FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Putting a New Squeeze on Iran Pompeo lays out a strategy of severe economic pressure.

Posted By on May 22nd, 2018

Hard on the heels of U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday laid out a new strategy to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional imperialism. The U.S. plans to impose severe financial and economic pressure while offering Iran better diplomatic and commercial relations if it changes its threatening course.

In 2015 Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made a $100 billion bet that their Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would end Iran’s nuclear program while transforming the Islamic Republic into a responsible member of the world community. The wager didn’t pay.

While delaying its nuclear dream a few years, Iran has spent the windfall from sanctions relief financing proxy wars through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. The Iranian economy languished, and Iranians suffered. “ Qasem Soleimani has been playing with house money that has become blood money,” Mr. Pompeo said about Iran’s Qods Force general.

The new U.S. strategy promises to restore a hard economic vise that will squeeze Iran’s funds for adventurism. The sanctions regime in place before the nuclear deal already is returning, Mr. Pompeo said, and new penalties will be “the strongest sanctions in history.” Iran will have to choose: “Either fight to keep its economy off life support at home or keep squandering precious wealth on fights abroad. It will not have the resources to do both.”

Critics insist the U.S. can’t replicate the previous sanctions because the Europeans, Russians and Chinese aren’t supportive. The European Union in particular is exploring ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions, but that is harder than it sounds. As Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg note nearby, the Iran economy is under pressure and its currency is reeling.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Campus Censorship Hits Pro-Lifers Hard When antifa issued threats to my student group, Cal State Fullerton did nothing. By Kristan Hawkins

Posted By on May 22nd, 2018

Ms. Hawkins is president of Students for Life of America, which has more than 1,200 chapters on college and high school campuses.

Free speech is out of fashion on college, university and even high school campuses, and pro-life students are hit especially hard. Putting aside any feelings about the issue of abortion, consider that pro-life students increasingly find their ability to make their case suppressed by fellow students and administrators. With more than 1,200 college and high school chapters, Students for Life of America works daily addressing obstacles to student speech. Among them:

• Vandalism and theft of displays and signs. Defacing displays like a Cemetery of the Innocents, set in remembrance of lives lost to abortion, occurs regularly, and was captured on video recently at the Miami University of Ohio. Chalking is a popular way to express thought peacefully. Recently a California State University, Fresno, professor was required to pay $17,000 and undergo free-speech training for destroying student pro-life chalk messages and encouraging his students to do the same.

• A tax on speech in the form of selectively assessed security fees. When a Students for Life chapter at the University of Michigan invited Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King to speak, the school sent the students a bill for more than $800. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys intervened, noting: “The government may not charge speakers for the security costs driven by listeners’ response to that speech.” CONTINUE AT SITE

BOOKS Comments turned off

Daryl McCann Bernard Lewis and the Dangerous Creed of Freedom (October 2012)

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

In his memoir Notes on a Century, Bernard Lewis observes that it has become “fashionable to assume that everything Western is bad”. Lewis, nonetheless, allows himself to make one “blatantly chauvinistic statement” by claiming that “the quest for knowledge” is a “peculiarly Western feature”. Throughout the past half-millennium, from the time of the earliest European Orientalists, the intellectual curiosity of Western philologists, adventurers and scholars has transcended provincialism, religion, sentiment and compliance. Notes on a Century goes a long way towards explaining why this phenomenon appears to be under threat, dwelling as we do in an era of “intellectual conformism unknown for centuries”.

Bernard Lewis, speaker of some thirteen languages, has been a leading Western authority on the Middle East for an astonishing seven decades, since the publication of The Origins of Ismailism in 1940: a colossus in his field, impossibly brilliant and an intellect of the highest order. The late Edward Said, one-time professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, described Lewis in 2003 as “a tireless mediocrity”. This says more about the founder of post-colonial studies than it does about his adversary. A more accurate description of Lewis was made by a Muslim critic in 1966: “[He is] either a candid friend or an honest enemy and in any case one who disdains to distort the truth.” Lewis, now ninety-five years old, wants to be regarded as a dedicated and single-minded scholar who successfully avoided the pitfalls of both polemics and apologetics. Despite (or perhaps because of) bouts of celebrity, and interludes as an adviser to various heads of state including the United States of America and Turkey, Lewis has his Western critics. Most—but certainly not all—hail from the ranks of post-colonial studies.

IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

Illegal Immigration: A Tale Of Two Countries (Canada vs. U.S.) Hypocrisy thrives in the immigration debate. Michael Cutler

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

A sign has been posted on the border that separates the United States from one of its two geographical neighbors. Its message is clear and unmistakeable. It reads simply:

Stop

It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry.

You will be arrested and detained if your cross here.

That sign was not posted on the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico on the southern U.S. border.

You may also be surprised to know that the sign was not erected by President Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

It was not erected by any official of the DHS such as the Director of the U.S. Border Patrol, nor was the sign posted by any official of any government agency in the United States on the federal, state or local level.

That sign was not posted by any civilian group in the United States angered and frustrated by the decades old failures of the United States to secure its borders against the entry of international terrorists, transnational criminals, and foreign workers who routinely displace American and lawful immigrant workers and suppress the wages of those Americans and lawful immigrants who are fortunate enough to not lose their jobs to the foreign interlopers.

