Rodrigo Duterte Faces Impeachment Complaint From Philippine Lawmaker Though unlikely to pass, complaint raises the stakes on opposition efforts call Mr. Duterte’s credibility into question By Jake Maxwell Watts

A Philippines lawmaker filed an impeachment complaint against President Rodrigo Duterte, the highest-profile challenge yet as resistance builds against the firebrand leader.

Opposition politician Gary Alejano filed the complaint at the Philippines House of Representatives on Thursday, accusing Mr. Duterte of corruption, violating the constitution, betraying public trust and “other high crimes.”

“We are of the firm belief that President Duterte is unfit to hold the highest office of the land and that impeachment is the legal and constitutional remedy to this situation,” he said.

While the complaint itself is unlikely to pass, it raises the stakes on opposition efforts call Mr. Duterte’s credibility into question.

“It just seems rather dramatic that everything seems so coordinated at this stage,” presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella told reporters Thursday.

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, a Duterte ally, called the allegations fabricated and the impeachment bid “stupid.”

Battle lines are hardening as Mr. Duterte’s term draws on. For the first few months after he came to power in June—an outsider with a sweeping mandate to rid the country of illegal drugs and bring prosperity to society’s poorest—Mr. Duterte enjoyed approval ratings as high as 80%.

Now that support appears to be unraveling, largely over his pursuit of his drugs pledge. The government’s antinarcotics campaign has led to more than 8,000 deaths, mostly at the hands of police or vigilantes. The murder of a South Korean businessman by rogue antinarcotics officers inside police headquarters—committed in October but not uncovered until January—sparked public outrage and prompted Mr. Duterte to suspend his drug campaign, saying he had to reorganize the police.

Mr. Duterte’s opponents were emboldened to accuse him of corruption. One senator, Antonio Trillanes, alleged he and his family had channeled some $50 million through their bank accounts when he was mayor of Davao City in the country’s south. Mr. Duterte has denied any wrongdoing.

Witnesses called to testify in a senate inquiry into extrajudicial killings have accused the president of ordering killings during his more than two decades as mayor. A former policeman said on Feb. 20 that Mr. Duterte personally oversaw a vigilante death squad in Davao, a charge the president denies.

Opposition politicians aren’t alone in criticizing the president. The powerful Roman Catholic Church told followers in February that the drug war amounted to “a reign of terror in many places of the poor.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Germany, France Condemn Turkish President Erdogan’s Verbal Attacks In a joint statement, Germany’s Merkel and France’s Hollande stop short of threatening any consequences By Anton Troianovski

BERLIN—The leaders of France and Germany condemned Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s verbal attacks on European states Thursday, in a sign that some European countries are closing ranks against the Turkish leader’s increasingly outspoken remarks against his next-door allies.

But the joint statement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande stopped short of threatening any consequences, underscoring the political tightrope Europeans have to walk as they try to quell domestic anger without escalating the conflict with a crucial ally.

“Comparisons with Nazism and aggressive statements against Germany or other [European Union] member states are unacceptable,” the offices of the two leaders said in their written statement.

Mr. Erdogan has lashed out at Germany and the Netherlands, comparing their governments to the Nazis after authorities in those countries prevented Turkish officials from holding campaign events there.

The two leaders said the type of Turkish campaign events that have sparked the dispute could still be allowed in their countries as long as they were properly registered.

Other European politicians have gone further, blocking appearances by Turkish politicians. Dutch authorities over the weekend deported a Turkish minister from Rotterdam as she attempted to hold an unauthorized political rally to promote an April 16 referendum on changes to Turkey’s constitution that would boost the authority of Mr. Erdogan.

German local authorities have pulled the permits for several rallies, including in the city of Hannover on Thursday for an event Friday featuring a senior pro-Erdogan politician.

Know Thine Enemy Israel gets back on the phony peace process train. March 17, 2017 Caroline Glick

There are iron rules of warfare. One of the most basic rules is that you have to know your enemy. If you do not know your enemy, or worse, if you refuse to act on your knowledge of him, you will lose your war against him.

