In Afghanistan, the Ghosts of Christmas past and Present

/0 Comments/in , /by

For most Americans, Dec. 25, 2016, will be Christmas Day. For Nikki Altmann, it is also the fifth anniversary of her husband’s death in Afghanistan.

“Everything we were planning was gone in a moment’s notice,” Nikki told me less than six months after her husband was killed in action.

As many listen to the festive sounds of holiday cheer on Christmas Eve, a military widow will likely recall the sound of her husband’s voice. That’s because the last time Nikki and U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Joseph Altmann spoke to one another was on Christmas Eve 2011.

“We talked about everything … all of our dreams,” Nikki said. “(Joe) said that February or March was when he hoped to be home.”

About 24 hours later, Nikki, who was spending her holiday in Ireland while working as a flight attendant, was notified that her 27-year-old husband’s life had tragically ended in the mountains of Afghanistan’s Kunar Province. While the news itself was devastating, hearing that Joe died on Christmas Day was unimaginable.

“Every day is a constant reminder of what I had, what I was going to have, and what is no more,” the young military widow said in 2012.

Every day since our phone conversation, I have been inspired by the strength I heard in Nikki’s voice. I also remember something else she said.

“Six months from now, people won’t be calling to see how I’m doing,” she said.

Nikki’s husband is one of 2,392 American heroes to lose his or her life during America’s longest war. For those too young to remember, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, which were launched by al Qaeda terrorists being harbored by the Taliban. The war continues to this very day.

In recent years, some have spearheaded an ill-conceived effort to stop calling Afghanistan a war. That hasn’t changed the little-discussed fact that 91 U.S. troops have been killed there since New Year’s Day in 2014, including 14 so far this year. To call a conflict where courageous Americans are still being killed and wounded anything other than a war dishonors the valiant men and women who have sacrificed so much in Afghanistan over the past 15-plus years.

Diminishing the harsh reality of war also does a disservice to the approximately 8,400 U.S. troops who will be stationed in Afghanistan when President Obama passes the baton to President-elect Trump, who will be the 45th commander-in-chief of our nation’s Armed Forces. Until a president decides otherwise, thousands of American troops will continue putting their lives on the line as their families wait and worry at home.

Afghanistan isn’t some faraway footnote on Google Earth. It’s the war zone where Nikki’s husband gave all while proudly wearing our country’s uniform. Afghanistan isn’t just a news story (though many journalists have spent the last decade ignoring it), it’s where my Fire in My Eyes co-author, U.S. Navy LT Brad Snyder (Ret.), was permanently blinded by a bomb blast while courageously helping wounded Afghans.

Afghanistan is also where U.S. Army Capt. Florent Groberg (Ret.), with whom I’m writing a new book called 8 Seconds of Courage, charged a suicide bomber who was trying to wipe out the soldier’s entire patrol. Captain Groberg — America’s first foreign-born Medal of Honor recipient since the Vietnam War — saved dozens of American lives in those eight crucial seconds. More than four years later, he wears a bracelet bearing the names of four friends who did not survive the attack: U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin Griffin, U.S. Army Maj. Thomas Kennedy, U.S. Air Force Maj. Walter David Gray and USAID Foreign Service Officer Ragaei Abdelfattah. Flo has dedicated the rest of his life to sharing their stories.

On Dec. 7 — the 75th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor — the Pentagon announced that U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Allan Brown, 46, died the previous day at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had suffered devastating wounds during an enemy attack on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan during a Veterans Day-themed event. Private First Class Tyler Iubelt, 20, and Sgt. John Perry, 30, were killed in the same terrorist attack.

Did you hear a single word about Sgt. 1st Class Brown’s ultimate sacrifice when he died less than two weeks ago? I saw the story on a local news broadcast while visiting Washington, D.C., which is near the departed warrior’s Takoma Park, Md., home. Yet as far as national news was concerned, the brave soldier’s story was barely a blip on the radar screen, which serves as yet another sad example of media malpractice.

For 16 straight Christmases, American warriors have spent their holiday seasons far from their families in a cold, desolate land. Five years ago, the day Christians celebrate Jesus Christ’s birthday was also the day that Staff Sgt. Joe Altmann went to heaven after making the ultimate sacrifice.

