What’s at Stake in Trump Meeting With Palestinian Leader

President Donald Trump will meet with the leader of the Palestinian Authority this week, ahead of his first trip to Israel expected later this month.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will visit the White House Wednesday, with a U.S. president that seems decidedly pro-Israel, while also genuinely interested in a Middle East peace deal.

“The president’s ultimate goal is to establish peace in the region and so I think that’s obviously the goal and the discussion he’s going to have with the head of the Palestinian Authority,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told The Daily Signal during the White House press briefing on Monday.

“That’s going to be a relationship he’s going to continue to work on and build with the ultimate goal that there is peace in that region between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” Spicer added.

Still, considering the political problems Abbas is facing among his own people, experts have a mixed view on whether the visit will have any significance.

As a candidate, Trump pledged to relocate the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that could spark rage among Palestinians.

The Daily Signal asked Monday if Trump will talk about moving the embassy during his Wednesday meeting with Abbas.

“That is still being discussed by staff,” Spicer told The Daily Signal.

In an interview last week, Trump told Reuters, “ask me in a month on that,” about moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

“I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians,” the president added. “There is no reason there’s not peace between Israel and the Palestinians—none whatsoever.”

The meeting presents a major opportunity for Abbas, said Robert Danin, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“President Trump is not interested in peace process or in negotiations for negotiations’ sake. He is interested in a deal,” Danin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “There are a lot of questions about Abbas and his political standing. He has to convince the president that he can close the deal. It’s a big challenge, but it’s also a tremendous opportunity.”

Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February. During a joint press conference with the two leaders, Trump predicted a “bigger and better” Middle East peace deal than anyone expects. He asked Israel to hold back on settlements, and said he is open to a two-state solution or one-state solution, whichever is more likely to bring peace.

Trump has said that his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, would be in charge of reaching a peace deal.

Danin added that Trump could be in a stronger position than previous presidents, and could even put pressure on Israel that President Barack Obama couldn’t.

“The people of Israel believe Trump is on their side,” Danin said. “President Trump doesn’t believe settlements and settlers are bad guys. He believes the settlements are part of the answer, but he hasn’t demonized the settlers as President Obama did. They believe he wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem, no matter what he does.”

At this stage, Abbas has little influence as a leader, said Jim Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs with The Heritage Foundation.

“I think the Abbas visit will yield little results. Abbas is unwilling and unable to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel on acceptable terms,” Phillips told The Daily Signal.

Abbas, 82, is facing a tough political climate at home. Though his term was supposed to expire in 2009, he remained in power without an election nor designated successor. His party, Fatah, is also divided.

“He has no control over Hamas, which is virulently opposed to Israel’s existence, let alone negotiations, and it would torpedo any final accord he would sign,” Phillips said. “Even many of his own supporters within Fatah have abandoned him. He is yesterday’s man and is increasingly irrelevant to what happens tomorrow.”

Trump did the right thing in reaching out to Abbas for a meeting, said Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, a conservative foreign policy think tank in the District of Columbia. However, she said no one should expect a breakthrough on a peace deal.

“I’m not exactly sure why the U.S. keeps trying. Every time, the Palestinians were offered a deal, a good deal, under President [Bill] Clinton, under President [George W.] Bush, they walked away,” Lopez told The Daily Signal. “Whether it’s Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the West Bank, this is Islam, it’s not political.”

Lopez said that any Palestinian leader who wanted to recognize Israel’s right to exist would be marginalized, accused of apostasy, and likely to face threats to his life. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in Trump Meeting With Palestinian Leader” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Korea Just Threatened to Sink US Nuclear Submarine

North Korea, feeling pressure of encroaching American and allied vessels, has now threatened to make a ghost ship of a U.S. nuclear submarine — but the warning might not be hyperbolic rhetoric.

“The moment the USS Michigan tries to budge even a little, it will be doomed to face the miserable fate of becoming an underwater ghost without being able to come to the surface,” railed propagandistic North Korean outlet, Uriminzokkiri, quoted by the Independent.