That sign was, however, posted by Canadian authorities on Canada’s southern border to deter aspiring illegal aliens in the United States from entering Canada illegally.

Illegal immigration from the United States to Canada has increased, as the Canadian newspaper, The Star, reported on May 14, 2018: Number of asylum seekers jumped 30 per cent in April.

The Star report noted that while in a typical month an estimated 1,500 illegal aliens enter Canada from the United States (without inspection) in April 2,479 had arrived in Quebec.

MEDIA Comments turned off

The Obamas Sign Multi-Year Deal with Netflix to Produce Shows and Movies By Jack Crowe

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

Netflix announced Monday that Barack and Michelle Obama have signed “a multi-year agreement” to produce television shows and movies for the company’s rapidly growing line of original content.

The Obamas are slated to produce scripted and unscripted series as well as documentaries and feature films, according to a Netflix tweet announcing the deal.“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” the former president said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement that the Obamas “are uniquely positioned to discover and highlight stories of people who make a difference in their communities and strive to change the world for the better.”

Obama has frequently bemoaned the polarized state of the media eco-system since leaving office. A New York Times report published in March indicated that the Obamas will avoid overtly partisan programming in favor of a broader aspirational message. One project reportedly under consideration would feature debates over contentious national issues moderated by the former president.The Obamas’ compensation remains undisclosed but the couple were reportedly paid $60 million for their joint memoir, indicating that taste-makers believe consumers are eager for Obama-produced content.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

At Trump’s Urging, Justice Department Expands Investigation of Investigators By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

It’s not improper political interference for the chief executive to direct that evidence of executive-branch misconduct be probed.

On Sunday, President Trump tweeted a “demand” that the Justice Department investigate political spying in the 2016 campaign. This replays the political-spying controversy that surfaced in late February. Right now, the issue involves the Obama administration’s use of at least one confidential informant — a spy — to snoop into the opposition party’s presidential campaign; back in February, the issue was the Obama administration’s electronic surveillance — by FISA eavesdropping warrants — for the same purpose.

Just as he did last time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions responded to the president’s agitation by referring the political-spying issue to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. This was the right thing — or, at least, a right thing — to do. Our editorial regarding the previous case explained the guiding principles:

When there are allegations of wrongdoing by Justice Department or FBI officials, federal law and Justice Department protocols require an internal investigation by the units that exist for that purpose — the Office of the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Sessions was correct to comply with these standards. Arguably, a referral to OPR, rather than the IG, may be warranted. Under federal law, OPR has jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct involving “the exercise of authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.” There is no doubt, though, that evidence of official malfeasance must be referred to one of these offices. Given that OPR reports directly to the attorney general, while the IG reports to both the attorney general and Congress, Sessions may well have calculated that the IG referral would have more credibility.

These same principles apply now, in the wake of last week’s disclosure that the FBI, under circumstances that remain obscure, used a longtime CIA informant to establish ties with and pry information from three Trump campaign officials, beginning in July 2016.

To elaborate, the president’s Sunday tweet demanded that the Justice Department “look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes,” including whether such monitoring was pushed by “people within the Obama administration!” Trump vowed to follow up this tweet with a more formal directive today.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

A Russian’s Devastating Verdict on Norway By Bruce Bawer

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

Among the real-life Norwegian phenomena made gentle fun of in the 2012-14 Netflix series Lilyhammer, starring Steven Van Zandt as a New York mobster who has moved to Norway under the Witness Protection Program, were natteravnene — the “night ravens,” groups of unarmed citizen volunteers, including little old ladies, who patrol the night streets to talk wayward youths out of breaking the law. The concept is a quaint one, originating in a time when virtually all crimes committed in the middle of the Norwegian night were petty misdemeanors and when the perpetrators were Norwegian kids who, if confronted on the verge of a transgression by somebody their parents’ or grandparents’ age, could be expected to hang their heads in shame and go home.

No more: last Saturday night, a gang of “youths” in the Groruddalen area of Oslo, the physical descriptions of whom in the media made it clear that they were not ethnic Norwegians, threw rocks at a group of Natteravner. The next night, a youth gang roamed around Tøyen, another Muslim neighborhood of Oslo, and threw rocks at passersby. Minor crimes, perhaps — but, in the Norwegian context, marks of a sea change. I’ve written my share of pieces about the consequences of the Islamization of European cities, Oslo among them; not long ago, in a longish piece for City Journal, I chronicled the decline and fall of Muslim-heavy Groruddalen over the past couple of decades.

Don’t believe my reports? Fine — listen to what Yuri Snegirev has to say. Snegirov, a reporter for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian government’s newspaper of record, visited Norway recently and recorded his observations in a three-part series of articles. (Though I was alerted to their existence by an Aftenposten headline, that paper’s summary of Snegirev’s pieces was behind a paywall, so I hunted down the original texts, which, to my surprise, were made almost entirely comprehensible by Google Translate.)