Regardless of our religious or political beliefs, we are all Americans. As the holidays approach, shouldn’t we be setting aside our differences and uniting around our troops fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and around the world, as well as their families and our nation’s veterans?

As Nikki so candidly predicted during our phone call, people would eventually stop calling to check in. Fifteen years and 16 Christmases after the war in Afghanistan was launched in the shadows of the Twin Towers, too many of us — especially those who work in journalism and politics — have moved on from Afghanistan.

For my part, I will not move on until the very last U.S. service member leaves Afghanistan and every single veteran and fallen hero of the conflict is appropriately honored. To do anything less would dishonor the service and sacrifice of patriots like the remarkable men and women mentioned in this column, who dedicated their lives to protecting their families and ours.

As your family sits down for dinner on Dec. 24, think about Joe and Nikki Altmann saying their final goodbyes five Christmas Eves earlier. As their story fills your mind, perhaps you will briefly interrupt the festivities to share it with others.

When looking at the smiles of your kids on Christmas morning, think about how much Joe and Nikki would probably have loved to raise children of their own. Then, perhaps you will tell your kids that as they open their presents, thousands of moms and dads aren’t spending Christmas with their children because they are serving overseas and protecting others.

Afghanistan, where Staff Sgt. Joe Altmann gave his last full measure of devotion five Christmases ago, is filled with the ghosts of Christmas past and present. As Americans fortunate enough to live in freedom, we must join together in honoring the heroes who gave us this precious holiday gift. (For more from the author of “In Afghanistan, the Ghosts of Christmas past and Present” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Netanyahu Says He and Trump Can Solve Palestinian Conflict, Get Rid of Iran Nuclear Deal

/0 Comments/in , /by

He’s now the longest serving prime minister in the history of Israel, has survived eight years of President Barack Obama in the White House, as well as many attempts by his political opponents and a hostile Israeli press to topple him.

He also guided Israel safely through five years of unprecedented turmoil in the Middle East and even succeeded to team up with former foes in the Arab world against an ever more aggressive Iran that has succeeded to become a regional superpower in recent years.

At the age of 67, Benyamin Netanyahu has become the grand old man of Israeli politics. But he has no plans to retire.

The Israeli prime minister is eagerly looking forward to work with President-elect Donald Trump, who he says he knows well after only two meetings, and explained to CBS’ 60 Minutes why he is so optimistic about the future of his country.

“Part of his optimism relates to the election in the U.S. He and his followers on the Israeli right, are greeting the idea of President Donald Trump with a resounding l’chaim (on life or cheers),” said CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl in her introduction to the interview.

Stahl is right. The election of Trump has raised high hopes for a totally different relationship between the White House and the Israeli government and for a completely different U.S. policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

“I know Donald Trump. I know him very well. And I think his attitude, his support for Israel is clear. He feels very warmly about the Jewish state, about the Jewish people and about Jewish people. There’s no question about that,” Netanyahu said at the outset of the interview.

Netanyahu told Stahl that he doesn’t regret going to Congress last year to campaign against the Iran deal and said it was his responsibility to stand up against Obama and speak out against the nuclear deal with Iran because it threatens the future of Israel.

Netanyahu said he has quite a few options to get rid of the nuclear deal with the Mullahs now that Trump will occupy the White House.

“There are ways, various ways of undoing it (the nuclear deal). I have about five things in my mind,” the Israeli leader said, but he refused elaborate.

Netanyahu told 60 Minutes that the only good thing the deal has done to Israel is to bring ”the Arab countries and Israel closer together.”

“All I can tell you is that Israel’s position in the Arab world has changed because they no longer see Israel as their enemy, but as their ally, in their indispensable battle against the forces of militant Islam,” Netanyahu said.

He confirmed that Israel’s relations with Egypt and Jordan have dramatically improved and that Israel has formed an alliance with Saudi Arabia against the Iranian threat.

Netanyahu vehemently denied that his good relations with Russia President Vladimir Putin have put Israel in the anti-U.S. bloc led by China and Russia, as Stahl suggested.

“That’s a false impression. First of all, there is, there is an irreplaceable ally. It’s called the United States of America,” the prime minister said, adding that the U.S. too has all sorts of relations with the two countries.