The urgent fielding of the nuclear submarine in the waters off the Korean Peninsula, timed to coincide with the deployment of the super aircraft carrier strike group, is intended to further intensify military threats toward our republic.

Announced as a routine, scheduled training exercise with ally, South Korea, President Trump sent an ‘armada’ of U.S. vessels to the waters off the Korean peninsula, which now includes the nuclear-powered U.S.S. Michigan and the U.S.S. Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group — which, as Bloomberg reports, are also accompanied by the “destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer and USS Michael Murphy and the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain.”

All of this firepower, whatever the guise under which they arrived near Pyongyang’s doorstep, has been characterized by the North as “intimidation and blackmail,” particularly given Trump’s pugnacious assertions he would not allow secretive regime to develop nuclear missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland.

Both Japan and South Korea, traditional U.S. allies in the region, continue with other allied nations to coordinate in hopes of lessening the chance Kim Jong-un would act aggressively amid stifling tensions, as Uriminzokkiri stated outright, “whether it’s a nuclear aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine, they will be turned into a mass of scrap metal in front of our invincible military power centred on the self-defence nuclear deterrence.”

Trump recently stumped South Korea by calling for Seoul to pay up to $1 billion for its use of the THAAD missile defense system along its border with the North; but national security adviser H.R. McMaster has since insisted to his South Korean counterpart, Kim Kwan-jin, the U.S. would ensure its ally’s safety.

As the U.S. armada began arriving for exercises, Pyongyang test fired another ballistic missile, and although Washington reported that firing a failure — the missile ostensibly disintegrated just minutes after launch, its pieces landing in the Sea of Japan — the cloistered nation continued threats like the aforementioned.

China, North Korea’s strongest ally, has urged Pyongyang to employ discretion and caution in engaging the U.S., warning any sudden moves like firing upon the American fleet would bring the region into full-scale military conflict.

Asked about the latest test and for a general message on the topic of North Korea, Trump ominously stated, without elaborating further,

You’ll soon find out, won’t you?

Of course, with nationalist and military propaganda thoroughly inundating any discussion of the situation, a realistic picture of what could happen if and when rhetoric turns kinetic has been difficult to discern.

Reports such as those from the U.S. Naval Institute claim superiority in firepower, both defensive and offensive, should Pyongyang follow through with increasingly belligerent threats — but some analyses caution the Vinson group and accompanying ships might be capable of the destruction officials have championed.

Bloomberg, for instance, headlined an article, “Trump ‘Armada’ Sent to Deter Kim Can’t Shoot Down His Missiles,” on Tuesday — the same day the Michigan arrived in the South Korean port city of Busan to join the others.

Noted Bloomberg of the Vinson group and armada,

They aren’t equipped with the version of the Aegis surveillance system made by Lockheed Martin Corp. that can track long-range ballistic missiles or Raytheon Co.’s SM-3 interceptors that are capable of bringing down medium and longer-range ballistic missiles.

Nor are the modern Japanese Navy destroyers JS Samidare and JS Ashigara that joined the Vinson group for exercises equipped for missile defense detection or intercepts, a Japanese Navy spokesman confirmed. And the three South Korean ‘Sejong the Great’-class destroyers currently in operation don’t have ballistic missile defense capability, Tom Callender, a naval forces analyst with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said in an interview.

Further, although the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system has been placed around 35 miles from the Korean demilitarized zone, its hardware is not yet fully operational — leaving South Korea vulnerable even as its neighbor to the North specifically takes issue with that defense.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Commander Gary Ross refused to answer specifics on U.S. weapons defense capabilities, he emphasized for Bloomberg, “no single capability defends against all threats. Rather it is the employment of integrated, multi-layered land and sea-based systems that provide missile defense” — for the U.S. and its allies.

“We have ballistic missile ships in the Sea of Japan, in the East Sea, that are capable of defending against ballistic missile attacks,” Navy Admiral Harry Harris, the head of U.S. forces in Korea and the Pacific, asserted Wednesday to the House Armed Services Committee.