This basic truth appears to have eluded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week we have been beset by the bizarre and sudden appearance of Jason Greenblatt, President Donald Trump’s negotiations chief.

Greenblatt’s mission is apparently to reinstate the mordant peace process between Israel and the PLO.

The peace process that Greenblatt is here to reincarnate died 17 years ago.

In 2000, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat killed the peace process when he initiated a massive terrorist war against Israel, right after he rejected peace and Palestinian statehood at the Camp David peace conference.

In rejecting peace, the architect of modern terrorism made clear that his claim seven years earlier that he was willing to reach a compromise with Israel, based on partition of the Land of Israel between a Jewish and an Arab state, was a lie. As the nationalist camp had warned at the time and since, the PLO was not remotely interested either in statehood or in peace. Arafat’s willingness to engage Israel in negotiations that led to its transfer of security and civil control over Gaza and the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria to the PLO was simply another means to the only end the PLO ever contemplated. It was a means of weakening Israel as a step toward achieving the PLO’s ultimate goal of destroying the Jewish state.

In 1993, when then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to recognize the PLO, his implicit assumption was that if Arafat was lying, Israel would walk away from the peace process. It would retake control over the areas it had ceded to PLO control and things would go back to the way they were before he made the gamble, indeed they would be better. Whereas for years Israel had been under pressure from the Europeans and the Americans to recognize the PLO, if Israel recognized the terrorist group and the PLO responded by showing that it remained dedicated to Israel’s destruction, the world that had been pressuring Israel would end its pressure.

The Europeans and the Americans would rally to Israel’s side against the PLO.

In 2000, after Arafat blew up the negotiations table with his suicide bombers, then-prime minister Ehud Barak announced triumphantly that he had ripped the mask off of Arafat’s face.

Now everyone would recognize the truth about the PLO. Now the Europeans and the Americans would rally to Israel’s side.

Of course, things didn’t work out that way.

An FBI-Investigated Islamist Takes Over the Vermont Democrats A Norquist Islamist reinvents himself as a Bernie leftist. Daniel Greenfield

Vermont Democrats have something else to celebrate besides the creation and failure of the first statewide socialized medicine system in America. Recovering from that glorious triumph, Vermont Democrats have elected their first Muslim state party chairman.

The lucky fellow is Faisal Gill who called his victory a rebuke of President Trump. “To have a Muslim and immigrant to be the state party chair sends a really strong message to Trump and his type of politics that this is not where the country is at.”

Gill’s election doesn’t send much of a message about where America is at. But it certainly sends a message about where the Democrats are at.

Back when Gill was playing a Republican, courtesy of Grover Norquist, left-wing media outlets like Salon were willing to report on his troubling Islamist ties. But Faisal Gil has been reborn as a supporter of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison. The left has become a warm and moist safe space for Islamists. The Salon article which Gill blamed for many of his problems would be nearly inconceivable today. Could anyone really imagine a leftist publication today describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror nexus?

But did Faisal Gill really go from Norquist Republican to Sanders Democrat? Did he shift from believing in free enterprise to embracing Socialism? Or did Gill always hold to an overriding ideology in whose shadow the distinction between Capitalism and Socialism becomes pointless infidel quibbling?

When revelations first emerged that Faisal Gill had been under FBI surveillance, he blamed Islamophobia. When Snowden’s enemy espionage operation exposed national security documents which were published by left-wing terror apologist Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept, a site whose former writer is now charged with some of the terroristic bomb threats aimed at Jewish centers, Gill’s email appeared on a list of alleged terrorist suspects and supporters, including Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Glenn Greenwald had claimed that the Al Qaeda leader’s only crimes were “speak[ing] effectively to the Muslim world about violence that the U.S. commits in [Yemen] and the responsibility of Muslims to stand up to this violence.” Examples of this could include Anwar Al-Awlaki quotes such as, “Jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim”, “Don’t consult with anybody in killing the Americans, fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation” and “We will implement the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the sword.”

