Brave New World: Terrifying Pro-Life Consequences of UK’s 3-Parent Decision

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s official. We are living in a brave new world.

This week, the British government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority approved new reproductive procedures that will allow doctors to “create babies” by combining the DNA of three “parents.” HFEA Chair Sally Cheshire called it a “life-changing” decision that could prevent a small group of at-risk children from inheriting life-threatening mitochondrial diseases (like muscular dystrophy and major organ failure) from their mothers.

Proponents of the methods have assured that the decision will not activate a new age of genetically modified babies, as the procedures will be implemented on a case-by-case basis. British pro-lifers responded with a collective, “Yeah, we’ll see about that.”

Each of the new techniques involves manipulating a mother’s egg, a father’s sperm, and a donor egg to ensure that the mother’s mitochondrial DNA is not passed on. The DNA from the donor amounts to an estimated one percent of the child’s genes (hence the three “parents” claim).

“The fact that there are now calls in Newcastle for egg donors — in practice, to produce healthy embryos solely for spare parts — tells us much about attitudes to women used to produce embryos this way, and harms and endangers us all,” bioethicist Anthony McCarthy, education director at Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the Catholic Herald.

Per Dr. McCarthy, only one of the two approved procedures, pronuclear transfer, destroys two viable human embryos in order to create what doctors hope will be a healthy, disease-free child. And while the alternative procedure, maternal spindle transfer, doesn’t require that an embryo be destroyed, Dr. McCarthy noted that “the new life has come to be through a production process which fragments maternity and will in practice be subject to quality-control.”

The doctors and scientists who advocated for the approval of these procedures undoubtedly believe, in their quest to give all children healthy bodies free of any deformity, that the procedures are humane. But in order to achieve their desired end, these individuals are willing to discard countless lives. If that sounds like eugenics, it’s because it is. These procedures approved by the British government aim to rid society of “undesirables.” Not very humane when you put it that way, right?

Even when the embryos are spared, as in the case of maternal spindle transfer, these procedures raise concerns regarding the purpose of procreation and parenting.

If mitochondrial DNA manipulation is permissible, why couldn’t this lead to other forms of selective DNA manipulation? For example, what if the donor has a higher IQ than the mother? Better hair? A nicer voice?

Is it fair to subject a child, who has rights of his own, to such a procedure? Shouldn’t he at least be given the choice of having a full 50 percent of his DNA come from his mother, and his mother alone?

Pro-life advocate and chairman of Oxford’s Conservative Policy Forum, Mark Bhagwandin, called the new procedures “very uncertain and potentially dangerous.”

“Whilst we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of people with mitochondrial related diseases, the ends [do] not always justify the means,” Bhagwandin told Catholic Herald. “We would encourage and support greater investigation and research into ethical remedies which do not seek to genetically modify human beings.”

At the core of the pro-life movement is the belief that children who are physically, mentally, and economically “disadvantaged” are still better off alive, with two (not three) parents who love and care for them. The pro-life community is rightfully troubled by progressive efforts that attempt to defy this belief. (For more from the author of “Brave New World: Terrifying Pro-Life Consequences of UK’s 3-Parent Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Says Media Helped Putin in ‘Obsession’ with Leaks That Hurt Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama used part of his final White House press conference of the year to take shots at Russia and the media, and to argue that Ronald Reagan would disapprove of what he called Republican voters’ warming to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

The main topic Friday afternoon was alleged Russian hacking and interference in the U.S. election, after reports that the intelligence community determined Putin’s government sought to help elect Donald Trump as president.

But aside from hacking the email of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, Obama said, there was no tampering with votes in local and state election systems.

“I can assure the public that there was not a kind of tampering with the voting process that was a concern and will continue to be a concern going forward,” the president said, when asked if the election was free and fair.

“The votes that were cast were counted. They were counted appropriately. We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with.”

Obama also said relentless coverage of the email leaks were “unfair” to Clinton.

“I’m finding it a little curious that everyone is acting surprised that this looked like it was disadvantaging Hillary Clinton, because you guys wrote about it every single day,” he said in the White House’s packed press briefing room. “This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage.”

He added:

I do think it is worth reflecting how a presidential election of such importance, of such moment, with so many big issues at stake and such a contrast between the candidates, seemed to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks.