He said he developed good relations with Putin to avoid a clash between the IDF and the Russian army in Syria, where Israel frequently attacks Hezbollah-bound weapon convoys.

Stahl then tried to blame Netanyahu for the stalemate in the negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs and claimed they suffer under an occupation that has lasted 50 years, and the expansion of so-called Israeli settlements, the Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria, was the main stumbling block on the road to peace.

Netanyahu remained unfazed, however, and said the claim that Israel has become isolated as a result of its “occupation” of the Palestinian Arabs was false.

“Isolated? All these countries are coming to Israel and it’s a fantastic change,” Netanyahu said in reference to the many countries who turn to Israel for help in areas such as agriculture or water technology.

He denied the “settlements” were an obstacle to peace, not only because they make up less than three percent of the land mass of Judea and Samaria, but because the obsession with them obscures the real reason for the absence of peace — the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

“The real reason we haven’t had peace is because of a persistent refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border,” Netanyahu said.

“You (the Palestinian Arabs) ask us to recognize you, I’m willing to do that. I ask you to recognize us. Recognize the Jewish state, for God’s sake. And if they do, this thing will begin to correct itself very quickly,” he said.

Netanyahu said he hasn’t reversed his position on the solution of the conflict — two states for two peoples — and repeated his desire to work with Trump in order to solve the 100-year-old conflict that Trump has dubbed “the war that never ends.” (For more from the author of “Netanyahu Says He and Trump Can Solve Palestinian Conflict, Get Rid of Iran Nuclear Deal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Key Questions About Russia’s Alleged Hacking of the US Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Central Intelligence Agency report that Russian operatives intervened in the U.S. election to help President-elect Donald Trump win has roiled Capitol Hill, producing a bipartisan call for congressional investigations.

But there is skepticism within the U.S. government, particularly at the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, that the evidence definitively proves that the Russians had the specific goal of influencing Americans to vote for Trump.

This split, amplified by Trump’s expressed disbelief in the CIA’s conclusion, sets up an early test for the next president, who will likely come into office as lawmakers—including Republicans—are investigating what happened.

At the same time, Trump, who has vowed a closer relationship with Russia, will have to deal with a range of policy challenges dealing with the Kremlin’s military interventions in wars in Syria and Ukraine.

The Daily Signal below explains the many questions of the Russian hacking controversy, and what consequences may come from it.

What Happened and When?

In early October, the Obama administration confirmed what the intelligence community had long expected, formally accusing Russia of trying to interfere in the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, and releasing the information to WikiLeaks.

In its announcement, the Obama administration noted Russia had previously attempted to interfere in other countries’ political processes, using other techniques to influence public opinion in Europe.

The White House, at this point, was considering potential responses, including economic sanctions, but it did not mount an offensive reply.

In the weeks before the presidential election, The New York Times reported that American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos into the campaign.

But last week, as The Washington Post first reported, the CIA produced a formal assessment to lawmakers concluding that Russia did not just intend to disrupt the election, but intervened with the primary goal of electing Trump as president.

“It doesn’t appear that there is any real uncertainty here about the origins of the attacks,” said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research for the foreign policy program at Brookings Institution, in a response to emailed questions from The Daily Signal. “I see the differences as ones of interpretation—who can really be sure of Russian motives based on observation of their actions?”

The FBI has not affirmatively concluded the Russians’ intent.

It is unclear why the CIA waited until after the election to reveal its judgment.

Intelligence officials also believe that Russia hacked the databases keeping Republican National Committee data, but chose to release only documents from the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

How Have Politicians Reacted?

Trump dismissed the CIA’s report, referencing the agency’s faulty 2002 conclusion that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction.

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,” Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News.

Republicans in Congress have also been careful about supporting the CIA’s assertion that Russia tried to throw the election to Trump—and that the Kremlin’s influence impacted the result. But many lawmakers in Trump’s party have been forceful in calling for investigations into what happened.

“I don’t believe any member of Congress should summarily dismiss an assessment from the intelligence community with respect to Russian interference in an American election,” Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:

We must take this seriously and investigate it. I have not seen any evidence thus far that the outcome of the presidential election was impacted by Russia’s actions. But with that said, it disturbs me greatly that Russia is attempting to interfere with our democratic process, not only in the U.S., but throughout Europe as well.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Monday that he supported congressional investigations of possible Russian cyberattacks, which will be led by the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee.

