New Year’s Terror in Turkey Will the latest terrorist attack bring Turkey and Russia even closer together? Joseph Klein

Turkey experienced another terrorist attack to start off 2017, following a very bloody 2016 during which multiple deadly terrorist attacks took place. A gunman targeted a popular upscale nightclub in Istanbul about 1 AM on Sunday, killing at least 39 New Year’s celebrants and wounding dozens of other people. In addition to the Turkish victims, foreign citizens from such countries as Israel, Belgium, France, Jordan, Tunisia, Lebanon and India were among the dead. The attack occurred despite stepped up security that was put into place after American intelligence officers had issued a warning to expect an attack in Turkey during the holiday season. ISIS, directly through its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and via supportive media, has threatened attacks specifically in Turkey

The gunman reportedly screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he carried out his massacre. Turkish intelligence officers believe that the prime suspect is a member of the East Turkestan branch of ISIS. Officials have released a picture of the suspect whom, as of the writing of this article, is on the run and has not yet been identified by name or nationality.

Turkey’s president, Tayyip Erdogan, vowed: “As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political and social attacks.” Noting that the terrorists “aim to create chaos, demoralize our people, and destabilize our country with abominable attacks which target civilians,” President Erdogan added, “We will retain our cool-headedness as a nation, standing more closely together, and we will never give ground to such dirty games.”

World leaders were quick to condemn the attack and send their condolences. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, whom has worked with the Turkish and Iranian governments to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria, sent Turkey’s president a telegram message, stating, “It is hard to imagine a more cynical crime than killing innocent people during New Year celebrations. However, terrorists don’t share moral values. Our common duty is to combat terrorists’ aggression.”

President Putin sent this message against the backdrop of the murder of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, two weeks ago by a terrorist associated with al Qaeda’s Nusra Front (now known as the Fatah al-Sham Front).

Tony Thomas: Warmism’s Martial Plan

Obama declines to bomb an ISIS convoy because burning trucks will boost CO2 emissions … Australia’s defence wallahs fret about rising seas and drowning air bases … alarmist ratbaggery distorts strategy and budgets. Military effectiveness has a new enemy: the climate-scam crowd.
The US military is in flux as President-elect Trump prepares to rid it of Obama’s global-warming overlays. This switch is underway just as the Australian military is starting to adopt Obama-style environmentalism, after a decade’s passive resistance to climate politics.

The ADF has already capitulated to feminists and inclusiveness mavens, with top brass applauding then-Human Rights Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick for her 2014 report castigating the force’s “masculine norms” and “warrior culture”. The ADF was also told by Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert in the Abbott government in March, 2015, to recruit an imam for the benefit of the force’s 100 Muslim recruits. The coming capitulation is to the hyped climate “science” of the ANU Climate Institute and Tim Flannery’s crusading Climate Council.

This essay looks at the status quo with environmentalism in the US military, and the recent flow-ons to Australia.

What happens when the military gets climate-minded played out in Syria a year ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin was annoyed at Turkey shooting down a Russian SU-24 bomber. So he blew the whistle on America’s reluctance to attack Syrian ISIS road tankers carting oil into Turkey. Those black-market oil sales generate the main funding for ISIS.[1]

Showing Russian reconnaissance footage, Putin spoke of “vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon…a living oil pipe day and night.” US reporters wondered why the Obama administration hadn’t ordered US planes to blow up the “living oil pipe”. The public explanation from former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell was that Obama did not want “to create environmental damage” or wreck infrastructure that Syrians would need in peace-time.

In an Obama version of shock and awe, A-10s Warthog ground-attack planes and Spectre gunships did start attacking the tankers, but only after leaflet drops to give the ISIS tanker drivers a considerate 45 minutes to “get out of your trucks now and run away from them.”

Concern about CO2 emissions from exploding ISIS oil tankers is just one facet of Obama’s generalship. Since 2009 he has been issuing progressively-tougher Executive Orders to government agencies, including Defence, demanding that global warming issues be raised to top-priority status. Obama has several times publicly declared climate change to be an equal or greater threat than terrorism, and the Obama/Kerry team recently moved climate change talks from the Oval Office to the “Situation Room,” for military/security discussion of active threats to the US.

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, says the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics, techniques and procedures level.

China’s military doctrine is less convoluted: “China’s armed forces uphold combat effectiveness as the sole and fundamental standard and work to build themselves into a people’s military that can fight and win.” Putin, like his Chinese counterparts, has not afflicted the Russian military with climate provisos.

