Previously: "American Brittney Griner Released in Prisoner Swap."
And quite something of a follow-up, at AoSHQ, "Biden's bragging that he got back a woman who is important to his key constituencies of LGBT Activists and CRT Grievance Stokers and literally no one else ... The Great Diplomat is less forthcoming about the man he's putting on a plane in exchange for this pothead scofflaw."
My column on Obama bending over backward to help the mullahs cash in on the Iran deal made @RealClearNews this morning. Read it here. https://t.co/aHdMaE1c6n— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 7, 2018
The full history of the Obama administration’s nuclear dealings with Iran has yet to be written, not least because many of the details remain shrouded in secrecy. The bits of the story that do seep out into the public sphere invariably reinforce a single theme: that of Barack Obama’s utter abjection and pusillanimity before Tehran, and his corresponding contempt for the American people and their elected representatives.Still more.
Wednesday’s bombshell Associated Press scoop detailing the Obama administration’s secret effort to help Tehran gain access to the American financial system was a case study. In the months after Iran and the great powers led by the U.S. agreed on the nuclear deal, the Obama Treasury Department issued a special license that would have permitted the Tehran regime to convert some $6 billion in assets held in Omani rials into U.S. dollars before eventually trading them for euros. That middle step—the conversion from Omani to American currency—would have violated sanctions that remained in place even after the nuclear accord.
That’s according to the AP’s Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee, citing a newly released report from the GOP-led Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Lederman and Lee write: “The effort was unsuccessful because American banks—themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions—declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion . . . but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.”
Put another way: The Obama administration pressed American banks to sidestep rules barring Iran from the U.S. financial system, and the only reason the transaction didn’t take place was because the banks had better legal and moral sense than the Obama Treasury.
This was far from the first instance in which the Obama administration bent over backward, going far beyond the requirements of the deal, to help the Iranian regime cash in on the deal...
Three weeks ago, I said if John Bolton replaces H.R. McMaster, “we are going to die.” This new piece with @JBWolfsthal via @ForeignPolicy explains why 👇 https://t.co/ftTNTc5GDX— Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl) March 23, 2018
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster is out as Trump’s national security adviser and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (and current Fox News contributor) John Bolton is in. This is no mere rotation of on-screen personalities in the latest episode of “The Trump Show.” It is a move with potentially profound implications for the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, Bolton’s ascendance increases the risk of not one, but two wars — with North Korea and Iran.More.
McMaster was no dove. But Bolton falls into an entirely different category of dangerous uber-hawk. Fifteen years ago, Bolton championed the Iraq war and, to this day, he continues to believe the most disastrous foreign policy decision in a generation was a good idea. Bolton’s position on Iraq was no anomaly. Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he reportedly told Israeli officials that once Saddam Hussein was deposed, it would be necessary to deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He has essentially maintained this position ever since. Put plainly: for Bolton, there are few international problems where war is not the answer...
John Bolton is considered too extreme for any position requiring Senate confirmation. Just the kind of man the president likes. https://t.co/1PqTIYZn2I— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) March 23, 2018
“After nearly four decades of plunderous and fanatical Islamist rule, Iranians are desperate to become a normal nation-state once more, and they refuse to be exploited for an ideological cause that long ago lost its luster.” https://t.co/zTJ2UZe8Ju pic.twitter.com/mSfhaEM1Bp— Peter Kohanloo (@PeterKohanloo) January 1, 2018
Iran is convulsing with the largest mass uprising since the 2009 Green Movement. Demonstrations that began last week in the city of Mashhad, home to the shrine of the eighth Shiite imam, have now spread to dozens of cities. And while the slogans initially addressed inflation, joblessness, and graft, they soon morphed into outright opposition to the mullahs. As we write, the authorities have blocked access to popular social-media sites and closed off subway stations in the capital, Tehran, to prevent crowd sizes from growing. At least 12 people have been killed in clashes with security forces.More.
What is happening in the Islamic Republic?
After nearly four decades of plunderous and fanatical Islamist rule, Iranians are desperate to become a normal nation-state once more, and they refuse to be exploited for an ideological cause that long ago lost its luster. It is a watershed moment in Iran’s history: The illusion of reform within the current theocratic system has finally been shattered. Iranians, you might say, are determined to make Iran great again.