He added of ships escorting the Vinson group that defense of the armada would not be a question, stating,

If it flies, it will die, if it’s flying against the Carl Vinson strike group.

Defense analyst David Wright with the Union of Concerned Scientists explained that, even if Aegis-equipped vessels were present in the waters near North Korea and Japan, the U.S. would not be capable of striking down another ICBM immediately after it was launched.

“There is a misconception that if it was close enough,” a U.S. Navy BMD vessel “could shoot a missile down during boost phase. But it doesn’t have that capability,” Wright said. “During boost phase the missile is an accelerating target, and Aegis doesn’t have the maneuverability to home in on such a target.

“Similarly, it would not be able to shoot down shorter-range missiles, like the Musudan, during boost phase. You might be able to shoot it down after boost phase, but by that time North Korea would be able to get information about the most critical part of the trajectory, so that strategy is unlikely to slow” Kim’s ardent quest to develop missiles.

No matter how stridently Trump feels toward quashing North Korea’s nuclear weapons hopes, any designs the U.S. might have to depose the Kim regime will not likely see success — even if physically successful.

Business Insider pointed out, the secretive nation still considers itself under the rule of ‘forever leader,’ Kim II Sung, who died in 1994 — and North Koreans vociferously support longstanding goals of nuclear aggression against the world. (For more from the author of “North Korea Just Threatened to Sink US Nuclear Submarine” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Rallies Urge Putin Not to Run Again; Dozens Arrested

Under the slogan “I’m fed up,” demonstrators urging Vladimir Putin not to run for a fourth term rallied in cities across Russia on Saturday. Dozens were arrested in St. Petersburg and elsewhere.

The centerpiece rally in Moscow went peacefully, despite being unsanctioned by authorities. Several hundred people rallied in a park then moved to the nearby presidential administration building to present letters telling Putin to stand down from running in 2018.

But in St. Petersburg, Associated Press journalists saw dozens arrested. The OVD-Info group that monitors political repression relayed reports of more arrests in several cities, including 20 in Tula and 14 in Kemerovo. (Read more from “Russian Rallies Urge Putin Not to Run Again; Dozens Arrested” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Meet the Men Vying to Become Iran’s Next President

Around 1,600 people filed to run for president of Iran and challenge Hassan Rouhani, who is seeking a second four-year term. Only six of them have been allowed on the ballot for election day.

The role of president of Iran varies. Some see him as no more than a figurehead, while others see him as the bridge between the supreme leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and the people living under his rule.

In post-1979 Islamist Iran, the supreme leader maintains unchecked veto power over all of the nation’s affairs, and dominates foreign policy matters. Still, the president has considerable influence over domestic affairs.

It also must be noted that Iranians who seek the nation’s highest elected office must first be vetted by the 12-man, unelected Guardian Council, which is primarily made up of individuals appointed by the supreme leader. This year, the Guardian Council has granted only six individuals (denying requests from about 1,600 other aspiring candidates) clearance to run for president. All 137 women who registered to run were disqualified (the council has never cleared a woman to run for president)

The mainstream media in America often position some of these individuals as “reformists” and others as “hardliners,” but this distinction is misleading at best. All of the candidates not only have to be personally approved by the nation’s theocratic body, they are also positioning their platform as the best way to advance the interests of a caliphatist regime hell-bent on disrupting global order. With that in mind, here’s a look at the six candidates in Iran’s presidential “election.”

HASSAN ROUHANI:

Hailed as a “moderate” by The New York Times, the incumbent president helped Iran set the prestigious world record for most executions per capita.

Rouhani is known to use more pragmatic language than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who infamously promised to “wipe Israel off the map.” Still, Rouhani is a Holocaust-denier who encourages terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to export Iran’s brand of Islamic totalitarianism throughout the region.