Trump Begins to Slash Government Leviathan It is time for the taxpayer to stop subsidizing left-wing causes masquerading as the public interest. By Liz Sheld

President Trump released a proposed budget on Thursday with increases in defense spending and large cuts to numerous domestic agencies and programs. According to CNN, the budget slashes:

… non-defense spending at the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and [includes] the wholesale elimination of other federal programs.

This is fantastic news.

Here are the department cuts proposed by Trump:

• Health and Human Services, the department responsible for implementing Obamacare and its proposed repeal, would face a $12.6 billion cut — a 16.2% decrease
• Environmental Protection Agency: $2.6 billion, or 31.4%
• State Department: $11 billion, or 28.7%
• Labor Department: $2.5 billion, or 20.7%
• Agriculture Department: $5 billion, or 20.7%
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $1 billion, a 16.3% cut
• Cuts National Institutes of Health spending by $5.8 billion, a nearly 20% cut. Also overhauls NIH to focus on “highest priority” efforts and eliminates the Fogarty International Center.
• Other double-digit cuts include Commerce at 15.7%; Education at 13.5%; Housing and Urban Development at 13.2%; Transportation at 12.7%; and Interior at 11.7%.

Here are the proposed program cuts:

• Eliminates the USDA Water and Wastewater loan and grant program, a reduction of $498 million
• Cuts $250 million by zeroing out National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs that support coastal and marine management, research and education
• Reduces or eliminates 20 programs within the Department of Education, including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership and Impact Aid support payments for federal property and international education programs
• Cuts FEMA state and local grant funding by $667 million, including the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and Homeland Security Grant Program
• Eliminates funds for Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing
• Ceases payments to the United Nations’ climate change programs for the Green Climate Fund and precursor funds
• Scales back funding for the World Bank and other international development banks by $650 million over three years
• Cuts federal subsidies to Amtrak and eliminates support for Amtrak’s long-distance services.

Of Course Trump Was Surveilled — Isn’t Everybody? By Roger L Simon

Maybe I missed something but I’ve been assuming for the last half-dozen years or so, probably a lot longer, that every word I spoke into a cellphone, every text and email I wrote, every letter I typed in my Internet-connected computers and, more recently, every utterance I made in front of the Amazon Alexa on my desk were being recorded somewhere. And if someone or some organization seriously wanted to find them, if they could wangle permission or even if not, they would be able to get all or most of it. My life, good and bad, is up there in the cloud somewhere, every last word and digit.

Isn’t that true of all of us?

Then why wouldn’t that be true of Donald Trump?

Was he somehow able to escape the sweeping purview of the NSA, CIA, FSB, MI5, MOSSAD, MSS (China), BND (Germany), DGSE (France), SISMI (Italy), VAJA (Iran), BUREAU 121 (North Korea), etc., etc, not to mention a world of non-state actors who took a programming course somewhere and, these days, the refrigerator or the dimmer switch in the guest room, the oh-so-modern Internet of Things.

Angela Merkel wasn’t. Russian Ambassador Kislyak, a nuclear scientist, apparently wasn’t. Nor were, as opéra bouffe, the executives of Sony Pictures whose emails were rifled by the North Koreans.

Let’s be honest, we’re all under surveillance all the time and must rely, from all evidence, not on the laws supposedly protecting us, but, like Blanche DuBois in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire, on the “kindness of strangers” for our privacy. (Let’s hope our peccadilloes are too minor to attract anyone’s attention — at least for now.)

In the end, it’s not a question of were we surveilled, it’s a question of who reveals the contents of that surveillance to whom, and when and why.

That is why, you will excuse me, but I look on the bipartisan conclusions of the congressional intelligence committees — that Trump was not, in that hoary term, “wiretapped” — with a jaundiced eye. In the narrowest sense, maybe not. In the larger sense, of course.

What concerns me — what should concern all of us if we are interested in living a free, independent life — is who leaked the various surveillances that did or did not take place. Those people MUST be punished. (We’ll leave aside for the moment the extent these leaks were enabled by Obama through his last-minute decree that information could be shared among 17 intelligence agencies.) The leaks seem to come in two forms.

