Displaying posts published in

May 2017

Germany: Wave of Muslim Honor Killings by Soeren Kern

The court heard how Amer K. stabbed the mother of his three children in the chest and neck more than twenty times with a large kitchen knife, because he thought she wanted to divorce him.

“Then he takes the knife and plunges it into her chest, [penetrating] the pericardium and heart muscle. A second stab opens the left abdominal cavity. Nurettin B. then pulls out the ax. With the blunt side he hits her head, cracking her skull. Then he grabs the rope. On one end he ties a gibbet knot around her neck, then he ties the other end to the trailer hitch on [his car]… He races through the streets at 80 km/h [until] the rope breaks.” — State Prosecutor Ann-Kristin Fröhlich, reconstructing the husband’s actions.

In Ahaus, a 27-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker stabbed to death a 22-year-old woman after she seemingly offended his honor by rejecting his romantic advances.

The trial of a Kurdish man who tied one of his three wives to the back of a car and dragged her through the streets of a town in Lower Saxony has drawn attention to an outbreak of Muslim honor violence in Germany.

Honor violence — ranging from emotional abuse to physical and sexual violence to murder — is usually carried out by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought shame upon a family or clan.

Offenses include refusing to agree to an arranged marriage, entering into a relationship with a non-Muslim or someone not approved by the family, refusing to stay in an abusive marriage or living an excessively Western lifestyle. In practice, however, the lines between crimes of honor and crimes of passion are often blurred and any challenge to male authority can elicit retribution, which is sometimes staggeringly brutal.

On May 22, a court in Hanover heard how a 39-year-old Turkish-born Kurd named Nurettin B. attempted to murder his second wife, Kader K., 28, after she asked him to provide financial support for their two-year-old son. State Prosecutor Ann-Kristin Fröhlich reconstructed Nurettin B.’s actions:

“At around 6PM on November 20, 2016, Nurettin B. got into his car in Hamelin to meet Kader K. The trunk contained a knife, an ax and a rope. Sitting on the back seat of the car was their two-year-old son, who had spent the weekend with him. On the street, the former couple got into an argument and he begins hitting her. Then he takes the knife and plunges it into her chest. The 12.4 centimeter long blade penetrates the pericardium and heart muscle. A second stab opens the left abdominal cavity. Nurettin B. then pulls out the ax. With the blunt side he hits her head and upper body, cracking her skull.

“Then he grabs the rope. On one end he ties a gibbet knot around her neck, then he ties the other end to the trailer hitch on the back of his black VW Passat. Nurettin B. steps on the gas. He races through the streets at 80 km/h (50 mph). After 208 meters (680 feet) the rope breaks. Kader K. is hurled against the curb. Nurettin B. drives to the police station to turn himself in. The child is still sitting in the back seat.”

Presiding Judge Wolfgang Rosenbusch asked Kader K., who was comatose for weeks, to tell her side of the story. She said “the horror” began immediately after their Islamic sharia wedding (the marriage is not valid according to German law) in March 2013, when Nurettin B. prohibited her from having any contact with friends and family. She was allowed to leave the house only for grocery shopping and medical visits. She was not allowed to have a mobile phone. Rosenbusch asked: “Does he have a problem with women?” Kader K. replied: “He believes women are slaves; they must keep silent.”

Nurettin B. has confessed to the crime but insists it was not premeditated. He has been charged with attempted murder and faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

UK Government to Hold Pro-Terrorism Expo in London? by Denis MacEoin

“‘Friends of Al-Aqsa’ is one of the more extremist Islamist organizations at work in Britain today. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-linked charity ‘Interpal’ (proscribed by the US Treasury) and advertises it on its website. It collaborates with the Khomenist Iranian-funded faux human rights organization known as the Islamic Human Rights Commission in organizing events such as Al Quds day at which public support is expressed for the Iranian proxy militia Hizbollah.” — UK Media Watch.

Under these definitions, Hamas is exposed as a terrorist organization both by its repeated use of indiscriminate killing and the contents of its two Charters from 1988 and 2017.

“There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except through jihad…” — Hamas Charters of 1988 and 2017, Articles 18 and 21.