Their movement is attuned to the worldwide spirit of nationalist renewal. From the U.S. to India, and from South Africa to Britain, political leaders and the voters who elect them are reaffirming the enduring value of the nation-state. Iran hasn’t been immured from these developments, as the slogans of the current protests indicate. No longer using the rights-based lexicon of votes and recounts, Iranians are instead demanding national dignity from a regime that for too long has subjugated Iranian-ness to its Shiite, revolutionary mission.
It’s notable, for example, that protestors chant “We Will Die to Get Iran Back,” “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, My Life Only for Iran,” and “Let Syria Be, Do Something for Me.” Put another way: The people are tired of paying the price for the regime’s efforts to remake the region in its own image and challenge U.S. “hegemony.” Some have even taken to chanting “Reza Shah, Bless Your Soul,” expressing gratitude and nostalgia for the Pahlavi era, which saw the modern, pro-Western nation-state of Iran emerge from the shambles of the Persian Empire.
Iran’s Islamist rulers have never had a comfortable relationship with Iranian nationalism. In the early post-revolutionary days, Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers set out to rip the pre-Islamic threads that formed the tapestry of national identity: pride in the Persian New Year, the architectural glories of Persepolis, and the epic poetry that has long shaped the national soul–all these things were deemphasized if not altogether forbidden.
More recently, however, the regime has sought to harness its ideological and regional ambitions to national pride and memory. Qassem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander spearheading the war effort in Syria and Iraq, was increasingly presented as a latter-day Cyrus the Great. The regime claimed that it had to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq lest Iran be forced to defend itself at home, and the idea even gained currency among many secular, middle-class Iranians. Meanwhile, some regime figures, such as former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tried to present an idea of “Iranian Islam” that was both pure and consistent with a nationalistic vision.
But as the uprising underway now suggests, that project has utterly failed. No amount of propaganda and revisionism could mask the regime’s constitutional hostility to talk of nationalism and nationhood. Nor could it mollify Iranians who saw their national wealth squandered on adventures in Arab lands that didn’t concern them; “Gaza” was an abstraction to the vast majority. Nor, finally, could this regime-led nationalist push uplift Iranians, whose daily lives were marked by poverty, repression, and isolation from the rest of the world.
The current uprising, then, poses a far more potent threat to mullah power than its previous iterations, because nationalism is a far more potent force than liberal-democratic aspiration. If enough Iranians come to view their regime as an obstacle to national greatness, the Islamic Republic’s days will be over–an outcome that is squarely in the U.S. national-security interest.
The new Iran that could emerge from such an uprising may not be a liberal state, as the West understands the concept. But its calculations about the country’s place in the region and the world are far more likely to be driven by normal, nation-state priorities. The people who are making the revolution, after all, are tired of serving someone else’s messianic cause...
Twitter mob attacks by a name-calling scrum of mid-level bureaucrats, “security correspondents” for instant news outfits like Buzzfeed, interns at various NGOs and their self-credentialed “expert” bosses, partisan bot herders, and their Lord of the Flies puppet-masters are part of the price of doing journalism these days. Write something negative, and you’ll get dirtied up—and maybe some of the dirt will stick, who knows. These attacks are intended to be punitive. Brave or foolhardy reporters who deviate from the party line—the party in question being the Democrats, of course, since the representation of conservatives in newsrooms is generally reported to be somewhere in the single digits—and especially their colleagues watching from the sidelines, are meant to absorb a simple but all-important lesson: Get on the team, or else shut up. Watching even seasoned pros succumb to this kind of adolescent pressure game and publicly suck up to bullying flacks while throwing shade on members of their own profession is a depressingly normal occurrence, which shows that the two once-separate professions—partisan flackery, and reporting the news—have merged into a single, mindless borg.
Obama derailed secret fight against Hezbollah for Iran Deal... https://t.co/XZglS6kSNx— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) December 18, 2017
That's the thing @Tvietor08 your echo chamber keeps saying my @politico piece is wrong but offer zero specifics. I'm gonna take the high road and not respond further until you do. Meantime, happy holidays y'all. Btw, don't you supporters of Iran Deal also have "an obvious POV"? https://t.co/suI1dxnr2G— Josh Meyer (@JoshMeyerDC) December 21, 2017
Why journalists joined a Twittermob of former mid-level Obama bureaucrats and intel officers to attack a journalist for doing journalism @tabletmag https://t.co/sYKeovN7fF— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) December 27, 2017
In Britain, “people are switching loyalties, not tribally, but like consumers" https://t.co/DoGIM6Piti— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) June 11, 2017
The good news is that Jeremy Corbyn didn't win the election. Teresa May and the Conservative Party won by the numbers. But there are few today viewing the results of the election who fail to see that a clear message was sent. The only question is to whom the message was directed, and will they listen.More.
