanders alone, those of you with loved ones serving in AfPak can thank the Obama Administration and Mrs. Clinton, then Secretary of State for making things far more dangerous and life threatening for them.

These are just a few instances that come readily to mind, and I'm certain there are other instances. So contrary to what the president said, yes, his administration does pay ransoms for hostages. And if I remember, he mentioned that countries that do that see the price go up. That's certainly been the case for the United States!

 

Let's look at the president's next claim, that the cash payment of $400 million wasn't a ransom, it was a claims settlement for an arms deal that the Iranians were already pursuing via litigation. And the money just arrived there at the exact same time as the hostages were being released just by coincidence.

Now anyone who's ever paid a court judgment knows this is sheer fantasy. Settlements of this kind involve legal documents including one called a satisfaction of judgement filed by the litigant at the same time payment is made. And the president's nonsense - that's the most benign word I can use here - about the fact that it needed to be all cash 'because we don't have a banking arrangement with Iran' is a blatant falsehood. There absolutely no reason the U.S. couldn't have deposited the funds in a Swiss bank by check for the Iranians to have wired to wherever they wanted in any currency they desired.

There's a name for what the Obama Administration chose to do instead. It's called money laundering and it's a felony offense. No wonder even some of the officials in Obama's serially lawless Justice Department were concerned about this one.

The Iranians wanted cash for a simple reason - to humiliate the Great Satan and show the money off to prove it actually was a ransom. Which is exactly what they've done.

One of the the hostages has recounted that even though the plane to take them home was ready for takeoff, the Iranians told them that they were waiting for the plane with the money and they weren't going to be released until it arrived.

Another falsehood the president told us is that this was supposedly an arms contract that was never fulfilled. I know a little bit about arms dealing and how it's legitimately conducted. The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs the money was never released to America either.

So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

Finally, let's look at his claim that the Israelis are on board and just love the Iran deal.

Now, there are a few Israeli members of the military and security establishment that agree with the president, but what's notable is that they're all ex-members and almost all associated with the left wing Zionist Union (AKA Labor) party that the president tried and failed to put into power with substantial injections of cash and paid activists when he interfered with Israel's elections. They're the people whose mindset and opinions the Israeli electorate overwhelmingly rejected.

And the people who they elected and who have actual responsibility for Israel's security?

Avigdor Liberman, Israel's defense minister compared the Iran deal to Munich in 1938.

"The Munich Agreement didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed, and because the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of [Adolf] Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders,” the ministry said.

“These things are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel,” it said, pointing to a recent State Department report that determined that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

Yitzhak "Tzachi" Hanegbi, currently Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in charge of National Security and Foreign Affairs has a long history as part of Israel's security and defense establishment and who until recently chaired the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He said, “I don’t know to which Israelis he (Obama) spoke recently. But I can promise you that the position of the prime minister, the defense minister and of most senior officials in the defense establishment has not changed.”

“The opposite is the case. The time that has elapsed since the deal was signed proved all our worries that, regrettably, we were justified before the deal was made.”

And Prime Minister Netanyahu? Netanyahu merely issued a statement that Israel “has no greater ally than the United States” but made plain nonetheless that Israel’s position on the Iran nuclear deal “remains unchanged.”

While he felt the need to be somewhat more diplomatic than Liberman (who later yielded and walked his initial statement back a bit), it's worth noting that Netanyahu used the example of Munich himself previously. And it's a correct one, with both involving a weak leader seeking to appease a vicious, aggressive enemy and buy 'peace' at an ally's expense. Czechoslovakia had a strong, well equipped military, strong, built up defenses on the German border and a world class armaments manufacturer in the Skoda Munitions Works. If Chamberlain had not sold out his ally, Hitler might never have felt secure enough on his Eastern front to start WWII and engage Germany in a two front war for some time. Certainly, it would have given the West a lot more time to arm and prepare if nothing else.

There should be no question in anyone's mind that President Barack Hussein Obama sees Israel as eminently disposable, just like Chamberlain saw the Czechs.

 

At any rate, another outright lie from this president.

And there was not a single question or followup at his press conference challenging any of these gross fabrications.