Rouhani played a key role in garnering international support for the Iran nuclear deal between Tehran and the P5+1 world powers (United States, United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia). The deal gave Iran a major cash windfall and allowed for the regime to continue to finance its terrorist proxies in the Middle East.

Several analysts believe Rouhani has a good chance at reelection, as polls indicate that a large percentage of Iranians view him somewhat favorably.

EBRAHIM RAISI:

Portrayed in international media as the hardline option to Rouhani, Raisi is the main threat to unseat Rouhani. Raisi is also rumored as a potential successor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (who is in his late 70s and suffering from several ailments). A Shiite cleric, Raisi wears a black turban, indicating that he is a descendant of Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

As part of his foreign policy platform, Raisi said he would consider engaging in diplomatic relations with every country “except the occupying regime of Israel.”

Raisi’s radicalism is exemplified by his views on the 2009 “Green Movement” protests that saw thousands of Iranians march into the streets to demand reform. The regime viciously cracked down on the protests, killing dozens of innocents (with estimates as high as 150), wounding hundreds more, and arresting thousands of dissenters.

Describing the protests as “sedition,” Raisi commented in 2014: “The Islamic System has treated the heads of the sedition with mercy. Those who sympathize with the heads of sedition must know that the great nation of Iran will never forgive this great injustice.”

Additionally, Raisi served on Iran’s 1988 “Death Commission,” which was responsible for exterminating thousands of political prisoners.

Khamenei recently appointed him to serve as the leader of Iran’s largest foundation. It is an extremely prominent post given that the endowment has an estimated value of around $15 billion, according to the Washington Post.

MOHAMMAD BAGHER GHALIBAF:

The current mayor of Tehran, Ghalibaf is the former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Air Force. He was a distant runner-up to Rouhani in the 2013 election.

Ghalibaf, who has spearheaded efforts to revitalize and modernize Tehran infrastructure, is known for his iron-fisted methods.

He has boasted about personally engaging in violence to repress student protests. Ghalibaf once said of one such student protest that occurred in 1999:

“Photographs of me are available showing me on back of a motor bike … beating them [the protestors] with wooden stick … I was among those carrying out beatings on the street level and I am proud of that. I didn’t care I was a high ranking commander.”

MOSTAFA MIRSALIM:

The 70-year-old is Iran’s former minister of culture and Islamic guidance. Mirsalim has criticized the Iran nuclear deal as an objection to Rouhani’s leadership, saying the deal did not do enough to boost the Iranian economy. His statement comes as recent polls show that economic woes remain the most important issue to Iranians. One such poll showed 42 percent of respondents stating unemployment is the most pressing matter in Iran.
From 1981 to 1989, Mirsalim served as an advisor to the supreme leader.

ESHAQ JAHANGIRI:

Rouhani’s vice president has made it clear that he is not a serious contender. He initially registered to run for election as concerns floated around regarding whether Rouhani would be disqualified by the Guardian Council. Jahangiri is running to “stand by Rouhani and complement him.” He is almost certainly going to drop out of the race so as not to split votes with the man he serves under.

MOSTAFA HASHEMI TABA:

Like Jahangiri, he is expected to soon throw his full weight behind Rouhani’s candidacy. Hashemi Taba once served as Iran’s vice president and also headed the country’s Olympic committee. He ran for president in 2001, but came in dead last of the 10 approved candidates, accumulating only 0.1 percent of the vote.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Iranians will head to the ballots on May 19. Local elections will occur on the same day to decide members of city and town councils. Parliamentary elections, however, do not happen on the same day as the presidential election. Iran’s last parliamentary elections were in early 2016 and are held every four years.

Depending on the year, reported turnout varies from around 51 percent to 85 percent, according to the BBC.

On numerous occasions, watchdog groups have called into question Iran’s elections as free and fair. In 2009, the regime allegedly rigged ballots in favor of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (For more from the author of “Meet the Men Vying to Become Iran’s Next President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let Slip the Hogs of War — Wild Pigs Thwart ISIS Ambush, Kill 3 Militants

Three Islamic State fighters were mauled to death by a pack of wild boar, reports U.K.’s The Times. Another 5 militants were also injured in the attack.

