France — Where an Age of Enlightenment Once Flourished, Turbidity Now Reigns Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.)

Recent incidents in France are most telling about an Age of Enlightenment giving way, albeit centuries later, to an “Age of Turbidity.”

Seventeen/eighteenth century Europeans sparked the Age of Enlightenment. Mankind-motivated to move toward reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and away from traditional orthodoxies such as religion and absolute monarchy-enjoyed tremendous benefits by doing so.

In France, particularly, challenges arose to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Overcoming those challenges gave rise to many ideals we enjoy today such as liberty, progress, tolerance, constitutional government and separation of church and state.

Sadly, these ideals are now being lost in a new age-one of turbidity in which facts are hidden. As seen by this week’s attack in London, the Muslim perpetrator had been previously investigated over concerns about his “violent extremism”-more accurately known as “radical Islam.”

Originally credited with seeding acceptance for an enlightening age, France now irresponsibly sows seeds of disenlightenment-clouding individual cognitive thinking about the very ideals that made Western civilization and influence so great.

Take the case of two of France’ s Muslim cultural heroes-darlings of both the country’s leftist mainstream media and its Hollywood set. As popular news stories about Mehdi Meklat, a writer and documentary film producer, appeared in the French press, the U.S. mainstream media also portrayed him in a very positive light.

The Washington Post last year noted Meklat, at 23, was already a celebrity, among “France’s youngest public intellectuals” who sees no point in a university education, whose world begins where Paris ends, whose works reveal an “overarching intent: showing the world the complicated reality of the Paris suburbs where…(he was) born and raised.”

The public was led to believe Meklat effectively had integrated into French life, earning Western tolerance himself as one contributing to society. But, last February, his image was severely tarnished as it was exposed to the light of truth. An unidentified Facebook user shared some of his tweets over the past several years, revealing a much different person than the human rights activist portrayed by the media.

As for conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, Meklat wrote, “I am going to slit your throat Muslim-style.”

As for Jews, he called for Hitler’s return “to kill” them.

As for former Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Charb before he was killed in the January 2015 terrorist attack, he wanted to “rape” him by shoving “Lagulole knives up his…”

As for white people, “they must die as soon as possible.”

As for movie legend Brigitte Bardot, he desired to sodomize her with light bulbs.

French Presidential Campaign: Part 1 by Nidra Poller

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.

First, a brief summary of the overall situation: The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist

The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche

François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.

And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National

The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.

Palestinians: We Have the Right to Poison the Minds of our Children by Bassam Tawil

They Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas wish to continue teaching children that the conflict with Israel is not over a two-state solution, but the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which means the annihilation of Israel. The goal is for the students to believe that Israel is one big settlement that has no place in the Middle East.

Along with Hamas, Abbas and his PA plan to continue inculcating Palestinian children with the idea that they should look to terrorists who kill Jews as their role models. It might be illuminating if the conversation between Trump and Abbas were to be informed by these uncomfortable facts.

In an ironic turnaround, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) is now the object of intimidation and threats made by many Palestinians.

UNRWA is reportedly planning to introduce some changes to the curriculum in its schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinians are rather unhappy about it. They claim that UNRWA has “succumbed” to Israeli pressure to make the changes.

The proposed changes are based on leaks to Palestinians and have not been confirmed by UNRWA. Palestinians claim that they learned about the plans to introduce the changes during meetings with senior UNRWA officials.

According to the Palestinians, the changes are intended to “eradicate” their “national identity” and “history” and distort their “struggle” against Israel.

The Palestinians claim that the new textbooks have replaced the map of “historic Palestine” (including Israel) with pictures of a pumpkin and a bird. Palestinian textbooks often feature maps of “historic Palestine” without Israel. Cities inside Israel, such as Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias and Ramle, are referred to as “Palestinian cities.” The Palestinian Authority (PA) media also refer to these cities as “Palestinian cities inside the 1948 Land.”

Europe: Unwilling to Defend Itself by Giulio Meotti

“The problem in Europe is that there are far too many people in uniform, and too few of them able to go into action.” — NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson.