The Labour Party gained 28 seats, which is a victory in itself, but they are not in control. Not yet. Had the Labour Party been in the hands of a different main contender, we could think this was politics as normal. But it wasn't, and so it isn't.
This morning in the UK is very different than it was yesterday.
The Conservative party won in seats and votes, but lost 11 places in the Parliament. A stunning victory by Labour puts them at 259, a gain of 28 and puts Jeremy Corbyn within striking distance of the Prime Minister's office. Not this time, but maybe next time.
I will leave it to the UK to figure out the message that was sent yesterday. What it means for where England is headed - for its citizens and for the world is more than I can contemplate on a busy Friday with Shabbat just hours away.
For all intents and purposes, there is now a "hung Parliament" that is unlikely to accomplish much and may well send the country into new elections in the near future. That is the nature of the electoral system they have, as it is the one we inherited from them.
What is on my mind is something more personal, closer to my heart. If you are a Jew in Britain and you are not looking for your own "Brexit," you are making an appalling and perhaps even costly mistake. Read that sentence again. Does it scare you - it should. It frightens me. But what you'll find, if you search deep in your heart, is that it may annoy you, but you can't quite deny it, can you? It doesn't surprise you that there could be a time when you have to leave...as a few generations ago, too many didn't. You know that time may come...pretty much every Jew in the world knows that. This is the ultimate lesson of the Holocaust. You may love where you live, but there will always lurk the knowledge that no matter how comfortable it might be today, tomorrow it could change.
The only real question you have today in the UK if you are Jewish is whether today is the day to leave...
Labour Posters Now Indistinguishable from Nazi Propaganda https://t.co/y2jWjAD0IG pic.twitter.com/0voZDPeZRg— = Linda🇺🇸Wray = (@_NCPatriot_) June 7, 2017
In an astonishing shock, Alex Salmond has lost the Gordon constituency to the Tories #ElectionDay2017 https://t.co/Wzk8UKbHjY pic.twitter.com/5YHrjQ0tLU
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 9, 2017
My new Townhall is up! || https://t.co/R1YkKNGwxN
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 8, 2017
The most significant revelation that came out of the most recent London massacre of disarmed British subjects was not the bloodshed itself, but the pathetic sissy whining, in the midst of throats being slashed, at the Brit who refused to adhere to the comforting lie that the Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah were not Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah.
The left would rather you lie and die than tell the truth and live.
It’s exhausting being lied to 24/7 about the big issues, and don’t start with the “but what about Trump?” nonsense because…well, what about Trump?
Does Trump pretend that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam because to admit the Islamic State has something to do with Islam is an admission that the unquestionable idea underlying multiculturalism – that every culture is wonderful except the Western culture that brought about 95 percet of the learning and science that is making the grinding poverty and disease that was heretofore man’s fate a thing of the past – is an utter fraud?
Does Trump pretend that we are morally or scientifically bound by a non-treaty that was non-submitted to our elected representatives to solve the non-problem of climate change at the price of our non-employment and non-prosperity?
Does Trump blame Russians for the utter repudiation of Felonia von Pantsuit’s poisonous ideology of greed and huggy fascism? Does he contend Hillary skipped those icky workin’ folks in Wisconsin and Michigan because Putin tricked her?
I keep trying to find the big Trump “lies” and they always seem to end up being disagreements with liberal orthodoxy.
But for the so-called elite that seeks to rule us, it’s all lies, all day, every day, about everything, since they can’t be honest because we normals reject what they want whenever we are exposed to the truth and are allowed a say. So their go-to move to impose their sick will is to obscure or hide the truth, and try to suppress our voices...
Some of CNN host Reza Aslan’s other disgusting and hateful tweets are mysteriously disappearing. The cable network star drew controversy when he called Donald Trump a “piece of shit” last weekend. He lamely “apologized” and declared, “That’s not like me.” Except, of course, it is...Keep reading.
Iconic London Bridge is not falling and must not fall down, my fair lady. The attack on innocent citizens in the area on June 4, 2017 makes it a symbol of the need for the struggle of civilization against Islamic barbarism to continue. That struggle requires changes in policies of Western democracies. The soft power of humanity so far is not sufficent to eliminate Islamist dominated terrorism, to prevent, detect, and destroy it.