No one even challenged him by asking for his reaction to Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei essentially dumping the Iran deal and any future negotiations in a very public manner. (Hat tip to Moon of Alabama via The Glittering Eye)

Which is exactly why he keeps doing it. Because what used to be a free, independent press is now largely his enabler, a group of courtiers and political activists that covers for him. For them, that is more important than truth, the nation's well being or even a semblance of ethics. And thus, they reinforce President Obama's gigantic ego in believing that he can lie with impunity and that he really is smarter than everyone else.

 

As Obama's flack Ben Rhodes has smugly admitted, congress and the American people were knowingly and deliberately lied to and deceived about the entire Iran deal. And I'm sure anyone who's been paying attention has noticed how Iran is ignoring various elements of what we were told the deal consisted of and how aggressive their action and language have become. They now realize the weakness and incompetence of whom they're dealing with.

The Iran deal merely gives them a clearer path to nuclear weapons, plus $150 billion to continue on it as well as foment terrorism worldwide and build up their conventional military. And since the Majlis, the Iranian parliament never agreed to the so-called Deal, and the Iranian regime has been quite open that the 'deal' is very different from what the Obama Administration and that buffoon Kerry told us it was, we really have nothing and got nothing while giving away the store...the toothless IAEA is even allowing Iran to perform its own inspections with zero oversight.

The fascinating thing now is the new narrative from the Obama Administration, when Ben Rhodes smugly termed his 'echo chamber in the media and the usual suspects on the Left as they try to convince all of us that this is a good thing.

We're told that whatever its flaws, the Iran deal stopped Iran's progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons, that Iran's moderates are now in control (oh, you bet they are) and anyway, it was either the Iran deal or war...and who would be crazy enough to want to invade and occupy Iran?

Well first off, since we have no real knowledge of what's going on at places like Parchin, Fordow, or Iran's secret base at Neybusher except what the Iranians choose to tell us, there's no evidence at all that Iran has given up its quest for nukes. As a matter of fact, Iran's aggressive stance of increased ballistic missile testing, ultimatums to the US Navy to stay out of the Strait of Hormuz tell us that the Iran deal certainly didn't accomplish any cessation of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Or moderation to their position of seeing the Great Satan as their main enemy.

And why would they, anyway? Because of a few words on paper Iran never actually accepted?

Of course Iran has always has and will continue to progress towards creating a nuclear arsenal. That's why they kept their illegal nuclear program clandestine and secret until it was outed by Iranian dissidents in 2003. And why they have continued to play for time with a gullible West.

One thing none of these people ever want to address is this question. Which is crazier? To stop a fascist regime from obtaining nuclear weapons while you still can, or to wait until they have them and then live with the consequences?

Another fascinating part of the new narrative is to use a stark choice of war and invading Iran versus applauding this fraudulent non-deal the Iranians obviously have no intention of abiding by. This is misleading because no serious military thinker has ever proposed that, largely because it isn't necessary to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

Merely increasing and tightening the sanctions would have brought about the crash of Iran's economy and would have had them begging for terms. That's exactly why they came to the table in the first place. Instead, Obama watered down the sanctions with numerous exceptions and eventually saw to it that the sanctions regime was completely removed.

The Israelis were willing to do the job of taking our Iran's nuclear facilities for us when it would have been far easier job than it is today without the use of a single US soldier or airman. But both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration threatened and/or gave false assurances to stand down. And coupled with the sanctions, a comprehensive attack on sites like Fordow, Parchin and Arak would have set Iran back decades, contrary to the nonsense peddled about how it would only set them back a few years.

At this point, thanks to two dysfunctional presidents, the job is more difficult but by no means impossible, although the cost in human life would be higher on both sides.

Another step could have been to replicate Reagan's strategy in 1986 when the Ayatollahs started attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. After warning them, we sank most of their navy, and had the Marines occupy Kharg Island, the main dispensary in the Persian Gulf that all of Iran's pipelines feed into. We controlled their oil for a month until President Reagan decide they'd learned a lesson and evacuated Kharg. Problem solved.

Iran's navy and air force is still highly substandard, and there's no reason this tactic couldn't be repeated, especially if it was combined with the other steps I've mentioned.

Iran is, by their own admission our worst enemy. What the Iran 'non-deal' was is out and out appeasement of that enemy. Democracies who have attempted these kind of good faith arrangements with regimes like Iran's have achieved a notable record of abject failure, at the cost of far more in blood and treasure than if they had taken a firm line when the cost was still fairly light.

There are worst things than war.