The first we could call the “Leak Direct” (or in Shakespearean terms the “Lie Direct”). A prime example is the intercepted phone call between Mike Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak that ultimately resulted in Flynn losing his position as national security adviser in record time. Flynn was a private American citizen at the time of the call and should, according to law, never have had his identity revealed. That didn’t stop the leaker who, it seems, was also not afraid of the serious felony conviction that could come from his or her actions. So far that was a good bet. CONTINUE AT SITE

Michael Savage violently assaulted outside restaurant in Marin County By Thomas Lifson

Angry, violent progressives, driven by nonstop Trump-hatred emanating from mainstream and leftist media, apparently feel impunity in acting out their fury. Apparently it is open season on conservatives, at least in progressive bastions such as the wealthy Marin County town of Tiburon.

In a story originally broken by Bay Area media blogger Rich Lieberman:

Syndicated radio talker (heard here on KSFO) Michael Savage was violently confronted and physically attacked by an unknown assailant last night (Tuesday) in a Marin County restaurant.

Savage was with his dog, “Teddy”, and finishing up dinner at Servino Restaurant in Tiburon, CA (north of San Francisco) when the unnamed assailant charged up to Savage and began yelling, “Hey Weiner”, making fun of Savage’s legal last name. The attacker then kicked the poodle out of the way so he could get to Michael and then grabbed Savage and threw him to the ground, according to an eyewitness who watched the attack along with several restaurant patrons.

Savage was not seriously hurt and his dog is OK but the incident left him bloodied and shaken.

The two major Bay Area newspapers, The San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury-News, both reported the incident as “Savage claims…” and labeled him with such terms as “firebrand” and “fierce,” indirectly offering a rationale for attacking him. The incident took place in public, and there were witnesses and quite possibly CCTV recordings. The facts will be clarified because Savage’s attorney, Daniel Horowitz, is on the case, and he is a fierce and skillful advocate for his clients. I would never wish to face him as opposing counsel in a legal matter, and I would be delighted to have him on my side.

What Message Can Be Gleaned from Contradictory Ideas? By Eileen F. Toplansky

Recently, I was sent this piece about Robert David Steele who was a former Marine Corps infantry officer and then a spy for the CIA. At his own site, he claims to be “the Chief Enabling Officer CeO [sic] of Earth Intelligence Network, devoted to teaching holistic analytics, true cost economics and open source everything engineering.” Thus, “his ideas would enable the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals — first within the USA and then globally [.]”

This is code for doing away with capitalism. After all, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. She stated that “[t]his is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Here is a sampling of the Declaration of the Sustainable Development mandate

We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity.

Isn’t this already the foundation of American ideas and ideals?

To do this, Steele “proposed to Donald Trump that he close all 1,000 US military bases overseas and stop subsidizing military arms purchases by dictators and Israel.”

And this is when my antennae start to stir.

Notice the connection between dictators and Israel — Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East, but Steele deliberately chooses to single it out. This is what the United Nations does on a regular basis and should be the first clue to Steele’s anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic bent.

The Sustainable Agenda continues with the following:

We reaffirm the outcomes of all major UN conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda. These include the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; the World Summit on Sustainable Development [etc.]

Climate change is always part of this scenario; thus, “[c]limate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.”

The Colossally Dishonest Swamp Attack On Dr. Sebastian Gorka’s First-Rate Scholarship By Barry Scott Zellen

I read with increasing alarm what appears to be a coordinated smear campaign by former members of the Obama administration and their ivory tower proxies, taking aim in the now-partisan press (including the New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR) to undermine the reputation of strategic theorist Dr. Sebastian Gorka. Gorka has risen to prominence over this very same period after his appointment to serve as deputy assistant to President Donald Trump.

Without a drop of evidence, these critics have unfairly ridiculed Gorka’s fine scholarship and academic background, ignoring his many contributions to the literature of warfare over many years. In so doing, these liberal policymakers and ivory-tower academics in international relations and strategic studies show they remain unfamiliar with – and consequently unappreciative of – the great work their counterparts at America’s military academies. In fact, they appear all too-quick to dismiss America’s military scholars whose dedication and service to America’s warfighters should instead be respected and appreciated.