Hamas is not the only extremist organization to which Friends of Al-Aqsa has lent its support.

Mere weeks after the terrorist attacks in Britain — on May 22 in Manchester and earlier in Westminster — there is planned in London, on July 8-9, a major event which its organizers describe as:

Palestine Expo: the biggest social, cultural and entertainment event on Palestine to ever take place in Europe. In a year of immense significance for Palestine, we are pleased to announce, Palestine Expo 2017

The “biggest ever in Europe”: heady stuff. In a major coup, the exposition will take place, not in a scruffy hall on the outskirts of the city, but in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster, near the Houses of Parliament, in the shadow of Big Ben and Westminster Abbey. The prestigious centre is owned by the UK Government and its operation is conducted by an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has 2,000 square metres of exhibition space, four main auditoria, seven conference rooms and many smaller rooms, and specialises in events for more than 1,000 delegates. Palexpo[1] will occupy five of its six levels.

Events listed include:

Inspirational Speakers
Interactive Zones
Knowledge village
Food Court
Live Entertainment
Academic Workshop (“will be run by a group of academics from leading UK universities”)
Student Hub
Gallery
Shopping Quarter

On the surface, it might appear that this is merely a cultural event designed to give the British public a taste of Palestinian cooking, music, art, in particular, history (starting in 1948!). A closer examination, however, reveals something less pleasant. Underneath the surface, this exposition is dedicated to a presentation of Palestinian victimhood and “resistance” (read terrorism), the same “resistance” as in Israel, and on similar false pretexts.

Ramadan: “A Month of Great Conquests” by Judith Bergman

“Ramadan has been not only a month of worship and of growing close to Allah the Almighty, but also a month of action and jihad aimed at spreading this great religion… throughout [Muslim] history, Ramadan has been a month of great conquests….”. — ‘Ali Gum’a, then Grand mufti of Egypt, Al-Ahram in July 2012.

“According to Islamic practice, sacrifice during Ramadan can be considered more valuable than that made at other times, so a call to martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure to some.” — Report by the U.S. State Department-led Overseas Security Advisory Council, The Independent, June 9, 2016.

“Jihad in the Arabic language… means: …striving… where the cause/objective is goodness & justice…Holy war [is] not an expression in the Qur’an: War is NEVER holy.” — Anna Cole, ‘inclusion specialist’ for the UK Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), which represents more than 18,000 head teachers and college leaders.

“Our fight is Jihad and an obligatory worship. And every obligatory act of worship has 70 times more reward in Ramadan,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Taliban, rejecting U.N.-led calls for halting hostilities during Ramadan.

ISIS also just released a YouTube message — quoting the Quran — urging its supporters to attack the “infidels… in their homes, their markets, their roads and their forums…”

“double your efforts and intensify your operations… Do not despise the work. Your targeting of the so-called innocents and civilians is beloved by us and the most effective, so go forth and may you get a great reward or martyrdom in Ramadan”.

An article in the Ramadan issue of ISIS’ Rumiyah magazine told readers to use the month of Ramadan to “maximise the benefit you receive on the day of judgement”.

ISIS’s call for increased jihad during the month of Ramadan is now a yearly occurrence. Last year, after an audio message by the ISIS spokesman at the time, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, calling on jihadists to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America”, the U.S. government warned citizens at home and abroad of an increased terrorist risk:

“According to Islamic practice, sacrifice during Ramadan can be considered more valuable than that made at other times, so a call to martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure to some.”

This year, the day the Ramadan began, Friday, May 26, 2017, jihadists attacked a bus filled with Coptic Christians travelling to a monastery in Egypt, and murdered 29 of them. Ten of the victims were children; one, only two years old. A few days earlier, jihadists in the Philippines warmed up for Ramadan by murdering 14 Christians and wounding more than 50. The Muslim Abu Sayyaf group, linked to Al Qaeda, claimed responsibility. The day after the beginning of Ramadan, May 27, a Taliban suicide bomber murdered 18 people in Afghanistan, two of them children.