Snegirev’s account of his visit focused largely on such dry matters as the competition between Russia and Norway over oil drilling and fishing in the Bering Sea. Far more interesting were his social and cultural observations, such as his shock at the price of beer (and, even more, the price of a bottle of water, even though Norwegian tap water is exceptional). Snegirov marveled at the range of accommodations on the short train trip into Oslo — the first- and second-class compartments, the quiet car, the family car (noisy kiddies). He was appalled by how costly it is to travel by car, given the high tax on imported cars, the hefty tolls (and the extra charge to drive into Oslo), and the staggering price of gas (the world’s highest). He highlighted one thing that I’ve griped about every winter since moving to Norway two decades ago: nobody shovels snow, so that the city sidewalks, except where underlaid with heating pipes, are covered for months at a time with deadly sheets of ice. CONTINUE AT SITE

ISRAEL Comments turned off

More Embassies Move to Jerusalem After U.S. Sets Example By Caleb Howe

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

Your instinct may be to dismiss the significance of a small country like Paraguay, with a population of around seven million, moving their embassy to Jerusalem, but that is a bad instinct. The South American country just announced their decision, and it does matter.

Politico writes:

The entrance to Jerusalem was lined with the flags of Paraguay on Wednesday and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the ceremony that he was there to “salute” a great friend.

In the matter of recognition and support of the nation of Israel and their capital, it is no small thing. Paraguay follows in the footsteps of not only the United States but also Guatemala. Romania, the Czech Republic, and Honduras are all on the brink of moving their embassies as well.

Mass will create momentum. The United States has not merely set an example or even simply set the ball rolling; our move is an impetus, both to those who would gain our favor and those partners and supporters of Israel that needed a big shield.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Obamas Launch ‘Higher Ground Productions,’ Sign Netflix Deal By Bridget Johnson

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

Netflix announced today that former President Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama have struck a “storytelling partnership” with the video-on-demand service that will unfold in front of and behind the camera.

Netflix, which carries movies as well as original TV series, has about 125 million members in more than 190 countries.

The agreement with the Obamas is a “multi-year” pact, the company said, “to produce films and series” with the company.

“The Obamas will produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features,” the company said.

The Obamas’ new production company is called Higher Ground Productions. Michelle Obama declared in her 2016 Democratic National Convention speech “when they go low, we go high.”

The company did not reveal how much the deal is worth

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

“Barack and I have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire us, to make us think differently about the world around us, and to help us open our minds and hearts to others,” said Michelle Obama. “Netflix’s unparalleled service is a natural fit for the kinds of stories we want to share, and we look forward to starting this exciting new partnership.” CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Europe Is Feeling Trumped No U.S. president has been as loathed. But the Continent knows it still needs America.By Walter Russell Mead

Posted By on May 21st, 2018

The trans-Atlantic relationship is in trouble. No American president has ever been as widely loathed among Europe’s political class as Donald Trump. And not since the era of Freedom Fries and Axis of Weasels have so many European countries, this time including Britain, been spoiling for a fight with the U.S.

To the Europeans, Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and impose sanctions on European companies that trade with Iran is a profound betrayal. As they see it, the U.S. made a solemn commitment to observe the deal after European countries entered into it in good faith. Harming European commerce with Iran to serve American interests is the act of a bully and an overlord, not of an ally and friend.

The Trump administration’s apparent indifference to European concerns boils the blood of even the most placid of Eurocrats. Europe is now actively looking for ways to inflict pain on the Trump administration in the short term, and in the long term to ensure its increasing independence from the U.S.

From the White House, things look very different. The Iran deal was not a legally binding instrument but the result of President Obama’s overreaching freelance diplomacy—as if Woodrow Wilson, counting the votes against the Treaty of Versailles, unilaterally committed the U.S. to join the League of Nations. The Europeans should have checked the relevant clauses in the American Constitution, assessed the state of congressional sentiment, and realized that Mr. Obama simply lacked the authority, political or constitutional, to commit the country permanently to such an agreement.

For the Trump administration, the Iran decision was not about deserting allies or overruling their wishes. Mr. Trump’s Middle East policies, after all, are quite popular with most of America’s Middle East allies. The Gulf Arabs and Israel felt betrayed by the Obama administration’s pivot to Iran; they are thrilled about the American change of course. The question isn’t whether the U.S. should stand by its allies but whether the Middle East policy preferences of America’s European allies should be imposed on those allies that actually live in the region.

The suggestion that their wishes must be weighed against those of the Gulf Arabs and Israel is humiliating to European policy makers. Most European governments do not regard these postcolonial Arab monarchies and Zionist upstarts as anything near their equals. For a U.S. administration to take that view is a slap in the face.

But preventing a single power from dominating the oil resources and transportation routes around the Persian Gulf has been a central objective of American policy since the Truman administration. Iran is currently the largest, indeed the only, significant threat to these vital interests. The maintenance of the U.S. power upon which America’s European allies rely, the administration believes, depends on blocking Iran’s drive for regional primacy. From this perspective, it seems arrogant of European countries to so casually brush aside the claims of longtime U.S. partners like Israel and the Gulf Arab states, and ridiculous of Europe to demand a veto power over actions the American government believes are necessary to the preservation of the global system. CONTINUE AT SITE