The men were said to be taking cover in a field as they set up an ambush for local tribesmen, local leaders said.

“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told the Times. “The area is dense with reeds, which are good for hiding in.” (Read more from “Let Slip the Hogs of War — Wild Pigs Thwart ISIS Ambush, Kill 3 Militants” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tillerson Says China Asked North Korea to Stop Nuclear Tests

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Thursday that China has threatened to impose sanctions on North Korea if it conducts further nuclear tests.

“We know that China is in communications with the regime in Pyongyang,” Tillerson said on Fox News Channel. “They confirmed to us that they had requested the regime conduct no further nuclear test.”

Tillerson said China also told the U.S. that it had informed North Korea “that if they did conduct further nuclear tests, China would be taking sanctions actions on their own.” (Read more from “Tillerson Says China Asked North Korea to Stop Nuclear Tests” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Turkey Bombs Syrian Christians. Will Trump Act to Protect Them?

Yesterday I woke up early, checked my phone and immediately all indicators went red (so to speak). I got the news that Turkey had bombed the area around a Christian town in North-East Syria and hit Bara, a Yazidi town in Sinjar, Iraq. All of this happened under the pretext of “fighting terrorists.”

Today I heard even more unsettling news: Turkey has launched ground attacks against the U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters who man the front lines against ISIS, alongside Syrian Christians. Those courageous Christians defending their families are hoping that the Trump administration halts these attacks. They are a blatant attempt to rebuke U.S. influence in the region. Emboldened by his win in a power-grabbing referendum, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan has decided to slap Uncle Sam in the face.

What Syrian Christians fear most is a Turkish ground attack on their heartland, the Khabour Valley. If that happens, they will pull back from fighting ISIS to defend themselves against Turkey, a member of NATO.

A Slap in the Face for America

I quickly got confirmation from both Syrian Christians and Yazidis that the air attack had indeed occurred. In total, 26 airstrikes were carried out. The Turks hit many civilians and SDF defense forces — allies of the United States. There was a total of 20 casualties near Derik. A media center and small headquarters of the Kurdish YPG were hit. The Kurdish YPG is part of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, along with the Christian Syriac Military Council, Arabs and others.

In Iraq, the airstrikes hit the Yazidi defense forces (YBŞ), who lost two fighters, while three civilians were wounded. Five Kurdish Peshmerga were killed as well. All these groups have been cooperating with the U.S. in fighting ISIS and protecting religious freedom.

Of course this is a nerve-wracking experience for the people of Derik. This Christian town is a nice place that had so far escaped the damage of war. When you stand on the roof of one of these houses you can see the Turkish mountains looming over the flat countryside of North-East Syria. There is a very nice hotel that kept going despite the war. Derik is an example of Christian resilience in the face of civil war and ISIS.

Turkey bombed it.

ISIS is far away from Derik. It never even got close to it. There was no legitimate reason whatsoever for such an aggressive act against these people.

Bombing the Hunted Yazidis

Even worse is the attack on the persecuted Yazidis. I have read reports today that these displaced people, who lost everything due to ISIS, could see the bomb blasts from their tents. A harrowing experience for a people that just survived a genocide.

Both the Syrian Christians and the Yazidis quickly released their statements this morning. The media already picked up what happened and reported the Kurdish casualties. Lost in the media reports was a crucial fact: This was a direct attack by a NATO member on a Christian town in Syria.

How will the U.S. respond? Feeling betrayed, members of the Syrian Christian, Kurdish and Yazidi communities wondered if the U.S. had sold them out. Was Trump eager to please the Turkish government? My personal take is that the U.S. was at first not aware of the intentions of the Turkish jets. The Americans were caught by surprise. This seems the most logical explanation: These strikes also posed a direct threat to U.S. forces in Northern Syria.