McConnell said the investigations would occur through the normal committee process, and he did not endorse the creation of a special select committee probe.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., seemed to suggest Monday he backs a similar investigation of Russian “state-sponsored cyberattacks.”

“Throughout this Congress, the Intelligence Committee [has] been working diligently on the cyber threats posed by foreign governments and terrorist organizations to the security and institutions of the United States,” Ryan said in a statement. “This important work will continue and has my support.”

Democrats also want a congressional probe, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign even said it supports a request by members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election, Politico reported.

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has ordered a full review into Russia’s hacking to capture “lessons learned” to be concluded before Trump’s inauguration.

Is It Normal for Intelligence Agencies to Disagree?

David Shedd, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency who has worked for the CIA, said it’s normal for the FBI to take a more cautious view of intelligence assessments because of its law enforcement obligation.

“The bureau [FBI] will be more conservative,” said Shedd, who is now a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “They are evidence driven. They are about making a court case, determining what will stand up in court. The intelligence community is not about making evidentiary conclusions rising to the level of a court action, but making a judgment that falls considerably short to what the FBI would need to make a similar call.”

Despite the CIA’s lower burden of proof, Patrick Eddington, a Cato Institute policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties and former CIA analyst, said it’s wrong to assume the agency’s conclusions are flimsy.

“The reality is the CIA does not always get it wrong, and I think because of the track record of the agency, people naturally have a level of skepticism on whether this is real,” Eddington told The Daily Signal in an interview. “That makes it all the more important for everything surrounding this judgment—all the raw intelligence it is based on—to be made public so everyone can make their own conclusions.”

How Can the US Respond?

If Obama elects not to take action, the Trump administration will have a range of options on how to respond to Russia.

These include imposing economic sanctions for “malicious cyber-enabled activities,” a new executive branch tool that Obama created last year, but hasn’t used yet.

The Justice Department could indict Russian actors for hacking. The National Security Agency may also retaliate with its own cyber tools against the Kremlin.

Shedd suggested the U.S. take broader actions to discourage Russia aggression not only in cyberspace, but in other foreign policy endeavors.

“If I were sitting again in the Situation Room, I would be making a very strong case that our response needs to be asymmetrical to the cyberattack,” Shedd said. “Why in the world would we do cyber on cyber as our only response? My advice is to look at what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s other objectives are. That could be getting him out of Syria and Ukraine—something that fits into our larger relationship with that country.”

Eddington suggested more caution, noting Putin’s unpredictability.

“You have to start with appropriate defensive measures, making sure our systems from a political and social engineering standpoint can’t be hacked,” Eddington said. “When we start talking about offensive measures, we have to be careful and calculated about what we do. At the end of the day, you need to make sure the response is such that Putin cannot afford a repeat, pays some sort short-term to medium-term cost, but at the same time, do not put Russia and the U.S. at the brink of confrontation. We are in uncharted territory in so many ways.” (For more from the author of “Key Questions About Russia’s Alleged Hacking of the US Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New German Secretary of State Is pro Sharia Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The daughter of Palestinian immigrants is to be the Berlin senate’s secretary of state for coordinating federal and state affairs, but attention has focused on her recent remarks in support of Sharia law.
Berlin state senate member, former deputy speaker for foreign affairs and Muslim rising star of German politics Sawsan Chebli is to get a new cabinet post. The appointment by the Red-Red-Green coalition government has caused concern after a recent interview in which she expressed her view that Sharia law was perfectly compatable with secular German society.

Speaking back in August alongside Berlin Social Democrat party Mayor Michael Muller, she not only defended Sharia law against suspicion by many Germans who she accused of not understanding what it meant, but she also went on the attack too. Criticising members of anti-mass migration party Alternative for German (AfD), she said their views towards foreigners made them fundementally un-German.

Speaking to the Franzfurter Allgeimeine Zeitung, she said: “My father is a pious Muslim, hardly speaks German, can neither read nor write, but he is more integrated than many functionaries of the AfD who question our constitution”.