“A majority of the German public opposes combat missions, and supports the Bundeswehr [German military] only as a quasi-humanitarian organization, a kind of Médecins Sans Frontières with guns”. — Konstantin Richter, Politico.eu.

The relative abundance enjoyed by the Western post-war generations have created a kind of shame instead of pride.

It has been said that when German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the reconstitution of the military in 1955, he proclaimed: “It is crazy, gentlemen, that I have to create a German army, it is just crazy”.

Sixty years have passed, but that sentiment still seems very strong in Germany. A few days ago Sigmar Gabriel, the German foreign minister, said: “We have to be a bit careful here that we don’t over-interpret the 2 percent target.” Gabriel then became clearer: “Maintain perspective, stay focused on the target, but avoid being consumed by the bliss of a new rearmament spiral!”

A few days earlier, Germany had made an announcement: to raise the number of soldiers from 170,000 to 198,000 by 2024 — a modest “rearmament”.

It is a direct consequence of the Trump Administration’s important pressure on European allies, urging them to invest more in defense and security. European armies have become, to quote The Economist, “Potemkin Euro-armies”. Germany’s views are crucial to understanding Europe’s attitude about security and defense. Germany, the world’s fourth-largest economy and Europe’s financial giant, is a military dwarf, proud of being weak and disarmed.

Take the countries which suffered most of terror attacks in the last two years. Belgium? It spends 0.85% of its gross domestic product on defense. France? 1.78%. Germany? 1.19%. Spain, which in 2004 experienced the most severe attack in Europe’s recent history? 0.94%.

Europe is enjoying a big siesta. It is disarmed not only militarly but also mentally. Seventy-five percent of Belgium’s military spending goes to pay army pensions. As NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson put it, “The problem in Europe is that there are far too many people in uniform, and too few of them able to go into action.”

Another NATO official, Joseph Ralston, the former supreme commander for Europe, defined European armies as “fat and redundant”.

These countries have all embraced the moral vanity of pacifism.

Thanks to it, Germany’s military supply depots are now almost completely empty, according to the newspaper, Die Welt. Possibly fearing a “rearmament spiral”, Germany in fact ended up with a shy army with no drums.

Britain to Set Historic Brexit Process in Motion Prime minister’s notification will open a two-year window for negotiations to extricate Britain from the EU By Jenny Gross

LONDON—The U.K. on Wednesday is set to make official its planned exit from the European Union, starting on an unprecedented path to reshape its relationship with its closest allies in some of the most complex negotiations the country has ever undertaken.

Nine months after Britain voted to leave the EU, Tim Barrow, Britain’s ambassador to the bloc, is expected to hand deliver a letter to European Council President Donald Tusk formally notifying the bloc that the U.K. will be the first country ever to leave. U.K. government officials say there is no going back from there.

“It is my fierce determination to get the right deal for every single person in this country,” Prime Minister Theresa May is expected to say in a speech to Parliament after the letter is delivered, according to excerpts from her office.

Managing Britain’s exit will be a major political test for Mrs. May, who has only a small majority in Parliament. She​faces competing pressure from​lawmakers on the right wing of her Conservative​party​who want a complete cutting of ties with Brussels and​from​politicians in Scotland, who say they will secede from the U.K. if Mrs. May fails to cut a deal that maintains close​trade ties.

White House Formally Announces Sisi Visit Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi will meet with President Trump in Washington on April 3 By Felicia Schwartz

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will host Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi at the White House on April 3 to discuss the fight against Islamic State and regional peace and stability, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Mr. Sisi’s visit is the first official meeting between the leaders since Mr. Trump took office. They met during the campaign last fall and officials said earlier in March that they expected the Egyptian leader to visit.

“President Trump and President Al Sisi will use the visit to build on the positive momentum they have built for the United States-Egypt relationship,” Mr. Spicer said. “They will discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues, including how to defeat ISIS and pursue peace and stability in the region. ”

The meeting would come ahead of a summit between Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida, likely later in the week. A senior State Department official said Tuesday the meeting would be held late next week and that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will join Mr. Trump.