Another serious “threat to national security” posited by Obama is from politicians who deny that various extreme weather events are demonstrations of climate change. Whatever dissent existed among the top US brass about the Obama campaign went mainly unspoken, while more ambitious officers competed publicly to burnish their climate credentials. But in mid-2015, General Martin Dempsey, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his disgust clear by issuing a 14-page policy statement on military doctrine that contains not one mention of climate change.

Trump’s eagerness to drain Obama’s military swamp is evident from his 74 questions to the Department of Energy. He wants to identify all programs tainted by Obama’s junk science, along with the programs’ bureaucratic champions. The specificity of the questions is impressive, and designed to trump any civil-service obfuscation and passive resistance. The Brits take a perverse pride in Yes, Minister bureaucrats who run rings around their politicians. Trump and his realpolitik appointees intend to (and know how to) beat the bureaucrats.

The US Navy’s so-called “Great Green Fleet” reflects Obama’s priorities, and has some direct Australian flow-ons. The background is the Navy target to run 50% on planet-friendly alternative fuels by 2020, along with many conventional energy-saving measures. In practice, if a fuel stock contains as little as 10% biofuel, it can be fudged into the ‘green’ category.

The Islamization of Germany in 2016 “Germany is no longer safe.” by Soeren Kern *****

Mass migration from the Muslim world is fast-tracking the Islamization of Germany, as evidenced by the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy and child marriages. Mass migration has also been responsible for a host of social disruptions, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.

Development Minister Gerd Müller warned that the biggest refugee movements to Europe are still to come. He said that only 10% of the migrants from the chaos in Iraq and Syria have reached Europe so far: “Eight to ten million migrants are still on the way.”

“There are written instructions … today we are not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism, and this leads to a situation in which the public loses their trust in us. This is scandalous.” — Wolfgang Herles, Deutschlandfunk public radio.

The Turkish government has sent 970 clerics — most of whom do not speak German — to lead 900 mosques in Germany that are controlled by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), a branch of the Turkish government’s Directorate for Religious Affairs, known in Turkish as Diyanet. Critics accuse Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of using DITIB mosques to prevent Turkish migrants from integrating into German society.

A Cologne police superintendent revealed that he was ordered to remove the term “rape” from an internal police report about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. He said that an official at the North-Rhine Westphalia Interior Ministry told him in an angry tone: “This is not rape. Remove this term from your report. Submit a new report.”

The German branch of Open Doors, a non-governmental organization supporting persecuted Christians, reported that thousands of Christians in German refugee shelters are being persecuted by Muslims, sometimes even by their security guards.

A 23-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker wearing a T-shirt with the words “I’m Muslim Don’t Panic” was assaulted by fellow refugees for offending Islam. He was beaten so badly that he was hospitalized.

Half of the three million ethnic Turks living in Germany believe it is more important to follow Islamic Sharia law than German law if the two are in conflict, according to a survey.

A document leaked to Der Spiegel revealed that more than 33,000 migrants who are supposed to be deported are still in Germany, being cared for by German taxpayers. Many of the migrants destroyed their passports and are believed to have lied about their countries of origin to make it impossible for them to be deported.

Migrants committed 142,500 crimes during the first six months of 2016, according to a report by the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, or 32.5 crimes each hour, an increase of nearly 40% over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a migrant suspect has been caught.

Bild, the largest-circulation newspaper in Germany, warned that the country was “capitulating to Islamic law.”

Germany’s Muslim population surpassed six million in 2016 for the first time ever. Germany now vies with France for the highest Muslim population in Western Europe.

“Tolerance” in Tunisia by Tharwa Boulifi

Tharwa Boulifi, aged 15, lives in Tunisia.

The thing that struck me most is that they had no beards. Terrorism seems to be changing tactics. It no longer shows up as beards, revolvers, religious clothing… But it has started to take over our daily lives: in buses, subways, streets, supermarkets, maybe mostly in the slums. Every day, there, terrorists are being snapped up by ISIS.

“Religion” for me now just means “violence” and “kill.”

The thing is, Muslims generally do not have great arguments, so they just insult us. The subject of religion seems taboo for them: seeing other people — especially those who do not share their same beliefs — criticizing or asking questions about it is considered a humiliation. Discussing Islam means questioning its credibility, and so humiliating it.

Discussing Islam also seems a threat to their psychological safety: having the same beliefs and the same God is a sort of a reassurance and protection. To cast doubt on their religion means breaking into their “comfort zone” — and possibly even raising doubts.

For many, religious tolerance has become a business currency — a way to promote tourism, improve relations with other countries, elevate Tunisia’s image and benefit from the aid of rich countries. But that only makes tolerance a mask worn for personal gain.