Germany’s newspaper of record and the nation’s most widely-read broadsheet Welt reported Sunday that while the politician attempted to portray the image of the perfect “successful migrant” who despite being born to illiterate, stateless parents was able to succeed in education and enter politics, there are “cracks” displayed by her support of Sharia. (Read more from “New German Secretary of State Is pro Sharia Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bombing at Egypt’s Main Coptic Christian Cathedral Kills 25

/0 Comments/in , /by

A bombing at a chapel adjacent to Egypt’s main Coptic Christian cathedral killed 25 people and wounded another 49 during Sunday Mass, in one of the deadliest attacks carried out against the religious minority in recent memory.

The attack came two days after a bomb elsewhere in Cairo killed six policemen, an assault claimed by a shadowy group that authorities say is linked to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and which claimed responsibility for a pair of assassination attempts earlier this year in Cairo that targeted Egypt’s former mufti, or chief Muslim theologian, and an aide to the country’s top prosecutor.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Sunday’s attack. However, Islamic militants have targeted Christians in the past, including a New Year’s Day bombing at a church in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria in 2011 that killed at least 21 people. More recently, the local affiliate of the Islamic State group targeted Christians in the Sinai Peninsula, where the extremist group is waging attacks against security forces. Christians endured a wave of attacks against their property and churches in provinces south of Cairo in the weeks and months that followed the July 2013 ouster by the military of an Islamist president. (Read more from “Bombing at Egypt’s Main Coptic Christian Cathedral Kills 25” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House

/0 Comments/in , /by

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Post said intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.

The officials described the individuals as people known to the intelligence community who were part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and reduce Clinton’s chances of winning the election.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”

The Post said the official had been briefed on an intelligence presentation made by the Central Intelligence Agency to key U.S. senators behind closed-doors last week. (Read more from “CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mexico Overtakes Canada as No. 2 U.S. Exporter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mexico is overtaking Canada as the No. 2 exporter of goods to the U.S. this year, in large part due to car manufacturing. It’s a sign of how economic ties have deepened between the two countries even as the relationship is being questioned by President-elect Donald Trump.

Shipments from Mexico totaled $245 billion in the first 10 months of the year, according to Commerce Department figures released Tuesday, ahead of Canada’s $230 billion. If the trend continues, it would be the first time ever the U.S. bought more imports from its neighbor to the south. The two countries ended 2015 tied in exports to the U.S.

The trend of catching up to Canada puts China and Mexico as the top two exporters to the U.S. just as Trump prepares to take office in January, reflecting the strong pull of lower cost jurisdictions for the U.S. economy. Canada, which has one of the highest cost bases in the Americas, has seen its share of U.S. imports fall to about 13 percent from around 20 percent two decades ago.

“Integration with Mexico has become more solid than with Canada,” said Marco Oviedo, chief Mexico economist for Barclays Plc. “Manufacturing continues to be very competitive in terms of wages and location to other U.S. producers and suppliers.”

The growing links between Mexico and the U.S. hinge on motor vehicles. Mexico has won new factories over the past six years from Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG’s luxury Audi unit, Kia Motors Corp. and BMW AG — up to $25.9 billion in new auto investments since 2010, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan — fueling car shipments totaling $90 billion in the first 10 months. That’s versus $54 billion from Canada. (Read more from “Mexico Overtakes Canada as No. 2 U.S. Exporter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

That Japanese Investment Money Trump Announced Today? Turns out It’s from Saudi Arabia!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Tuesday afternoon, President-elect Donald Trump excitedly announced that telecommunications giant SoftBank Group has pledged to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 new jobs.

Of course, Trump made sure to give credit where credit was due.

The deal sounds great on the surface. After all, who could possibly argue with a $50 billion infusion and 50,000 jobs gained in the U.S. economy?

Now, what if you were told that the money was actually coming from the government of Saudi Arabia?

Here’s what Trump left out of his grand announcement:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the majority of the investment will come from a $100 billion investment fund that SoftBank set up in partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund, which is controlled by the Saudi royal family, is the fund’s lead partner, the report added. This means that most of the money Mr. Son is going to invest in America is actually coming straight from Riyadh, and not through his Japan-based conglomerate.

The fund is overseen by Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz. Notably, the Saudi royal, who is the most powerful member of the family (outside the king himself), made sure to congratulate Trump on his election victory in November.