Satellite Images Suggest North Korea Is Preparing New Nuclear Test Analysts say satellite images indicate activity at North Korea’s nuclear test site By Jonathan Cheng

SEOUL—New commercial satellite imagery suggests that North Korea is preparing to test its sixth nuclear device, as the U.S. and Chinese leaders plan to meet next month on how to contain Pyongyang’s weapons program.

An analysis of commercial satellite imagery released on Tuesday by North Korea experts showed signs of activity at the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri in the country’s northeast, where North Korea had previously conducted tests.

Joseph Bermudez and Jack Liu, analysts for 38 North, said the imagery, taken on March 25, suggested that communications cables had recently been laid, and that water had been drained, at an entrance to an underground site.

That evidence “strongly suggests that test preparations are well under way,” said the men, writing for 38 North, a North Korea-focused website run by the U.S.-Korea Institute of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington.

The analysts cautioned, however, that the apparent actions may be an effort to deceive experts monitoring North Korea’s nuclear test site for signs of activity.

North Korea has a history of timing internationally banned tests for maximum impact. If often launches missiles during joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises to protest them and bolster domestic support.

In January, Pyongyang launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan Mr. Trump met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the American leader’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Mr. Trump is tentatively scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida next month. No official itinerary has been released.

Trump’s Energy Progress A new executive order stops Obama’s war on fossil fuels.

One area where President Trump is notching early victories is unleashing American energy, which for years has been held hostage to progressive climate obsessions. On Tuesday Mr. Trump signed an executive order to rescind many of the Obama Administration’s energy directives, and he deserves credit for ending punitive policies that harmed the economy for no improvement in global CO 2 emissions or temperatures.

The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court stayed last year in an extraordinary rebuke. The plan essentially forces states to retire coal plants early, and the tab could top $1 trillion in lost output and 125,000 jobs, according to the American Action Forum. Also expected are double-digit increases in the price of electricity—and a less reliable power grid. All for nothing: A year of U.S. reductions in 2025 would be offset by Chinese emissions in three weeks, says Rice University’s Charles McConnell.

The rule also fulfills a campaign promise to end Barack Obama’s war on coal. It’s true that market forces are reducing coal’s share of U.S. electric power—to some 30% from about 50% a decade ago—thanks mainly to fracking for natural gas. Yet Mr. Obama still deployed brute government force to bankrupt the coal industry. Mr. Trump is right to end that punishment and let the market, not federal dictates, sort out the right energy mix for the future.

The story is similar on a methane rule that the executive order will begin to roll back. Total U.S. methane emissions have dropped 15% since 1990, as Bernard Weinstein of Southern Methodist University told the House last fall, even though domestic oil-and-gas production has doubled over the past decade. One reason is that energy companies have a financial incentive to capture the stuff and sell it. Still, EPA promulgated expensive new emissions targets, equipment rules and more.

The order also dumps the “social cost of carbon,” which is a tool the Obama Administration employed to junk mandatory cost-benefit analyses for regulations. For example: An EPA power plant rule predicted net benefits from $26 billion to $46 billion, but as much as 65% of that derived from guesswork about the positives of reducing carbon, as Bracewell & Giuliani’s Scott Segal explained to Congress at a 2015 hearing. The Obama Administration rolled out these new calculations with no public comment, and the models surely wouldn’t survive a rigorous peer review.

Our contributor Paul Tice makes an intriguing case nearby that the Trump Administration should go further to bring regulatory certainty for energy investment. He argues that the EPA should revisit its 2009 “endangerment finding,” which blacklisted carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Lack of House Intelligence If Devin Nunes has to resign, then so should Adam Schiff.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lack-of-house-intelligence-1490742032

Devin Nunes is refusing Democratic calls to resign as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and rightly so. If Mr. Nunes is going to step down for speaking out of school to the White House about his probe, then ranking Democrat Adam Schiff should also resign for spreading innuendo without evidence across the airwaves.