The subway is something I do not go on a lot anymore, said the boy. On the subway, said the boy, people still gave me the evil eye; probably the long hair. Last time, a friend phoned; I spoke to him in Arabic. Soon after, a group of young men came up.

One said, “Are you Tunisian?”

“Yes,” I said.

Then, one of them saw the cross.

“Are you a Muslim?” he said.

“The cross is a gift,” I said. Then I told them the truth. “I am atheist,” I said.

I tried to ignore them, but one of them grabbed me by the shoulder.

“Oh really?” he said. “Then where do you think you are going after your death? Who created the universe if it was not Allah? If you do not revere Allah, you must revere Satan.”

New Year Speech to the Muslim World by Nonie Darwish

By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia law that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a two-way street between people that share common values of respect of each other’s culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam.

It really does not matter what is “true Islam”. That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is “true Islam” and what is not.

Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim] Jews, Christians and Pagans.

Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah’s law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists.

As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation.

Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.

After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America — or any country — not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?

Does Trump Grasp the Reality of ‘Radical Islam’? A Palestinian test case, courtesy of President Obama. By Andrew C. McCarthy

It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue.

The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?

After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses. Comparative anonymities (looking down at my shoes, now) could try terrorism cases and fill shelves with books and pamphlets and columns on the ideology behind the jihad from now until the end of time. But no matter how many terrorist attacks Americans endured, the public examination of the enemy was not going to happen unless a credible candidate for the world’s most important job dramatically shifted the parameters of acceptable discourse.

Trump forced the issue into the light of day. And once he did — voilà! — what was yesterday’s “Islamophobia” became today’s conventional wisdom. In reality, it was never either of these things. The former is an enemy-crafted smear (a wildly successful one) to scare off examination of the enemy; the latter is frequently wrong.

What we Cassandras have really been trying to highlight is a simple fact, as patent as it was unremarkable from the time of Sun Tsu until the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy — who he is, what motivates him, what he is trying to achieve. Being willing to name the enemy is a start. But it is just a start — the beginning, not the end, of understanding.

In his major campaign speech on the subject, Trump asserted that the enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism, surely, is the business end of the spear, but “radical Islamic terrorism” is an incomplete portrait. Dangerously incomplete? That depends on whether the term (a) is Trump’s shorthand for a threat he realizes is significantly broader than terrorism, or (b) reflects his actual — and thus insufficient — grasp of the challenge.

The speech provided reasons for hope. For one thing, Trump compared “radical Islamic terrorism” to the 20th-century challenges of fascism, Nazism, and Communism. These were ideological enemies. The capacity to project force was by no means the totality of the threat each represented — which is why it is so foolish to be dismissive of today’s enemy just because jihadist networks cannot compare militarily to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, toward the end of his speech, Trump used “radical Islamic terrorism” interchangeably with “radical Islam.” Ending the spread of radical Islam, he said, must be our objective. He even referred to it as an “ideology” — though he called it an “ideology of death,” which misses the point; it is an ideology of conquest.

Taiwan’s Leader Says Planned U.S. Stops on Trip Will Be Unofficial, Routine Plan for transit through U.S. in January follows Taiwanese president’s groundbreaking phone call with President-elect Trump By William Kazer

TAIPEI, Taiwan—Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen played down the significance of a planned U.S. stopover in January en route to Central America amid warnings from Beijing and speculation that she might meet with President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.

Speaking to reporters Saturday, the president of the self-ruled island said she wouldn’t be on an official visit to the U.S. and would make routine transit stops. “A transit stop is just a transit stop,” she said.

While Ms. Tsai and her predecessors made similar stopovers in the past, her plan to transit through Houston and San Francisco follows a groundbreaking telephone conversation with Mr. Trump in early December. That call set aside nearly 40 years of protocol that has left contacts between the two sides to lower-level officials at the insistence of Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its territory.

Under Washington’s agreement to open full diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, the U.S. downgraded its relations with Taiwan. The two, however, maintain close political, economic and military ties on an “unofficial” basis. Beijing, while tolerating the arrangement, is wary that Washington’s support may stiffen Taiwan’s resistance to China’s goal of reunification.

The phone call between Mr. Trump and Ms. Tsai irked Beijing. The anger was amplified after Mr. Trump questioned the usefulness of the “one China” policy under which the U.S. keeps its ties with Taiwan unofficial.

China’s foreign ministry spokesman this week called on the U.S. to prevent a stopover by Taiwan’s president and avoid sending the “wrong signals” to elements on the island pushing for formal independence.

The phone call may have also played a role in the recent announcement by the small African nation of São Tomé and Príncipe that it was dropping its formal recognition of Taiwan in favor of China. In past years, China and Taiwan have engaged in a bidding war as they competed diplomatic allies. They reached a truce under President Tsai’s predecessor, who adopted a more pro-engagement policy with Beijing. Taiwan has accused China of using “dollar diplomacy” to lure away São Tomé.