The radical past of Diablo Valley professor Eric Clanton’s left-wing lawyer By Joe Schaeffer

The pro bono lawyer for Eric Clanton, the former Diablo Valley College professor who has been criminally charged with using a heavy bike lock to viciously beat three Trump supporters in the head during a rally for the president in Berkeley, Calif. last month, has himself espoused the use of violence in the cause of social justice.

Dan Siegel of Bay Area law firm Siegel & Yee is an aging ’60s radical still fighting The System. So it makes perfect sense that he would take on Clanton’s defense free of charge, for his left-wing activism from almost 50 years ago was also grounded in the use of violence and destruction of property.

A 1972 article in the Long Beach Independent notes that Siegel was denied a license to practice law after passing the bar exam due to his political agitation.

“The California State Bar refused to certify Siegel on grounds he was not ‘of good moral character’ and ‘not prepared to support the laws of the United States or the Stale of California,'” the Independent reported. “It said this was because he allegedly advocated violence and the seizure of property and lied when he denied advocating these things.”

Siegel had to appeal the ruling all the way to the California Supreme Court. In October 1973, the case was presented. The evidence against him was damning.

Siegel’s leading role in the infamous 1969 “People’s Park” riot that saw one person killed and hundreds arrested was outlined, as well as his incendiary speechmaking before the Bank of America building was burned down on the campus of UC Santa Barbara in 1970.

Most interesting are the quotes of Siegel ruminating on the appropriateness of using violence to “reverse the power structure in this country,” with him concluding that it would be necessary.

According to the evidence listed for the record before the state Supreme Court, Siegel on March 6, 1970 “addressed a large group of people in Provo Park, an open space across the street from the Berkeley City Hall.”

Apparently expletives were deleted in the official record, accounting for the use of bracketed ellipses.

Referencing the burning down of the Bank of America building, Siegel spoke of “getting into a new stage in the movement. I like to call this stage ‘give them a little […] for the […] they are giving us.’ That’s what’s been going on.

“That’s what started in Berkeley when we had our first insurrection in the summer of 1968. That’s what happened down in Santa Barbara in the last couple of weeks. It’s called the ‘give them a little […] for the […] they give us.'”

From there, Siegel pulled no punches.

“And, brothers and sisters, I am not going to get up here and tell you that in this society nonviolence is the way, because that’s […], we know that. But just at the same time I am not going to tell you that nonviolence is the way and we should avoid violence because it is bad or something like that.

Angela Merkel’s Lament A difference on climate doesn’t mean a U.S. retreat from Europe. see note please

Frau Merkel was much more gemutlich to Obama who just happened to be in Deutschland while our president was in the Middle East….She just air-brushed the fact that the Obama administration wire-tapped and spied on German government and media…..rsk
Angela Merkel’s declaration on the weekend that Germany and continental Europe will have to depend more on themselves is being portrayed as the Donald Trump -inspired end of American leadership in Europe. But if that’s true, and we have heard this dirge before, the erosion of U.S. leadership hardly began with Mr. Trump. It started under Barack Obama, whose failure to lead was too often reinforced by his main partner in Europe, Mrs. Merkel.

“All I can say is that we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands,” the German leader told a crowd during a re-election campaign event at a beer tent in Bavaria. “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.”

That was widely perceived as the German Chancellor’s reaction to last week’s NATO and G-7 summits, when the new U.S. President challenged NATO members to spend more on defense and refused to sign on to the climate-change policies of the other six leaders.

Mrs. Merkel seemed especially miffed about Mr. Trump’s decision not to embrace the Paris climate accord that Mr. Obama signed in his final year as President. “The whole discussion about climate has been difficult, or rather very unsatisfactory,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters. “Here we have the situation that six members, or even seven if you want to add the [European Union], stand against one.’

But wait. Since when is a difference of opinion on climate policy a signal of U.S. retreat from Europe? And why is Mr. Trump’s reluctance to sign on to Paris—he says he’ll decide whether to leave the accord this week—a failure of leadership? Mrs. Merkel’s comments suggest that she is most upset because Mr. Trump declined to follow her lead on climate.