Mr. Nunes blundered when he informed the White House about some information he received without first telling committee Democrats. The intelligence panel is one of the least partisan on Capitol Hill, and Mr. Nunes handed Democrats an opening to cast doubt on his fairness. He should protect his own credibility more than he protects the White House, which has nothing to worry about if President Trump’s claims about his lack of Russian ties are true.

But the main reason Democrats are mad at Mr. Nunes is because he’s raising an issue they’d rather avoid—to wit, that he’s seen documents showing that U.S. intelligence agencies may have “incidentally” collected information about people connected to Mr. Trump.

We know from leaks to the media that one of those people was former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who lost his job over the news. These columns have been asking since the Flynn news broke whether there was a proper FISA court order for this eavesdropping, or why if it was incidental was it spread widely enough to leak? Such information is supposed to be “minimized” and not widely shared so innocent Americans are protected if they happen to speak to a foreigner who is surveilled.

Mr. Trump was wrong to claim that Mr. Nunes has vindicated his famous tweet of three weeks ago that President Obama had wiretapped him in Trump Tower. Mr. Nunes has said he’s seen no evidence of that. But the issue of whether and why the Obama Administration was listening to Trump officials is important for the public to know. The U.S. government must have a very good reason for eavesdropping on political opponents, and civil libertarians would be shouting if Mr. Flynn were a Democrat.

Which brings us to Mr. Schiff, who while posing as a truth-teller is becoming more partisan by the hour. The California Democrat started out telling everyone that there is “circumstantial evidence of collusion” between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. He later escalated to claiming “there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” without providing any such evidence. If Mr. Schiff is so confident of the Russia-Trump connection, why not wait for the evidence to come out?

Meanwhile, Mr. Schiff evinces no interest in discussing, or even investigating, what happened to Mr. Flynn and why. Maybe he’s shouting so much about Mr. Nunes because he doesn’t want to know the answers to the questions the Republican is asking.

Trump’s Next Step on Climate Change Reconsider the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, based on now-outdated science. By Paul H. Tice

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-next-step-on-climate-change-1490740870

The executive orders on climate change President Trump signed this week represent a step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy and, importantly, deliver on Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to roll back burdensome regulations affecting American companies. But it will take more than the stroke of a pen to make lasting progress and reverse the momentum of the climate-change movement.

On Tuesday, in a series of orders, Mr. Trump instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to rework its Clean Power Plan, which would restrict carbon emissions from existing power plants, mainly coal-fired ones. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the CPP pending judicial review.

Mr. Trump also directed the Interior Department to lift its current moratorium on federal coal leasing and loosen restrictions on oil and gas development (including methane flaring) on federal lands. And he instructed all government agencies to stop factoring climate change into the environmental-review process for federal projects. The federal government will recalculate the “social cost of carbon.”

These actions are a good start, but all they do is reverse many of the executive orders President Obama signed late in his second term. While easy to implement and theatrical to stage, such measures are largely superficial and may prove as temporary as the decrees they rescind.

Because they don’t attack the climate-change regulatory problem at its root, Mr. Trump’s orders will not provide enough clarity to U.S. energy companies—particularly electric utilities and coal-mining companies—for their long-term business forecasting or short-term capital investment and head-count planning.

To accomplish that, the Trump administration, led by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, needs to target the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That foundational ruling provided the legal underpinnings for all of the EPA’s follow-on carbon regulations, including the CPP.

It also provided the rationale for the previous administration’s anti-fossil-fuel agenda and its various climate-change initiatives and programs, which spanned more than a dozen federal agencies and cost the American taxpayer roughly $20 billion to $25 billion a year during Mr. Obama’s presidency.

The endangerment finding was the product of a rush to judgment. Much of the scientific data upon which it was predicated—chiefly, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—was already dated by the time of its publication and arguably not properly peer-reviewed as federal law requires.

With the benefit of hindsight—including more than a decade of actual-versus-modeled data, plus the insights into the insular climate-science community gleaned from the University of East Anglia Climategate email disclosures—there would seem to be strong grounds now to reconsider the EPA’s 2009 decision and issue a new finding.