This is very much the case in the recent assault upon the reputation of Dr. Gorka. Gorka’s work deserves to be read, not attacked without merit. The attacks we see seem to be the work of a small group of Obama partisans indifferent to the carnage caused on their own watch, based on their failed leadership and strategy. They are likely still in shock at now being exiled from the swamp, but their own records speak to their responsibility for the rise of ISIS, and the spread of jihadist violence across the Middle East, North Africa and into the heart of Europe. Now, they have launched a coordinated hit job against Gorka within weeks of his joining the administration.

Consider perhaps the most egregious example, by Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin in the Feb. 24 edition of the New York Times. Their hit-piece was shamefully mistitled, “The Islamophobic Huckster in the White House.” Simon, a former NSC-staffer now at Amherst College, and Benjamin, the State Department’s former counterterrorism coordinator now at Dartmouth, were both Obama administration officials and thus complicit in the orgy of violence unleashed by Obama’s counterterrorism policies.

Nearly as offensive was Daniel W. Drezner’s Washington Post hit-piece, “Survival Tips for Sebastian Gorka, PhD,” which came to press three days later, which stooped so low as to malign Dr. Gorka’s doctoral thesis, which I myself have found to be a fascinating, thoughtful, and original work. I know originality of thought, especially conservative thought, is seldom welcome within the liberal-biased academy, so one must fear for any students of Drezner who dare to think outside the box, or more aptly, outside the bubble. But don’t take my word for it, you can read Dr. Gorka’s fascinating dissertation here.

Tale of Trump Adviser’s Alleged Nazi Ties Unravels Sebastian Gorka denies a report of his affiliations with Vitézi Rend By Liel Leibovitz

Lord knows I’ve had my differences with the Forward before. I have them still, and often. They rarely unsettle me, if only because robust disagreements, especially on things that matter, are what we journalists should seek, not shun. But reading the paper’s exclusive report this morning arguing that Trump aide Sebastian Gorka is an actual crypto-Nazi, I’d like to reach out to my friends and colleagues across town and ask, with clear eyes and a full heart: Have you lost your minds?http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/227733/tale-of-trump-advisors-alleged-nazi-ties-unravels

To hear the piece tell it, Gorka, a top counter-terrorism adviser in the Trump White House, has sworn a lifetime oath to Vitézi Rend, an outfit that the story tells us is nasty nationalist group in Gorka’s native Hungary that giddily collaborated with Hitler. Well, not the Vitézi Rend—that group was outlawed by the Communists, naturally—but the off-shoot of Vitézi Rend, resurgent after Communism’s fall in 1989. Or at least an off-shoot of the group: there are two, and Gorka, according to the Forward’s sources, appears to belong to one of them, called Historical Vitézi Rend. How do we know that? A member of the group, Kornél Pintér, said so. “Of course he was sworn in,” Pintér told the Forward in a phone interview. “I met with him in Sopron [a city near Hungary’s border with Austria]. His father introduced him.”

Where to begin? Even if you take the Nazis at their word—which is inadvisable, as I realized from the very first time I watched Casablanca at the age of 9—you’ll notice that Pintér isn’t saying that he’d witnessed Gorka’s swearing in; he’s merely saying that he’d met the man because he was an associate of Gorka’s father Paul, a renowned member of the nationalist anti-Communist resistance.

Gorka himself told me that the allegations are flat-out false.

“I have never been a member of the Vitez Rend. I have never taken an oath of loyalty to the Vitez Rend. Since childhood, I have occasionally worn my father’s medal and used the ‘v.’ initial to honor his struggle against totalitarianism.” It’s a perfectly plausible explanation, and you’d have to be of a very specific mindset to still pursue allegations of Nazi affiliation.

Why didn’t Gorka simply tell this to the Forward? A source close to the White House, who was briefed on how the administration treated this story, explained things a little more to me.