Mr. Trump should decline if he wants to fulfill his campaign promises to lift the U.S. economy. Mrs. Merkel’s embrace of green-energy dogmas has done enormous harm to the German economy. She reacted to the Fukushima meltdown by phasing out nuclear power, and her government has force-fed hundreds of billions of dollars into solar and wind power that have raised energy costs. As Der Spiegel once put it, electricity is now a “luxury good” in Germany.

It’s not surprising that Mrs. Merkel and the Europeans should want to shackle the U.S. with similarly high energy costs, and Mr. Obama was happy to oblige. But Mr. Trump was elected on a promise to raise middle-class incomes, and domestic energy production is essential to that effort. Mrs. Merkel doesn’t care if Mr. Obama committed the U.S. to Paris without any Congressional approval, but Mr. Trump has to take that into account.

U.K. Security Agency to Investigate How It Handled Intelligence on Suicide Bomber British officials have said Salman Abedi was ‘known’ to security services, but wasn’t under active investigation by MI5 at the time of the bombing By Jenny Gross and Hassan Morajea

MANCHESTER, England—Britain’s MI5 security service has launched an internal investigation into how it handled intelligence about Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi, who killed 22 people in an attack outside a pop concert last week, a U.K. security official said Monday.

Abedi, a 22-year-old British-born son of Libyan immigrants, had been reported to the authorities for espousing extremist sentiments, saw combat as a teenager in Libya’s civil war and lived in a neighborhood that has produced recruiters and fighters for Islamic State.

Last week, Abedi, dressed in a puffy Hollister winter jacket, bluejeans and a gray baseball cap, walked into a crowd of concertgoers streaming out of a performance by American pop star Ariana Grande and detonated a shrapnel-filled explosive device in the deadliest terror attack in Britain since 2005.

British officials have said Abedi was “known” to security services. He was one of 20,000 suspected extremists MI5 has tracked in the past, but wasn’t among 3,000 under active investigation by the agency at the time of the bombing, the official said.

“He was part of an investigation that was closed, when it was decided it was not necessary or proportionate to continue it,” the official said. “We’re reviewing things in the sense that we’re looking back and want to learn lessons.”

Police on Monday were holding 14 people—including Abedi’s older brother and two cousins—as they tried to piece together what authorities have described as a possible “network” of accomplices that helped him prepare for and carry out the attack.

Abedi’s father and younger brother, Hashem, were in the custody of a Libyan militia in Tripoli.

Authorities worried Abedi had manufactured bomb materials that weren’t used in last week’s attack. But after days of searches and arrests around Manchester, the security services believed they had tracked down all of the hydrogen-peroxide-based explosives linked to Abedi, the official said.

Manchester police on Monday published a photograph of Abedi carrying a blue suitcase and appealed to members of the public for any information about the bag. The police said there was no reason to believe the suitcase or its contents were dangerous, but advised caution.

Friends and acquaintances of Abedi say he had become increasingly religious and expressed interest in extremist groups in recent years.

In 2011, Abedi fought alongside his father as Libyan rebels sought to oust dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Many from Manchester’s Libyan community did the same. Abedi and other teenagers returned from the battlefield hardened, friends and community leaders said.

In the years that followed a number of young people from south Manchester left to fight with Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. CONTINUE AT SITE

Don’t Blame Hillary She was a flawed messenger, but her party has a problem with its message.

“Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.” The words are often attributed to famed Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne. Judging from the ungraciousness that has characterized Hillary Clinton’s every public appearance since the November election, she has taken them to heart.

Friday’s commencement address at Wellesley—an attack on the man who defeated her—is only the latest outburst from a failed candidate, who has now vowed to take a leading position in the anti-Trump “resistance.” On the right these things provoke new headlines about sore loserhood. Far more interesting is the irritation Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to fade away is causing among fellow Democrats who blame her for the loss against what should have been an easily defeatable Republican nominee.

This is supremely unfair to Mrs. Clinton. As flawed a candidate as she might have been, the truth is almost certainly the reverse. It is today’s Democratic Party that gave us Mrs. Clinton, as well as the thumping in November.

Yes, the Clintons have always been flexible about principles, a big reason for the appeal of the more purist Bernie Sanders. Back when her husband was running for president as a “New Democrat” in 1992, the idea was that the party had shed its McGovernite past and moved to the center, so that it could now be trusted on values, the economy and national security. At the time Mr. Clinton advertised his wife as “two for the price of one.”

