Who is betraying America?


Caroline Glick has written an outstanding essay relating to former Obama comrades, Dems and the Leftist MSM are losing their minds on who can accuse President Trump louder of treason. In wondering who was more actually treasonous, Glick goes on to list Obama actions that actually benefitted Russian National Interests.

 

JRH 7/20/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Who is betraying America?

 Pelosi & Schumer

Pelosi & Schumer

 

By Caroline Glick

07/20/2018

CarolineGlick.com

 

Did US President Donald Trump commit treason in Helsinki when he met Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin? Should he be impeached?

 

That is what his opponents claim. Former president Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan accused Trump of treason outright.

Brennan tweeted, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki [with Putin] rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”

 

Fellow senior Obama administration officials, including former FBI director James Comey, former defense secretary Ashton Carter, and former deputy attorney general Sally Yates parroted Brennan’s accusation.

 

Almost the entire US media joined them in condemning Trump for treason.

 

Democratic leaders have led their own charge. Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee insinuated the US military should overthrow the president, tweeting, “Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

 

Senate minority leader Charles Schumer said that Trump is controlled by Russia. And Trump’s Republican opponents led by senators Jeff Flake and John McCain attacked him as well.

 

Trump allegedly committed treason when he refused to reject Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the US elections in 2016 and was diffident in relation to the US intelligence community’s determination that Russia did interfere in the elections.

 

Trump walked back his statement from Helsinki at a press appearance at the White House Tuesday. But it is still difficult to understand what all the hullaballoo about the initial statement was about.

 

AP reporter John Lemire placed Trump in an impossible position. Noting that Putin denied meddling in the 2016 elections and the intelligence community insists that Russia meddled, he asked Trump, “Who do you believe?”

 

If Trump had said that he believed his intelligence community and gave no credence to Putin’s denial, he would have humiliated Putin and destroyed any prospect of cooperative relations.

 

Trump tried to strike a balance. He spoke respectfully of both Putin’s denials and the US intelligence community’s accusation. It wasn’t a particularly coherent position. It was a clumsy attempt to preserve the agreements he and Putin reached during their meeting.

 

And it was blindingly obviously not treason.

 

In fact, Trump’s response to Lemire, and his overall conduct at the press conference, did not convey weakness at all. Certainly he was far more assertive of US interests than Obama was in his dealings with Russia.

 

In Obama’s first summit with Putin in July 2009, Obama sat meekly as Putin delivered an hour-long lecture about how US-Russian relations had gone down the drain.

 

As Daniel Greenfield noted at Frontpage magazine Tuesday, in succeeding years, Obama capitulated to Putin on anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, on Ukraine, Georgia and Crimea. Obama gave Putin free rein in Syria and supported Russia’s alliance with Iran on its nuclear program and its efforts to save the Assad regime. He permitted Russian entities linked to the Kremlin to purchase a quarter of American uranium. And of course, Obama made no effort to end Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

 

TRUMP IN contrast has stiffened US sanctions against Russian entities. He has withdrawn from Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He has agreed to sell Patriot missiles to Poland. And he has placed tariffs on Russian exports to the US.

 

So if Trump is Putin’s agent, what was Obama? [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

Given the nature of Trump’s record, and the context in which he made his comments about Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, the question isn’t whether he did anything wrong. The question is why are his opponents accusing him of treason for behaving as one would expect a president to behave? What is going on?

 

The answer to that is clear enough. Brennan signaled it explicitly when he tweeted that Trump’s statements “exceed the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’” The unhinged allegations of treason are supposed to form the basis of impeachment hearings.

 

The Democrats and their allies in the media use the accusation that Trump is an agent of Russia as an elections strategy. Midterm elections are consistently marked with low voter turnout. So both parties devote most of their energies to rallying their base and motivating their most committed members to vote.

 

To objective observers, the allegation that Trump betrayed the United States by equivocating in response to a rude question about Russian election interference is ridiculous on its face. But Democratic election strategists have obviously concluded that it is catnip for the Democratic faithful. For them it serves as a dog whistle.

 

The promise of impeachment for votes is too radical to serve as an official campaign strategy. For the purpose of attracting swing voters and not scaring moderate Democrats away from the party and the polls, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer say they have no interest in impeaching Trump. Impeachment talk, they insist, is a mere distraction.