Punishing Trump for Mentioning the Armenian Genocide

One explanation swirling around is that these strikes were an attack in response to President Trump’s commemoration on April 24th of the Armenian/Assyrian genocide committed by the Ottoman empire and its “Young Turks.” If so, Turkey proved that it wants to continue that genocide.

On the same day as the attack, commanders of the U.S. forces based in Northern Syria inspected the consequences of the airstrikes together with SDF commanders. Furthermore, the State Department and Pentagon both described the United States as “deeply concerned” by the strikes. They said that their objections were raised directly with the Turkish government. They warned that Turkey’s targeting of Kurdish groups could distract from the common campaign to defeat ISIS.

However the core question is: What solid assurances will President Trump give to the victims of this bombing? Will he make it starkly clear to Turkey that it may not bomb Christian towns in Syria and Yazidi villages in Iraq? That this is really over?

The U.S. Must Arm the Victims, Its Natural Allies

One crucial way to end the suffering of these peoples is to arm them properly and to empower them politically. The Yazidis of Sinjar want all Kurdish forces to leave Sinjar. They wish to run their own defense forces and to achieve autonomy within Iraq and the Iraqi Constitution. This would also clear the way for autonomy for the Syriac-Assyrian Christians of Nineveh Plain in Iraq. That would take away any pretext for Turkey to attack the Yazidis ever again.

In Syria, the Trump Administration should make the logical choice to arm the Syrian Christians. Their Syriac Military Council is a real force fighting ISIS — independent of Assad. As I’ve written here before, there is no good reason why Christian forces are singled out and denied the weapons the U.S. gives to their Arab allies. Giving the Christians weapons for self-defense would send a powerful signal to Turkey that attacks on helpless religious minorities are a “red line” the U.S. won’t let Turkey cross.

Finally, President Trump should give much more attention to the Federation of Northern Syria, where religious freedom prevails. Indeed, as John Zmirak and Jason Jones wrote, the Federation should serve as the model for a new, federated Syria. To this end, the Trump Administration should declare publicly that no force will be allowed to attack SDF-controlled areas. He should declare it a “no-fly zone,” off limits to Turkey or Assad’s air force. Russia would raise no objections.

President Trump needs the cooperation of Syria’s Christians and Yazidis to end this war the right way: leaving behind religious freedom for all. He should not allow Turkey to blast that opportunity into rubble. (For more from the author of “Turkey Bombs Syrian Christians. Will Trump Act to Protect Them?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany

Migrant crime “increased disproportionately” in Germany in 2016, according to a report released Monday by the Interior Ministry.

The number of migrant criminal suspects increased by 52.7 percent from 2015 to 2016. Migrants account for 8.6 percent of all crime suspects in Germany — up from 5.7 percent in 2015.

Politically or ideologically motivated crimes by foreigners went up by 66.5 percent, with 3,372 cases throughout the year.

“There is nothing there to sugarcoat,” Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere said of the statistics, according to Deutsche Welle. “There is an overall rise in disrespect, violence, and hate.”

Germany suffered a series of jihadi attacks in 2016 — including the truck massacre at a Christmas market in Berlin. Crimes motivated by Islam increased by 13.7 percent last year. (Read more from “Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment

France held a presidential election Sunday under the looming threat of Islamist terrorism, and winnowed the field to two candidates at opposite ends of what has become the new ideological battle line of our era: nationalism vs. globalism, for lack of better terms.

One candidate, Marine Le Pen, hails from the pitchfork end of European blood-and-soil nationalism. The other candidate, Emmanuel Macron, is a We-Are-The-World internationalist cut in the mold of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau.

According to initial results, Macron won 23.7 percent of the vote, while Le Pen won 21.7 percent in what was the first round of this election. They will face off in the second runoff round of elections on May 7. None of the other nine candidates running Sunday got above 20 percent support. Le Pen wants to end immigration to France, saying the country is full.

Macron is heavily favored to win in the second round, though. Of course, polls have been wrong in the past.