Obama, who departed later Friday with his family for a 17-day holiday vacation in Hawaii, also appeared to put coverage of the email scandals in the category of “fake news”:

If fake news that is being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued by partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect. It doesn’t seem that far-fetched compared to some of the other stuff folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.

Obama also suggested that Republican voters are warming to Russia’s Putin, which he said was entirely about politics.

“There was a survey from a reputable source that found 37 percent of Republican voters approved of Putin,” Obama said. “Over a third of Republican voters approved of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.” (For more from the author of “Obama Says Media Helped Putin in ‘Obsession’ with Leaks That Hurt Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Russia’s Cyberattacks Have Affected Ukraine

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ukraine’s May 25, 2014, presidential election was a pivotal moment for the country.

A revolution that February, in which more than 100 died, had overthrown pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Two weeks prior to the election, on May 11, pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kyiv.

At the time of the vote, separatist forces, receiving weapons and financing from Moscow, were on the march, taking town after town across eastern Ukraine.

The country as a whole was still reeling from the body blow of losing the Crimean Peninsula to Russia that March. And with a war brewing in the east, Ukraine’s new pro-Western government was under pressure to cement its legitimacy and restore faith in the democratic process.

There were fears of an all-out Russian invasion or a combined offensive by pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars advancing as far as the Dnieper River, cleaving Ukraine in two.

Officials advised citizens in Kyiv to use the city’s metro in case of a Russian aerial bombardment or artillery blitz. Spray-painted signs on the sides of buildings pointing to the nearest bomb shelter became ubiquitous in cities across Ukraine.

And as Ukraine’s regular army—decimated by decades of neglect and corruption—was on its heels in the Donbas, legions of civilian volunteer soldiers banded into partisan militias and set out for the front lines.

“There was a real chance the front could have collapsed in 2014,” Denys Antipov, a Ukrainian army veteran, told The Daily Signal. “Nobody knew what was going to happen. It was a war for our independence.”

The survival of Ukraine as a sovereign, democratic nation was at stake. And the presidential election needed to go smoothly—thus making it a prime target for a Russian cyberattack.

Four days prior to the election, on May 21, 2014, a pro-Russian hacktivist group called CyberBerkut launched a cyberattack against Ukraine’s Central Election Commission computers.

According to Ukrainian news reports, the attack destroyed both hardware and software, and for 20 hours shut down programs to monitor voter turnout and tally votes.

On election day, 12 minutes before polls closed, CyberBerkut hackers posted false election results to the election commission’s website. Russia’s TV Channel One promptly aired the bogus results.

Ukrainian officials said the cyberattack didn’t affect the outcome of the election because Ukraine used paper ballots. The votes were counted by hand.

Ukrainian investigators later uncovered evidence that CyberBerkut hackers had penetrated the election commission’s computers in March, more than two months prior to the election.

“I believe that we should not underestimate the ability of hackers—especially those that enjoy state sponsorship—to disrupt the political process of a country,” wrote Nikolay Koval, who served as chief of Ukraine’s Computer Emergency Response Team during the 2014 revolution, in a 2015 NATO report on Russia’s cyberwar in Ukraine.

No Silver Bullet

When Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, it launched cyberattacks against Georgian government computers and media websites.

“In Georgia, cyberattacks were closely coordinated with Russian military operations,” wrote James Andrew Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in the NATO report.

“The internet has become a battleground in which information is the first victim,” Reporters Without Borders said in a statement published to the group’s website in August 2008 during the Russo-Georgian War.

Cyberwarfare was not, however, a “silver bullet” for Russia in Georgia. Likewise, Russian cyberattacks in Ukraine have been, so far, mostly used to create chaos and increase the fog of war, rather to effect any militarily significant outcome.

“The most notable thing about the war in Ukraine, however, is the near-complete absence of any perceptible cyberwar,” wrote Martin Libicki, a RAND Corp. analyst, in the NATO report.

“In particular, there are two major forms of cyberattack that have not taken place in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict: attacks on critical infrastructure and attacks on defense systems,” Libicki added.

Yet, according to news reports, since 2014, Russia has maintained a low-level cyberoffensive against Ukraine, targeting banks, railroads, the mining industry, and power grid.

Military communications and secure databases have also been attacked, according to Ukrainian officials. Pro-Russian hackers have also leaked stolen, sensitive information from Ukrainian government networks and the accounts of government officials to the internet.

And according to a report by LookingGlass, a U.S. cybersecurity firm, a Russian cyber espionage campaign called “Operation Armageddon” allegedly began targeting Ukrainian government, law enforcement, and military officials in 2013.