Britain is fully aware of the urgent need for change. It has suffered an attack by vehicle and knives in London on March 2017 when five were killed, the attack in Manchester at a concert on May 22 when 22 were killed, and now the latest manifestation of evil on June 3, 2017 when three terrorists used a van to mow down pedestrians on London Bridge and then stabbed people at random in bars and pubs in nearby Borough Market which is always busy on a Saturday night. The three murdered 7 and injured 48 before being killed by London police. The motive was unmistakable as one of the villains while stabbing an individual shouted, "This is for Allah."
Enough is enough. An Islamic terrrorist is not a freedom fighter, but an evil murderer, seeking the most deadly venue, and must be recognized as such. It is insufficient to respond to these Islamist murderers by limited remarks as did new French President Emmanuel Macron wih "My thoughts go out to the victims and their loved ones," and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, "Awful news..we're monitoring the situation." Trudeau, like the character Fagin in Lionel Bart's musical Oliver, is apparently "reviewing the situation to see if a fellow can be a villain all his life."
What is frightening are three things. One is that the murderers were obeying the ideology and instructions of major Islamic terrorists, especially ISIS calling for killing non-believers, "Crusaders," by using weapons, fire, and vehicles in shopping malls, restaurants and clubs. The killers attacked soft targets not with bombs that may need technical skill of some kind or even guns, but by vehicle and knives.
The second is the apparent considerable network of support for the killers; more than 12 people have so far been arrested in connnection with the attack on June 3. The third aspect is that the attack came during Ramadan, giving the lie to the supposed peaceful religious nature of life and faith. In cynical fashion one of the killers even wore an Arsenal shirt, the emblem of the London soccer club perhaps dear to many of the victims.
President Donald Trump may have been too quick to condemn London Mayor Sadiq Khan and perhaps to misunderstand his remark after the attack, "no reason to be alarmed," and his suggestion there were more important things to worry about. But Trump's remark did not deserve a response such as that from CNN's Reza Aslan that Trump's renewal of call for a travel ban was a "piece of s..." and that the President was an embarrassment to the US and to humankind.
The truth is otherwise. One does not have to be in accordance with Trump's tweets to acknowledge certain facts. The Islamist terrorists, a minority of the Muslims in the world, are extremists who are the embarrasment to their own religion and to humankind, and are believers and activists in favor of creating a way of life incompatible with western democracy. They reject systems based on the rule of secular law, and advocate Islamist rule to be established by jihad, holy war and terrorism.
Meaningful action is essential...
So, #Canada's gonna "lead the world"? That's a laugh riot alright. https://t.co/MXsJeJvRcl
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 6, 2017
Key section of Canada foreign minister's speech: we'll work with the US wherever possible, but the US might not lead the world anymore, so. pic.twitter.com/LOwEH8SBs3
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 6, 2017
Three days before a British general election in which security concerns have surged to the fore, Scotland Yard acknowledged Monday that the extremist Islamist views of one of three slain attackers who carried out a weekend terrorist strike had been known to investigators.
On the first weekday after the ramming-and-stabbing attack on and near London Bridge that killed seven people and injured dozens more, Londoners and visitors held a moment of silence amid a solemn vigil on the banks of the Thames — but they also resumed their workaday routines.
Commuters streamed on foot past police barricades and heaps of memorial bouquets. The bridge itself reopened, though some streets near the attack scene remained closed off.
Police for the first time publicly identified two of the three dead attackers — Pakistan-born Khuram Shazad Butt, 27, and Rachid Redouane, 30, who had said he was of Moroccan and Libyan extraction. News outlets scrambled to learn more about them, redoubling questions about the plotting that preceded the attack, and whether it should have come to authorities’ attention.
With an increasingly hard-fought general election set Thursday, fallout from Saturday’s attack took on ever-growing political significance.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party was still favored to win the largest share of seats in Parliament, but a poll published Monday by the organization YouGov suggested her party would fall 21 seats short of a 326-seat majority, while the rival Labor Party stood to increase its share.
For the last month, May has attempted to cast as the election’s centerpiece the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union and her ability to provide stable leadership during fraught negotiations with the EU. Instead, she found herself forced to defend having presided over the cuts of thousands of police jobs during her six-year tenure as home secretary, the top security job.