Once they got in, Mrs. Clinton reverted to type by pushing, unsuccessfully, for universal health care. But after that belly-flop and the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, they dialed it back, and by 1996 her husband was telling the American people “the era of big government is over.”

As New York’s junior senator, Mrs. Clinton was firmly ensconced within her party. “On the 1,390 votes she cast in which most senators from one party voted differently from most senators across the aisle,” notes an April 2016 piece from Roll Call, “Clinton went against the Democratic grain only 49 times.”

Even on the single issue that came to be used against her in last year’s Democratic presidential primary—her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq—Mrs. Clinton was squarely with her party. We’ve forgotten it today, but more Democrats voted with Mrs. Clinton on that one than against, including Harry Reid, John Edwards, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and John Kerry. Only a few years later she, again like them, opposed the surge.

So which is she, hawk or dove? The truth is that she is both—and neither. In a notable section in the memoirs of fellow Obama cabinet member Bob Gates, he relates a conversation in which she admits her opposition to the surge in Iraq “had been political because she was facing [Barack Obama] in the Iowa primary.” Again this only puts her within the mainstream of her party: Most of the other Democrats who had voted for the war in 2002 would also oppose the surge in 2007.

It has been a consistent pattern for Mrs. Clinton. On almost any issue that energizes her party—from same-sex marriage to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal—Mrs. Clinton has gone where the party has pulled her even if it meant going against where she had been. This is what Hollywood actress Rosario Dawson meant last summer when she asked a group of Sanders delegates at the convention to understand that Mrs. Clinton “is not a leader, she’s a follower.”

But on what became the single overriding theme of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton was truly in sync with her party. This is the idea that she should be elected because she’s a woman, and that a coalition of millennials, minorities and women would come together to make it happen. So where Donald Trump had “Make America Great Again,” Mrs. Clinton had the identity project par excellence: “I’m with her.”

After all, who could be more deserving to succeed the first African-American president than the first woman president?

There’s Still Time to Avert War in Lebanon Hezbollah’s strength has multiplied, and conflict is inevitable unless the world acts. Ron Prosor

Hezbollah’s strength has multiplied, and conflict is inevitable unless the world acts.There’s Still Time to Avert War in
Lebanon.Mr. Prosor, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N., is chairman of the Interdisciplinary Center’s International Diplomacy Institute and an executive-in-residence at Liontree.

Donald Trump called out Hezbollah at both stops on his Middle East trip last week. In Saudi Arabia he praised the Gulf Cooperation Council for designating the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militia a terrorist organization and noted that Riyadh had placed sanctions on a senior Hezbollah figure. In Jerusalem Mr. Trump scored Hezbollah for launching rockets “into Israeli communities where schoolchildren have to be trained to hear the sirens and run to the bomb shelters—with fear, but with speed.”

The president and his national-security team must have taken a good look across Israel’s northern border. Lebanon is at a crossroads. Decisions the president makes now could help prevent a devastating war between Israel and Hezbollah. Such a war would severely damage Lebanon and could drag the U.S. into another complex and costly entanglement in the Middle East. Engagement today can prevent risks to American lives tomorrow.

Hezbollah is sponsored by Iran and has become increasingly brazen in the last decade. It is now more militarily powerful than most North Atlantic Treaty Organization members. It has 150,000 missiles and could launch 1,500 of them a day. From the ground, air or sea, it can strike anywhere in Israel. Lebanon’s president, Michel Aoun, hasn’t distanced the Lebanese army from Iran’s proxy. Rather, he has embraced it. “Hezbollah’s weapons do not contradict the national project,” he said in February, but are “a principal element of Lebanon’s defense.”

Yet when Hezbollah acts, it does so with Iran’s interests in mind—not Lebanon’s. Iran would have no qualms spilling Lebanese blood in a war with Israel. Just look at Syria, where under Iranian direction, the Assad regime has unleashed genocide against the Sunni Arab population using Hezbollah as its storm troops.

War between Israel and Lebanon is avoidable, but only if the world acts now—with American leadership. Hezbollah’s ability to destabilize the region stems from the abject failure of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and the peacekeeping force tasked with enforcing it, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil.