While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump rightfully demanded that Hillary Clinton return the investments the Clinton Foundation received from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

“Hillary wrote that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are ‘providing clandestine and financial and logistical support to ISIL.’ Yet, in that same year, Bill and Hillary accepted a check from Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “I think she should give back the $25 to $35 million she’s taken from Saudi Arabia. And she should give it back fast.”

Trump again castigated Clinton in June for taking money from the oil-rich kingdom.

“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!” Trump said on Facebook.

Saudi Arabia is a strict Islamic fundamentalist society. The country does not protect the unalienable human rights of its citizens. Women are forced to wear burkas, and are not allowed to travel freely without a male guardian. No religion other than Islam is recognized by the state, and apostates and atheists are often sentenced to death.

The United States and Saudi Arabia have almost zero shared values. The Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment wants to preserve the monarchy there, but only to ensure that the unknown (e.g. a nefarious terrorist group) does not acquire control over the oil-rich territory.

The Saudis have utilized the wealth of their massive oil revenues to pursue influence operations in foreign countries, such as the U.S. Studies have shown that Riyadh’s campaigns to infiltrate American institutions, such as the media, academia, and Big Business, has had success in shaping a more pro-Saudi policy. The coming $50 billion Saudi-Japanese infusion into America will undoubtedly come with plenty of strings attached.

For the entirety of Trump’s presidential campaign, he forwarded a nationalist vision of putting American interests first — impervious to foreign and outside influences. And his “America first” messages garnered him a fiercely loyal following. Now that Donald Trump is the president-elect, he appears ready to abandon America’s interests for some decent publicity, betraying his electoral platform and base along the way. (For more from the author of “That Japanese Investment Money Trump Announced Today? Turns out It’s from Saudi Arabia!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Japanese Prime Minister’s Pearl Harbor Visit Will Further Reconciliation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would travel to Pearl Harbor later this month, the first Japanese leader to do so.

Abe commented he would accompany President Barack Obama to “pay tribute [and] comfort the souls” of those who died from both countries during World War II.

He emphasized his intent to “send messages about the importance of reconciliation” between the U.S. and Japan, former wartime enemies who became strong allies.

Abe’s visit, if not a quid pro quo for Obama’s visit to Hiroshima in May, makes a fitting counterpart to that trip, marking the alpha and omega of World War II in the Pacific.

In that sense, the two trips serve the same purpose as the USS Missouri, the location of the August 1945 signing of the treaty ending World War II, which is now moored next to the wreck of the USS Arizona, which was sunk during the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Abe’s remarks at Pearl Harbor will be scrutinized for indications of Japanese remorse for its wartime hostilities. But Abe has already made several speeches striking a contrite tone.

During an April 2015 visit to Washington, he commented on his visit to the World War II Memorial, highlighting the battles of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Corregidor, and the Coral Sea.

The prime minister expressed “eternal condolences” and “deep repentance” for the “lost dreams and lost futures of those young Americans.” Abe acknowledged “our actions brought suffering to the peoples of Asia, and vowed again to “uphold the views expressed by the previous prime ministers.”

In August 2015, Abe commemorated the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II by releasing a statement to make amends to Japan’s neighbors. Abe went further in acknowledging Japan’s wartime actions.

In December 2015, Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye were able to forge an agreement that provided a foundation for reconciliation of difficult historic issues arising from Japan’s 1910-1945 occupation of the Korean Peninsula.

America is often accused of having a short memory. But World War II remains a bedrock historic era and a lodestar for America’s sense of who we are as a country.

Pearl Harbor made clear that isolationism was not a viable way to avoid the dangers of the world. Withdrawing from the world and raising the drawbridge did not deter America’s enemies. The same is true today.

The United States arose phoenix-like from the devastation of Pearl Harbor and America’s “Greatest Generation” endured the crucible of war to bring peace and stability to the Pacific.

The U.S. and Japan overcame the animosity of conflict to become enduring partners and allies. That dichotomy is both a realization of Thomas Jefferson’s warning that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and a symbol of what democracies can achieve together. (For more from the author of “Japanese Prime Minister’s Pearl Harbor Visit Will Further Reconciliation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Next Brexit? Italy ‘No’ Vote Empowers Populist Revolt Against Establishment

/0 Comments/in , /by

Daniel Hannan, a British politician and a leading campaigner of Brexit, recognizes the forces that he says inspired Sunday’s referendum result in Italy, where the center-left prime minister resigned after voters rejected his proposed reforms.