Her chief rival, Jeremy Corbyn, said the prime minister should resign over the police cutbacks — a position he walked back somewhat by urging voters to let Thursday’s election be a referendum on that.
May, for her part, pointed to beefed-up security already in place, with more measures to come. “This was an attack on London and the United Kingdom, but it was also an attack on the free world,” she said Monday.
Max Abrahms, a political scientist at Northeastern University who has studied the impact of terrorist attacks on elections, said both Conservative and Labor leaders “are trying very hard to seem tough on terrorists,” adding: “There’s no question the attack in London will affect the election.”
Both candidates have also had to deal with another unexpected factor: President Trump. On Sunday and Monday, the president sharply criticized London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, with whom he previously feuded.
Corbyn denounced the presidential tweets; May defended Khan but refrained from directly criticizing Trump, who is highly unpopular in Britain...
The more we find out, the scarier it gets. READ: https://t.co/r1v8g21W8k
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) June 6, 2017
I commend Piers Morgan. There's something I never thought I would hear myself say.
I watched him interview Sadiq Khan on GMB this morning and he was 100% more professional than I would ever have been.
I can imagine coming round to find Sadiq lying on the floor with camera three lying across his limp body, and me wild-eyed, legging it down the South Bank.
He appears to show no conception of the horror our capital city is facing, keeps repeating London is the safest city in the world, and refuses to connect the glaringly obvious dots between Islamic Extremism and the attacks on our children.
He said he could not comment about the 23,000 individuals identified as 'subjects of interest' still at large because this is an ongoing investigation.
He would not answer why we did not do more to the lock up the attacker - Khuram Butt - who went on to be the Butcher of London Bridge because the police operation was still live.
It's a mantra we keep hearing from any of the people who are supposed to be keeping us safe. The Met Commissioner said it yesterday. Boris Johnson repeated it this morning.
How convenient.
Well I'm calling them on this.
I'd like to believe there are good operational reasons for taking over two days to tell us who the killers were.
But I can't help suspecting that it's more about dodging difficult questions and managing the flow of news that is bound to make people bloody angry.
Waiting until our initial horror and rage at the original attack dissipates before releasing information that will make us furious all over again.
And giving themselves time to get their stories straight before the sh*t hits the fan.
Similarly, whenever I hear a top cop or a politician start an interview with a paean of praise to the courage of the rank-and-file officers who helped stop Saturday's massacre, I can't help feeling they are being treated as human shields.
Nobody admires our ordinary police officers more than me and the courage of those who faced down the three maniacs in Borough Market – armed sometimes with just a baton – leaves me in awe.
This is not about the brave officers on the ground. Uniformed, on duty or off. Changing into riot gear on the sidewalk behind their vans. Dancing with our little girls to bring some reassurance to our fear. They are warriors. They should be rewarded. One and all.
But equally if the people at the top were doing their jobs properly, the brave bobbies on the street wouldn't need to be quite so much in harm's way. Sadiq Khan, the investigating officers, MI5, Theresa May - I've lost confidence in all of them.
As a twitter user - Sam White commented; 'Jihadis are cleverly evading the authorities by appearing in documentaries about jihadis with the word jihadi in the title'.
We now know the London Bridge, Manchester and Westminster attackers were all known to counter-terrorism agencies.
The mostly recently named of the three attackers on London Bridge, Youssef Zaghba - even told the Italian authorities why he was flying to Turkey in 2016. 'I'm going to be terrorist,' he said. Police were called and he was prevented from flying.
Authorities confirm complete dossier on him would have been forwarded to MI5 in April 2016 after he travelled to the UK.
His London accomplice Khuram Shazad Butt, 27, a British citizen of Pakistani descent, was well known to authorities and reported repeatedly by members of the public, now frustrated nothing was done.
Wow - Breitbart’s Katie McHugh is out at Breitbart after making horrible remarks after London attack https://t.co/03XAiQunMB— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) June 5, 2017
A Breitbart News editor said she was fired for the anti-Muslim tweets she made after a terror attack in London https://t.co/TRHrRtuFvK
— NYT Business (@nytimesbusiness) June 5, 2017
The old Katie McHugh tweets I'm seeing float by are astounding. Happy I wasn't following her but my god, what an awful person.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 5, 2017
No more Keep Calm and Carry On. pic.twitter.com/pcGChS6lQX
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) June 5, 2017