 

But by embracing Brennan’s claim of treason, Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer and other top Democrats are winking and nodding to the progressive radicals now rising in their party. They are telling the Linda Sarsours and Cynthia Nixons of the party that they will impeach Trump if they win control of the House of Representatives.

 

The problem with playing domestic politics on the international scene is that doing so has real consequences for international security and for US national interests.

 

Consider, for instance, Europe’s treatment of Trump.

 

Europe is economically dependent on trade with the US and strategically dependent on NATO. So why are the Europeans so open about their hatred of Trump and their rejection of his trade policies, his policy towards Iran and his insistence that they pay their fair share for their own defense?

 

Why did EU Council President Donald Tusk attack Trump with such contempt and condescension in Brussels? Tusk, who chairs the meetings of EU leaders, is effectively the EU president. And the day before last week’s NATO conference he chided Trump for criticizing Europe’s low defense spending.

 

“America,” he said with a voice dripping with contempt, “appreciate your allies. After all you don’t have that many.”

 

That of course, was news to the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East that depend on America and work diligently to develop and maintain strong ties to Washington.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of his remarks, where did Tusk get the idea that it is reasonable to speak so scornfully to an American president?

 

Where did EU’s foreign policy commissioner Federica Mogherini get the idea that it is okay for her to work urgently and openly to undermine legally constituted US sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program?

 

The answer of course is that they got a green light to adopt openly anti-American policies from the forces in the US that have devoted their energies since Trump’s election nearly two years ago to delegitimizing his victory and his presidency. Those calling Trump a traitor empowered the Europeans to defy the US on every issue.

 

Trump’s opponents’ unsubstantiated allegation that his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections has constrained Trump’s ability to perform his duties.

 

Consider his relations with Putin.

 

If there is anything to criticize about Trump’s summit with Putin it is that it came too late. It should have happened a year ago. That it happened this week speaks not to Trump’s eagerness to meet Putin but to the urgency of the hour.

 

After securing control over the Deraa province along Syria’s border with Jordan last week, the Assad regime, supported by Iranian regime forces, Hezbollah forces and Shiite militia forces began its campaign to restore regime control over the Quneitra province along the Syrian border with Israel.

 

As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and all government and military officials have stated clearly and consistently for years, Israel cannot accept Iranian presence in Syria. If Iran does not remove its forces from Syria generally and from southern Syria specifically, there will be war imminently between Israel, Iran and its Hezbollah, Shiite militia and Syrian regime allies.

 

Israel prefers to fight that war sooner rather than later to prevent Iran and its allies from entrenching their positions in Syria and make victory more difficult. So, in the interest of preventing such a war, Trump had no choice but to bite the political bullet and sit down to discuss Syria face to face with Putin to try to come up with a deal that would see Russia push Iran and Hezbollah out of Syria.

 

From what the two leaders said at their joint press conference it’s hard to know what was agreed to. But Netanyahu’s jubilant response indicates that some deal was reached.

 

Certainly their statements were strong, unequivocal signals to Iran. When Trump said, “The United States will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS,” he signaled strongly that US forces in eastern Syria will support Israel in a war against Iran and its allied forces in Syria just as it fought with the Kurds and its other allies in Syria against ISIS.

 

When Putin endorsed Israel’s position that the 1974 Syrian-Israeli disengagement agreement must be implemented along the border, he told the Iranians that in any Iranian-Israeli war in Syria, Putin will not side with Iran.

 

Time will tell if we just averted war. But what we did learn is that Israel’s position in a war with Iran is stronger than it could have been if the two leaders hadn’t met in Helsinki.

 

And this is exceedingly important.

 

Trump is being condemned for adopting a conciliatory tone towards Putin while employing a combative tone towards the Europeans and particularly Germany at the NATO summit. This criticism ignores how Trump operates in the international arena.

 

Trump views his exchanges with foreign leaders as separate engagements. He has goals he wishes to advance with China; with North Korea; with Russia; with Canada; with Mexico; with Europe; with Britain; with US Arab allies. In each separate engagement, Trump employs a combination of carrots and sticks. In each engagement he adopts a distinct manner that he believes advances his goals.