“The obvious parallel with these elections is you carry a tremendous handicap if you are associated with the old regime in any sense,” Hannan told The Daily Signal. “Voters understandably feel patronized and lied to and ignored and disdained and they responded in this way.”

In a year when Britons voted to leave the European Union and Americans chose Donald Trump as president, the global populist movement claimed its latest victim Sunday when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi resigned after Italian voters rejected constitutional changes backed by his government.

Renzi had proposed to reduce the power of the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, to streamline the political system, create more stability, and accelerate growth in Europe’s fourth-largest economy. Italy has had 63 governments in 70 years.

But critics, empowered by an opposition campaign waged by the upstart, euroskeptic Five Star Movement party, said Renzi’s plan would put too much power in the prime minister’s hands.

The opposition capitalized on similar discontent that fueled the results in Britain and the U.S.

Italy is plagued by low growth, and its banking system has been in crisis for a decade. The country’s youth unemployment rate is around 35 percent, and young people soundly rejected Renzi’s reforms.

Italy is also contending with a tide of refugees and migrants from North Africa (more than 170,000 people have arrived in Italy so far in 2016).

While Renzi’s fall will not lead to the immediate takeover of Italy by a populist figure or party like the Five Star Movement, experts say the result of the election will reverberate across a European Union already shaken by anti-establishment anger.

“I certainly think there are common elements here,” said Robert Kahn, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

This populist wave we are seeing—by which I mean frustration, alienation, and rejection of mainstream politicians and institutions—was certainly part of the ‘no’ vote. While there are a constellation of factors, part of this is Italians using the referendum to lodge a protest vote against their government and policies. In that sense, it does rhyme with Brexit.

Change in Italy will be slow in coming since Renzi’s center-left Democratic Party remains in control of Parliament and national elections do not have to be called until 2018.

Though the Five Star Movement—which leans left, not right—advocates a referendum to determine whether Italy should give up its eurozone membership, observers say it would be difficult for the party to gain the power to make that happen. That’s because Italy’s mainstream political parties may aim to change voting laws to make it tougher to rule without a wide coalition.

The Five Star Movement and its leader, Beppe Grillo, a comedian-turned-politician, have said they won’t govern in a coalition government with traditional political parties.

Yet even without an immediate shake-up in Italy, 2017 promises to be an important year in determining the future of the European concept of integration.

European Union members Germany, France, and the Netherlands have elections next year with euroskeptic and populist candidates in the running.

Last week, President Francois Hollande of France, a socialist, said he won’t seek re-election in 2017, opening up the race to succeed him, which will include Marine Le Pen of the rising far-right populist National Front party.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has presided over Europe’s strongest economy since 2005, will run for a fourth term in next year’s election. But she and her Christian Democratic Union party are under siege because of her decision to accept almost 1 million refugees and migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries.

“In France and even in Germany, you have alternative parties that have extremely different visions of what Europe should be,” Kahn said. “It’s dramatic, it’s scary, and it’s threatening to the current union.”

Some say there are limits to the influence of anti-establishment anger.

They point to another election result on Sunday, where a center-left presidential candidate in Austria easily defeated his far-right challenger.

Andrea Montanino, director of the Global Business and Economics Program at the Atlantic Council and a former board member of the International Monetary Fund, says talk of Italy leaving the euro and the downfall of the union is premature.

“It’s important to differentiate this event from the rest,” Montanino told The Daily Signal in an interview. “This is part of the Italian normal legislative process. It will of course impose some instability for a while, but this is not a Brexit.”

On Monday, the day after the referendum in Italy, financial markets recovered from an initial scare that Renzi’s departure would lead to political stability, with stocks and the euro both rebounding in value.

Hannan, one of the architects of Brexit, said “there are too many uncertainties” to predict Italy will leave the euro.

But he said voters, like in Britain, sent a powerful message.

“The lesson is if you give people a choice between corporatist euro technocrats and angry populists, you aren’t going to like their verdict,” Hannan said. (For more from the author of “The Next Brexit? Italy ‘No’ Vote Empowers Populist Revolt Against Establishment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.