Ms. Tsai’s visit to Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador from Jan. 7 to 15 was arranged previously but has taken on new significance as the island seeks to shore up support among its remaining diplomatic partners. Taiwan now has official ties with only 21 countries, most of them small Central American and Caribbean countries as well as Pacific islands. CONTINUE AT SITE

Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Istanbul Nightclub Attack New Year’s assault killed at least 39 people By Maria Abi-Habib

BEIRUT—Islamic State on Monday claimed responsibility for a deadly New Year’s attack in Istanbul that killed at least 39 people and wounded dozens more, claiming the operation had targeted Turkey in retaliation for its military operations against the group in Syria.

The statement was distributed by Nashir News, a channel that publishes Islamic State propaganda, and which had called for followers of the extremist group to target holiday celebrations days before the attack.

Trump Can Reverse Obama’s Last-Minute Land Grab The White House is trying to lock up millions of acres, but no president can bind his successor. By Todd Gaziano and John Yoo

As he prepares to leave office in three weeks, President Obama is still trying to shape his legacy. On Dec. 20 the White House announced the withdrawal of millions of acres of Atlantic and Arctic territory from petroleum development. This week Mr. Obama proclaimed 1.35 million acres in Utah and 300,000 acres in Nevada to be new national monuments. But all the soon-to-be ex-president will prove is the fleeting nature of executive power.

These actions, like many others he has taken, are vulnerable to reversal by President-elect Trump. In our constitutional system, no policy can long endure without the cooperation of both the executive and legislative branches. Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can enact domestic statutes with any degree of permanence. And because of the Constitution’s separation of powers, no policy will survive for long without securing and retaining a consensus beyond a simple majority.

As president, Mr. Trump can easily reverse the most unwarranted and costly regulations issued in the last few months. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a simple majority of each house may expeditiously disapprove such regulations, so long as the president signs the bill. A CRA disapproval would have the added virtue of automatically prohibiting any future, “substantially similar” rule without congressional action.

Mr. Trump can clear the way for Congress by halting all current rule-makings and ordering agencies to stop enforcing rules enacted in the last two years (or longer). After their defense of the administration’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws, liberals would have no legitimate grounds to oppose Mr. Trump’s temporary enforcement halt.

Mr. Obama’s unilateral actions, by executive order, proclamation or memoranda, are even more vulnerable. The courts have declared some void, including the immigration deportation orders. Mr. Trump can simply order the Justice Department to acquiesce in those decisions and save the public the trouble of litigating others. Mr. Obama taunted his political adversaries that if he didn’t get what he wanted from Congress, he would use his “pen” and “phone.” Those tools also work in reverse. CONTINUE AT SITE

The FDA’s Rigged Drug Committees A case study in how the agency gets the advice it wants to hear.

Among the Republican priorities in 2017 should be dismantling a culture of bureaucratic control at the Food and Drug Administration that poisons innovation and costs lives. Here’s an idea: Update part of the approval process that was patient zero for distorting data on a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

We’ve reported on the drama over eteplirsen, which FDA approved in September and is now marketed as Exondys 51 by Sarepta Therapeutics. Midlevel bureaucrats have since disparaged the therapy in public, and some insurers are denying coverage. Much of the confusion results from an April show trial known as an advisory committee meeting. A process that is supposed to provide independent advice to the FDA instead became a venue to mislead a panel of nonexperts—and the public—about the drug’s efficacy.

Advisory committees exist so FDA can solicit expert counsel, but the agency stacks panels with allies whose career currency is prestige and government funding. Such committees usually vote the way FDA wants—and then the agency tends to follow the recommendation. On eteplirsen, the panel voted 6-7 against accelerated approval after a critical FDA review, which was later overruled by agency management in a rare exception amid unusual public scrutiny.

The 13-member committee that checked out eteplirsen included: a psychiatrist, a stroke doctor and several others with no experience in Duchenne. The agency seldom invites true experts because anyone who has ever talked to a drug company is deemed financially conflicted. In rare diseases like Duchenne, that problem is more pronounced because the pool of experts can be so limited.

Yet meet Caleb Alexander, chairman of the committee. Dr. Alexander invited speakers at the meeting to state organizations they represent. He read this statement at least a dozen times but neglected to mention his own conflict of interest: Dr. Alexander has received a large FDA grant, information that is available online. The conceit is that folks like Dr. Alexander are less motivated by pecuniary interests than someone who has consulted for a company. Dr. Alexander voted against approval.