 

So far, unlike Obama’s foreign policy by this point in his presidency, none of Trump’s exchanges have brought disaster on America or its allies. To the contrary, America and its allies have much greater strategic maneuver room across a wide spectrum of threats and joint adversaries than they had when Obama left office.

 

Trump’s opponents’ obsession with bringing him down has caused great harm to his presidency and to America’s position worldwide. It is a testament to Trump’s commitment to the US and its allies that he met with Putin this week. And the success of their meeting is something that all who care about global security and preventing a devastating war in the Middle East should be grateful for.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

__________________

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

 

@ 2013 All Rights Reserved to Caroline Glick

 

About Caroline B. Glick

 

Caroline B. Glick is a senior columnist at Breitbart News and the senior contributing and chief columnist for The Jerusalem Post. She is also a senior columnist for Maariv. She is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown 2014) and of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad (Gefen 2008). The Israeli Solution was endorsed by leading US policymakers including Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Ted Cruz and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Shackled Warrior was endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former CIA director James Woolsey.

 

Glick is the adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She travels frequently throughout the world to brief policymakers on issues related to Israel’s strategic environment and other related topics. She lectures widely on strategic and political issues affecting global security, Israel and the Jewish people, US-Israel relations, Israel-Diaspora affairs and Israel’s changing strategic landscape.

 

In 2008 Glick founded Latma, the Hebrew language satirical media criticism website. She served as editor in chief of the site until it ceased operations in 2015.

 

Latma changed the face of Israel’s social media and revolutionized the Israeli entertainment industry by bringing an alternative voice to the popular culture. Latma launched “Hakol Shafit,” a primetime, half hour satirical newscast on Israel television Channel 1. Glick served as the editor in chief of the program.

 

Glick was born in Houston, TX and grew up in Chicago, IL. She moved to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving her BA in Political Science from Columbia University. She joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

 

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, Ms. Glick served in the Defense Ministry as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

 

In 1997 and 1998 Ms. Glick served as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

 

From 1998-2000 Ms. Glick studied at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and received a Master’s in Public Policy in June 2000.

 

In the summer of 2000 Ms. Glick returned to Israel and began READ THE REST

 

Hail Britannia: VOTE LEAVE


Vote Brexit 6-23-16

What kind of word math do you get when you add Britain and exit the EU? You get Brexit. Apparently most of the United Kingdom’s ruling elites do not desire to leave the European Union. Those British ruling elites are placing a large amount of gloom and doom on British voters if they decide to leave the EU in a June 23, 2016 referendum. Justin Smith in good American style of mistrusting big government favors the Brexit crowd of the UK.

 

(Of interest is the Breitbart tag Brexit)

 

JRH 5/15/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Hail Britannia: VOTE LEAVE

Break the EU’s Chains

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/14/2016 1:39 PM

 

The British people seem ready to leave the European Union through an historic June 23rd referendum, because they are tired of the high-handed tyrannical regulations, clauses and counter clauses, emanating from the EU Council on even the simplest aspects of their everyday lives. They have determined that leaving the EU will be the best step towards reclaiming their nation’s sovereignty and democratic rule in all matters of immigration and border control, their economy, free trade and national security, and they are proudly waving the Union Jack, as they tell their would be masters in Brussels to “go to hell”, declaring their independence.

 

In November 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to renegotiate a treaty change with European Union Council President Donald Tusk concerning U.K. sovereignty, trade, immigration and economic governance, but Tusk rejected it all, with the minor exception regarding the handling of a few million pounds for children’s benefits. This dismal failure of PM Cameron only offered proof that the EU was closed to any substantial moves towards reform [The Telegraph & Financial Times], which created a renewed and angry momentum for the Out of Europe, Vote Leave and Brexit” movements.

 

Corporatists, transnationalists, advocates of the UN 2030 Agenda [Blog Editor: I’m a bit of anti-UN/anti-globalist kind-of-guy so here’s an anti-UN 2030 Agenda article. I’m not sure if Justin is on board with my concerns], the BBC and the Guardinista establishment [The Guardian’s pro-UN 2030 Agenda] are presenting dishonest and fear-based monologues, regarding the uncertainty a U.K. exit from the EU might bring. They enjoy being able to circumvent individual nation’s policies by going through Brussels, and most of them have been made rich through their deals with the tyrannical, unelected and entrenched bosses of the European Union.