Bipartisan Group of Legislators, US Christian Leaders Turn up Heat on Trump Over Jerusalem Embassy Move By Ben Cohen

As the fiftieth anniversary of Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem during the June 1967 Six-Day War approaches, a bipartisan group of legislators is stepping up the pressure on President Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the Jewish state’s capital.

Christian religious leaders are also centrally involved in the push. Their position was laid out in a May 16 open letter to Trump — signed by 60 prominent Evangelical leaders — which urged that the US “honor its strongest and only true democratic ally in the Middle East by respecting its capital city — Jerusalem — and immediately moving the US Embassy there.”

A Jerusalem Day event on Capitol Hill last week brought together Democratic and Republican legislators with some of the most vocal Christian advocates of an embassy relocation, including Jerry A. Johnson — president of National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) — and Susan Michael — US director of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ).

The current appeals to Trump to act on his campaign rhetoric reflect the widespread frustration that successive presidents have waived the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, despite its passage by both the House and Senate with overwhelming majorities.

“I got to Congress in 1997, and in 1998, I sponsored a bill saying that before we move our embassy in Germany to Berlin, we should move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told The Algemeiner. Sherman said that the move of the US embassy to Berlin from Bonn — eight years after the reunification of Germany in 1990 — “illustrates the fact that when a country tells us where their capital is, that’s where we put our embassy.”

Daniel Williams – executive director of the Israel Allies Foundation, which is organizing a petition demanding the embassy be moved to Jerusalem — pledged to keep the issue alive in the event that Trump follows his predecessors by waiving the 1995 Act, a twice-yearly decision that will land on his desk for the first time on Wednesday

“We’re going to stay on this if he signs the waiver,” Williams said. “We’ll continue to build our petition list, and we’ll go back to a broader section of faith leaders. I would like to see us go to Jewish faith leaders in the way that we have Evangelical leaders.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Co) told The Algemeiner the positive reaction which Trump received during his visit to Israel last week was more evidence that the embassy move was overdue.

“Donald Trump made history by being the first American president to visit the Western Wall and by being the first American president to visit Israel on his inaugural foreign trip,” Lamborn said. “Those were two excellent initiatives on his part, so this is a wonderful opportunity to carry through on his campaign promise.”

Sherman said it was completely unclear to him what action Trump would take on the matter. “While he was there, he avoided this issue, and he also avoided the two-state solution,” Sherman said. “He avoided saying anything so far as I can see.”

It Had to Be the Smirnoff By Joan Swirsky *****

What may turn into the most explosive investigation in U.S. history regarding the rampant crime, corruption, and sedition of many if not most of the high-level players in the Obama regime.

It was a good plan. After their thunderous loss in the presidential election, our country’s premier Olympian liars––Democrats all––put their heads together to develop a plan to accuse the newly elected president of collusion with our enemy, to get him impeached forthwith, and ultimately to preserve the communist/jihadist government that it took the previous eight years of formal power and a hundred years of planning to accomplish.

First, it was important for the orchestrator and financier of both the former regime and the current “resistance” movement to appear busy with other things, such as financing the travel arrangements of anarchists and thugs, and purchasing shiny new placards to be displayed at often-violent rallies around the country, all protesting the horrible things the newly elected president was doing:

Rounding up criminal aliens
Seating a conservative Supreme Court Justice
Reasserting American military supremacy
Sanctioning the murderous mullahs in Iran
Dropping the Mother Of All Bombs on ISIS targets in Afghanistan
Causing a precipitous rise in employment, et al.
Here’s a more extensive list.

Second, get the putative leader of the former, failed regime out of the country––preferably to an island that doesn’t honor U.S. extradition laws––the better to protect him from indictable crimes should the plan fail.

Third, develop the narrative––Trump’s collusion with Russia––and enlist the entire Democrat Party and 99 percent of the media to hammer relentlessly, 24-7, on this theme, omitting, of course, the fact that it would not require help from the Russians to win an election against the least attractive, least compelling, least accomplished, most corrupt Democrat candidate in decades.
FRUITS OF THEIR LABORS