“It is evident that Russia has fully embraced cyber espionage as part of their overall strategy to further their global interests,” the LookingGlass report said.

Yet, according to Lewis, Russia’s cyberattacks on Ukraine have achieved little.

“The incidents in Ukraine did not disrupt command and control, deny access to information, or have any noticeable military effect,” Lewis, the Center for Strategic and International Studies senior fellow, wrote.

He added, “Cyberattacks are a support weapon and will shape the battlefield, but by themselves they will not produce victory.”

Despite its limitations, cyberwarfare was a key component of Russia’s “hybrid warfare” playbook in Ukraine. Online disinformation campaigns helped cloud Western media reports about Russia’s direct involvement in military operations in Crimea and the Donbas.

“Information campaigning, facilitated by cyber activities, contributed powerfully to Russia’s ability to prosecute operations against Ukraine in the early stages of the conflict with little coordinated opposition from the West,” Keir Giles, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme and director of the Conflict Studies Research Center at Chatham House, wrote about Russian hybrid warfare.

“Russia, more than any other nascent actor on the cyberstage, seems to have devised a way to integrate cyberwarfare into a grand strategy capable of achieving political objectives,” Giles added.

A ‘Part of Daily Life’

Even though Russian cyberattacks were not decisive on the battlefields of Georgia and Ukraine, Moscow has aggressively used cyber means to target foreign political processes and to spread propaganda.

Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine was accompanied by a wave of cyberattacks, chiefly comprising distributed denial of service attacks, on government and business organizations in Poland and Ukraine, as well as the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Russia has also launched cyberattacks against the governments of countries across Europe, including the Netherlands, Estonia, Germany, and Bulgaria.

“Russia considers itself to be engaged in full-scale information warfare, involving not only offensive but defensive operations—whether or not its notional adversaries have actually noticed this happening,” Giles, the Chatham House expert, wrote.

In 2007, Estonia faced a monthlong cyberattack, which targeted government computer networks, the media, and banks.

“The cyberattacks in Estonia, composed of service disruptions and denial of service incidents, could best be compared to the online equivalent of a noisy protest in front of government buildings and banks,” Lewis wrote. “They had little tangible effect, but they created uncertainty and fear among Estonian leaders as they were considered a precursor to armed Russian intervention.”

Bulgaria’s Central Election Commission was hit by a cyberattack in October this year, during local and municipal elections.

The attack was a distributed denial of service attack similar to what Russian hackers used in Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, and Poland. It included 530,000,000 visits to the commission’s website in 10 hours. (Bulgaria has a population of 7.2 million.)

Russian hackers have also targeted Western European governments. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, BfV, said in May that Kremlin-linked hackers had targeted Germany’s parliament. And in May, Russian hackers targeted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party.

Merkel has been a firm proponent of maintaining EU sanctions against Russia for its military interventions in Ukraine. The German chancellor is up for re-election in 2017.

A cyberattack on Deutsche Telekom, a German telecommunications company, in November spurred German officials to publicly address the Russian cyberthreat.

The head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, Bruno Kahl, warned that Russian hackers might target next year’s German presidential elections.

“We have evidence that cyberattacks are taking place that have no purpose other than to elicit political uncertainty,” Kahl told the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung in November.

“The perpetrators are interested in delegitimizing the democratic process as such, regardless of who that ends up helping,” Kahl said. “We have indications that [the attacks] come from the Russian region.”

And without specifically blaming Russia for the Deutsche Telekom attack, Merkel said, “Such cyberattacks, or hybrid conflicts as they are known in Russian doctrine, are now part of daily life, and we must learn to cope with them.”

According to news reports, a Russian cyber espionage campaign also targeted the Netherlands-based international investigation into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown over eastern Ukraine, as well as the World Anti-Doping Agency investigation into Russian Olympic athletes.

“Russian strategic culture focuses on war as political activity; for cyberpower to have a truly strategic effect, Russia believes that it must contribute directly to shaping political outcomes by altering the political perceptions of their opponents to better suit their interests,” James J. Wirtz, dean of the School of International Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, wrote in the NATO report on Russia’s cyberwar in Ukraine.

Cold War Tradecraft

In 2014, cyberattacks linked to Russian hacking groups increased on U.S. government computer networks.

U.S. officials in Europe have also been the target of Russian cyberattacks.