 

Despite disingenuous conclusions from the transnationalist President Obama, does anyone really believe that a hundred years of shared security concerns and initiatives and trade agreements between the U.S. and the U.K. will be detrimentally affected by a “Yes” vote to leave the EU?

 

What cogent thought process could people, like Lena Komileva (London economist), possibly be using when they ascribe the term “illiberal” to the British people’s desire for nationalist policies [last paragraph Bloomberg] and reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty?

 

It will not take years for the U.K. to renegotiate trade deals with the U.S., as Obama suggests, but rather only months. And, if small nations like South Korea and Chile can succeed in global markets, certainly Britain also will continue to succeed, especially since the EU already imports 45% of British exports.

 

Membership in the EU currently costs Britain approximately $30 billion annually. Although $55 billion in austerity cuts were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last Parliament, Britain’s contribution to the EU was roughly $132 billion. Every cut in public spending could be reversed, and Britain could still pay down its deficit faster if Britain were to leave the European Union. [VoteLeaveTakeControl.org data in British Pounds between UK and EU]

 

In February, Gerald Mason, senior vice-president of Britain’s high profile Tate and Lyle Sugars, made a mockery of claims by Britain Strong in Europe that Brexit would spell economic disaster for the U.K., when he stated, “we are absolutely certain that our business and people who work in it would have a more secure future outside the EU” [Evening Standard 4th paragraph].

 

Priti Patel, U.K.’s employment minister, told the Daily Telegraph in March [Same quote Daily Mail 2/22/16]:

 

“The Prime Minister has tried hard but the EU refused to give the British people what they want … The only way to take back control over our economy … to create more jobs and growth is to Vote Leave.”

 

However, national security is the issue currently foremost in most Britons minds, but Eurocentrics, who believe the U.K. will be safer in the EU through cooperation on crime and terrorism, have failed to see that the EU has never been capable of agreeing on effective foreign policy. Also not taken into account, the EU recently embraced the expanded definition of “refugee” put forth by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda. [See also point #2 of UN adopting Sustainable Development Goals] Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants, if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1st Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … (and) from extreme poverty … (and) perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe (as a result). [I found this quote at WND]

 

There are also reports of Bosnia, with a population of 3.8 million, being infiltrated by Islamic State terrorists. They are buying property there, and they would be free to travel to the U.K., if Bosnia is granted EU membership.

 

Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative member of Parliament, stated in March [Bloomberg]: “Being in the EU means we don’t have control of our own systems, we don’t have control of our own borders. We are effectively tied to countries which I think are not as good at protecting their people as we have been.”

 

One can only imagine the palpable red-hot anger of the British people, upon hearing Martin Shulz, European Parliament president, say that he was [The Telegraph] “sad and angry (over) the undertone of national resentment” and it was “not possible” to make the changes PM Cameron wanted. Shulz added that Britain “belongs” to the EU — really? — just watch, wait and see.

 

Downing Street has declared that “a vote to leave is a vote to leave” [Near exact wording in Cameron photo caption in Herald Scotland]. A Leave vote will facilitate the U.K.’s departure through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty [Britain & Europe discussion on Article 50], and terms for Britain’s withdrawal will then be negotiated over the next two years.

 

Over forty years ago, Britain last debated her relationship with Europe, and even then, elected officials on both the right and left, such as two of the most iconic political figures of that era — Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, campaigned against the U.K.’s membership in what was then the European Economic Community. They objected to Britain’s elected government meekly surrendering Britain’s national sovereignty to unelected foreign entities and the fundamental lack of democracy in the EU.

 

Lady Margaret Thatcher knew that it would be near impossible to effectively and efficiently impose one currency, one economy and one national identity on many different countries (now 28) with such different languages, histories, customs and cultures in general. Early on, the Iron Lady called the attempt to create a European super-state “the greatest folly of the modern era.” [Townhall]

 

Britons, excited and optimistic, are moving forward to reclaim a more-free, prosperous, ally connected and nationally secure Britain, through their own elected officials and their own choices and wisdom, breaking free of the heavy, bureaucratic chains of the European Union. They will vote for an independent future in the world, benefiting all, and, as they shout “Hail Britannia”, they will vote to leave in June.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text embraced by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© John R. Houk