The two are archetypes of the new global struggle that has replaced the old left-right paradigm. Their reactions to a terrorist attack on Thursday on France’s main boulevard, the Champs Elysees, for which ISIS claimed responsibility, epitomized their outlooks.

Following the attack, Macron wondered on French Radio whether terrorism is a new normal to which the French must become accustomed.

“This threat, this imponderable problem, is part of our daily lives for the years to come,” Macron said.

Le Pen said she would deport everyone on the terror watch list, even those born in France, shut down all Islamist mosques, and close French borders.

Le Pen leads the far-right National Front, founded by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, whom she ousted as leader to “de-demonize” the party after years of anti-Semitic and racist statements by him.

Macron founded his own movement, En Marche!, after serving as economy minister for the current Socialist president, Francois Hollande.

Their victory amounted to a complete collapse of the two parties that have mostly alternated in power since Gen. Charles de Gaulle created France’s Fifth Republic in 1958, the right-of-center Gaullists and the leftist Socialists. The only exception to this two-party system was the election of centrist President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s.

Because Macron and Le Pen come from parties without large political bases, it is unlikely that either will benefit from a legislative majority that will emerge after elections on June 11 and 18. Macron, however, is widely expected to be able to cobble together a supportive coalition should he win the presidential election in May.

There’s no question that Le Pen’s suite of policies and stances fit much better with President Donald Trump’s outlook. Trump predicted two days ago that she would benefit from the terrorist attack.

Le Pen, 48, wants to pull France out of the “Schengen Area” of 26 European countries that have dissolved external borders, and out of the European Union’s common currency, the euro.

But she is also close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, from whom the Trump administration is now trying to put some distance. Le Pen said she would consider lifting economic sanctions on Russia if elected. Her campaign has benefited from Russian bank loans and the support of Putin’s vast propaganda empire.

Macron, 39, is the candidate that best fits the style of Angela Merkel, Germany’s powerful chancellor. Of the 11 candidates who ran on Sunday, Macron most closely echoes Merkel’s staunch support for a strong and expanding European Union, her pro-immigration policies, and her desire to keep in place economic sanctions on Russia. His promises to introduce economic reforms also please Berlin.

Merkel’s aversion to Le Pen is so strong—and so richly reciprocated—that The Economist remarked on Sunday, using the name of the German foreign ministry, that “There is no file sitting in a locked drawer somewhere in the Auswärtiges Amt with contingency plans for a Le Pen win.”

But even a Macron-led France can work with the Trump administration. In Africa, for example, Paris can make the case to the White House that its troops fight terrorism every day in a place that seems to be next front line for ISIS and al-Qaeda. It is likely that the administration would see even a Macron-led France as a partner in this endeavor.

Despite their differences, Le Pen and Macron have distinct similarities. They are both big government types.

Le Pen is a champion of public services, would tax companies that outsource manufacturing, and would not touch France’s economically nefarious 35-hour workweek. She also refuses to cut down France’s bloated civil servant rolls.

Macron says he wants “flexibility” for young Frenchmen when it comes to the workweek. But he can see reducing the workweek for people above 50 to 32 hours or even 30 hours. “Why not?” he asks.

Macron also wants to spend an additional 50 billion euros during the upcoming five-year presidential term. He wants a eurozone budget and finance minister. He would not raise France’s low retirement age of 62, but at least he would not lower it even further to 60, which is what Le Pen promises to do.

And there’s no question that in choosing these two candidates, French voters have snubbed the political establishment. If the election of Trump was American voters throwing a brick through the window of the East Coast establishment, this was the French voters hurling a Molotov Cocktail into the still smoke-filled rooms of France’s political class. (For more from the author of “First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UN Elects Largest Oppressor of Women, Saudi Arabia, to Women’s Rights Commission — Seriously

Saudi Arabia isn’t known for gender equality. In fact, the Saudi government’s idea of fair play among the sexes is ensuring women their husbands can only have three more wives. Saudi women truly have zero rights in society. Ranking Saudi Arabia among the 10 worst countries for women, the Toronto Star wrote,

In oil-rich Saudi Arabia, women are treated as lifelong dependents, under the guardianship of a male relative. Deprived of the right to drive a car or mix with men publicly, they are confined to strictly segregated lives on pain of severe punishment.