In February 2014, a disparaging phone conversation between Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and Victoria Nuland, U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, was uploaded to YouTube.

The U.S. government pinned the bugging of the phone conversation and its online release on Russia.

“I would say that since the video was first noted and tweeted out by the Russian government, I think it says something about Russia’s role,” former White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the time.

“Certainly we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft,” Jen Psaki, the State Department’s press secretary at the time, said in response to the leaked phone call.

Russia’s cyberwar strategy draws on Soviet tradecraft. The USSR conducted clandestine operations around the world to extend Soviet influence and undermine the legitimacy of, and sow chaos within, Western democracies.

These tactics included leaking false information to foreign media outlets.

“The Soviets always tried to influence both friend and foe; the Russians are doing the same,” Steven Bucci, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation who served for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer, told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview.

War, or Something Else?

The U.S. government currently has no clear definition for when a cyberattack crosses the threshold from a crime or an act of espionage to an act of war.

And, so far, Russian cyberattacks on NATO countries like Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Poland, and the U.S. have not spurred NATO’s invocation of Article V—the Western military alliance’s collective defense protocol.

The U.N. Charter is also ambiguous about when a cyberattack merits a kinetic military response.

“Skeptics rightly claim that in cyberwar, no one dies,” Kenneth Geers, ambassador of NATO’s cybersecurity center and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told The Daily Signal. “But to some degree, our concept of national security must evolve with technology.”

In a 2011 White House report, the Department of Homeland Security listed 16 “Critical Infrastructure Sectors,” which, if destroyed, would have a “debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

The list comprised infrastructure assets like power grids, air traffic control systems, and dams. The country’s electoral process was not listed as a critical infrastructure sector to be protected from cyberattacks.

The Democratic and Republican national committees are nonprofit organizations, which are responsible for financing and organizing their own cybersecurity.

Geers argued, however, that the government has a responsibility to secure the DNC and RNC email servers because they have national security value.

“In some way, the U.S. government will define these servers as ‘critical infrastructure’ and articulate some level of responsibility for protecting them,” Geers said. “The U.S. government is responsible for protecting our country and its citizens, and that certainly includes the security of our democracy, especially from foreign power manipulation.”

According to Bucci, the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC over the summer was espionage and falls well short of the threshold required to merit a military response.

“The U.S. government has never defined an act of war in cyber,” Bucci said. “This would not be close in anyone’s book. It’s not a crime either. It’s spying. The release of the purloined emails is for influence.”

The White House’s 2011 “International Strategy for Cyberspace” alluded to the use of military force to retaliate against a cyberattack.

According to the report: “When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country. We reserve the right to use all necessary means—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—as appropriate and consistent with applicable international law, in order to defend our nation, our allies, our partners, and our interests. “

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on June 22, Thomas Atkin, acting assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and global security, said the Pentagon has no clear-cut threshold for when a cyberattack becomes an act of war.

Cyberattacks could merit a military response if there was an “act of significant consequence,” Atkin told Congress.

“As regards an act of significant consequence, we don’t necessarily have a clear definition,” Atkin said. “But we evaluate it based on loss of life, physical property, economic impact, and our foreign policy.”

“Computer network operations, even when they are this daring, are closer to covert action than traditional warfare,” Geers said, referring to the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC.

“Only the president can decide” when a cyberattack becomes an act of war, Geers added. (For more from the author of “How Russia’s Cyberattacks Have Affected Ukraine” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Japan Overtakes China as Largest Holder of U.S. Treasuries

/0 Comments/in , /by

China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries declined to the lowest in more than six years as the world’s second-largest economy uses its currency reserves to support the yuan. Japan overtook China as America’s top foreign creditor, as its holdings edged down at a slower pace.

A monthly Treasury Department report showed China held $1.12 trillion in U.S. government bonds, notes and bills in October, down $41.3 billion from the prior month and the lowest investment since July 2010. The portfolio of Japan decreased for third month, falling by $4.5 billion to $1.13 trillion, according to the data. Collectively, the two nations account for about 37 percent of America’s foreign debt holdings.

China’s foreign reserves, the world’s largest stockpile, declined for the fifth straight month in November to $3.05 trillion — the lowest since March 2011 — amid support for the sliding currency. That stockpile has fallen from a record $4 trillion in June 2015. (Read more from “Japan Overtakes China as Largest Holder of U.S. Treasuries” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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.