So, imagine the surprise and dismay the world is now exhibiting with the knowledge the United Nations has elected Saudi Arabia as a member of its Women’s Rights Commission called the “Commission on the Status of Women.”

Geneva-based UN Watch president Hillel Neuer likened the election to, “making an arsonist into the town Fire Chief!” Neuer went on a Twitter tirade to drive home the significance of his opposition to allowing Saudi Arabia to have a seat anywhere near a women’s rights council.

“The news the @UN never wanted you to see—but we made it go viral. Saudi Arabia elected to women’s rights commission,” he tweeted. Calling on opponents to rise up, he stated, “But why not show moral courage & condemn this UN betrayal of Saudi women’s rights activists? UNESCO’s chief condemned its election of Syria.”

And in another tweet, he said, “How does Saudi Arabia win seats on U.N. human rights bodies? Cash & secret deals—even with adversaries like Russia.” Neuer’s reference to Saudi money, certainly a factor in buying their way onto the commission, is nothing new. The Free Thought Project has been chronicling their monetary influence for years.

Earlier this year we told you the Saudis heavily influence John McCain’s politics, leading some to question his motives for encouraging the U.S. to join the Syrian Civil War. And on the Democratic side of the two-party-paradigm, the Saudis have given millions to the Clintons. So, it should come as no surprise watch dogs like UN Watch are saying the same thing about the Saudis.

What does it mean for the world now that the Saudis have a seat at the women’s rights table? Glad you asked….UN Watch describes the election as very significant.

The fundamentalist monarchy is now one of 45 countries that, according to the U.N., will play an instrumental role in “promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The election, also, was anything but transparent. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was elected by a “secret ballot” last week at the U.N.’s 54-nation Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The U.S. reportedly objected to a Saudi nomination and pressed the countries of the world to take a vote, in protest of the ECOSOC’s customary practice of “rubber stamping” nominations. Unfortunately for women, the vote passed and the Saudis were placed on the commission.

Saudi Arabia, who was exposed by the 28-pages for helping to fund the 9/11 terrorist attacks which brought down the World Trade Center’s twin towers, and who is being sued in court by families of the victims, is the same country which kills homosexuals and stones adulterers.

When 9/11 happened, instead of going after the Saudis — who made up the majority of the hijackers — the George W. Bush administration attacked and overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and destroyed the country of Afghanistan.

If you need any evidence on just how oppressive the Saudi regime is, look no further than the video below that aired on national television — an instructional video on how to beat your wife.

The video features a Saudi doctor, Khaled Al-Saqaby, who deals with the often ‘thorny’ issue of how and when to beat your wife. Al-Saqaby begins the video by telling husbands not to immediately attack their wives, but to discipline them properly first.

When speaking of how women some women say they would like to be treated with equality, Al-Saqaby called this a “very grave problem.”

He says, “The first step is to remind her of your rights and of her duties according to Allah. Then comes the second step – forsaking her in bed.”

The third step, beating, has to correspond with the “necessary Islamic conditions” before taking action.

“The beating should not be performed with a rod, nor should it be a headband, or a sharp object.”

Instead, husbands should use a ‘tooth-cleaning twig or with a handkerchief’ to beat their wife.

Hopefully, then, the wife will “feel that she was wrong in the way she treated her husband.”

At the end of the video, Al-Saqaby lets the wife-beating husbands of Saudi Arabia know that sometimes, you may have to dole out an extra beating outside of the world of just discipline. Sometimes, according to this sicko ‘doctor,’ they just deserve to be beaten. (For more from the author of “UN Elects Largest Oppressor of Women, Saudi Arabia, to Women’s Rights Commission — Seriously” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.