Net neutrality is dead.

....but there is hope in a Congressional Revue Act…

....among other means…

Michael Gove in an information pod at the WWF Living Planet Centre in Woking. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

The Ecologist, “Michael Gove has it in his gift to make this a green Christmas”, 7 Dec 2017:

The restoration of life and the end of extinctions. Good land management plans for every country. The end of ocean plastics. No more pesticides. Is all this too ambitious for a Christmas wish list? Ruth Davis of the RSPB does not think so.

So now is the moment for a new generation of green campaigners to come to the table.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, has in the last few months repeatedly said that he wants our country to be an environmental leader – and has signalled his seriousness by banning bee-harming pesticides, and laying out plans for a new green watch-dog. 

Whatever your politics, this is exciting. It could also be globally significant. Because to put all his plans into action will require a revolution in environmental thinking, involving not just protection but renewal – an approach which could spearhead an international plan to save nature. 

And it is this international plan that we must demand, to tackle the spiralling environmental crisis. Nothing else will do.  So if I was to writing to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) today, I would include these things in my Christmas list..

Earth and seas

Bold new goals to restore life on earth - its abundance, its diversity, the amazing places where it still thrives, and the areas where it can return. Human-driven extinctions must end, as must the destruction of our last, precious intact natural ecosystems.

Land for life. Each country should have its own plan for good land management, driving investment into the ecological innovation and know-how needed to re-boot modern agriculture, and safeguard long-term food security. Governments should reward farmers for restoring soils, protecting natural stores of carbon and supporting wildlife.

An end to oceans plastics, and protection of the ‘blue commons’.  We must champion global efforts to defeat the monstrous problem of plastic in our oceans.  At the same time, we must set aside much larger areas where marine life can recover, building on the ambition of the Blue Belt.

Much tighter regulation of pesticides.  The neonicotinoid ban is great news – but we need to rethink how we use chemicals in the environment.  My old friend Nigel Bourne, of Butterfly Conservation, said it first and said it best – next time, we shouldn’t have to face a crisis before we consider a ban.

Help for people to shape the places where they live.  In talking internationally, we often forget that change happens locally. To achieve more, we need to involve more people; rebuilding local economies around a shared vision for the environment, investing in industries and businesses that repair, rather than damage, the earth and seas around us.

Ordinary people

You might think this list is preposterous – too long, too ambitious -  when the country has so much else on its plate. But what’s the point of Christmas, if you can’t think big?  And although I am fifty this year, I have begun to feel the child-like sense of adventure that comes when something amazing is about to happen – when a movement is being born.

We are re-thinking what it means to eat well, both for our own health, and within the limits of the land available - since this land is also home to the rest of life on earth.  A new generation is wondering anew about our responsibility towards animals held in captivity, and to the wild creatures trapped in the debris of our lives.

The manacles of plastic around the feet of sea-birds appall us; the heaps of elephant carcasses killed for body parts are images that will last a life-time, a silent call to action for the conservationists of the future.

But anger and grief alone are not enough. To change things for the better also takes hope and purpose. And hope is alive, not least because of the steadfastness of the climate movement. Many will claim that today’s shift away from fossil fuels was inevitable – the result of technological evolution, rather than the efforts of campaigners. But They will be wrong.

The change was catalysed by ordinary people, who succeeded in getting a few governments to listen to them when it seemed we were destined to burn every last lump of coal in the ground.

Demanding laws

As a result, the next generation of environmentalists understands that campaigning energy, coupled with disruptive technology, can challenge the status quo.  They value the potential for human ingenuity to turn problems inside out – to replace rare metals in batteries with material made from apple-cores; to build homes that are also vertical farms and hanging gardens.

This is modern magic, and because of it, the future need not be more of the same. 

Earth optimism – a confidence that solutions are possible and that we can and will renew the fabric of our tattered world – is a heady force. But it will need political action to give it wings.

So now is the moment for a new generation of green campaigners to come to the table. It is also the moment when we are deciding what sort of a country we want to live in; and when Mr Gove is making the environment front page news.

After Brexit, we will inherit laws from the European Union which have helped safeguard wildlife and tackle pollution. We must grasp this legacy, but we must also build on it - demanding laws and policies that will not just ‘stop the rot’, but begin to renew the tattered fabric of our living planet.

The game’s afoot! as Holmes used to say to Watson. Let’s play.

This Author

Ruth Davis is deputy director of global conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

The Guardian, “Michael Gove: from ‘shy green’ to ‘full-throated environmentalist’?”, 12 Nov 2017:

Michael Gove has transformed from a “shy green” into a “full-throated environmentalist”, according to close allies who have said the Conservative MP has been heavily affected by his latest ministerial brief.

Howls of protest made by green groups, commentators and political opponents when Theresa May decided, in June this year, to elevate the high-profile Brexiter to environment secretary were slowly being proven wrong, they claim.

Woodland Trust, “Shocking declines in large old trees worldwide”

There has been: a ban on ivory sales; bigger penalties for animal cruelty; questions raised over farming subsidies; action on plastic bottles; CCTV in slaughter houses; a ban on bee-harming pesticides; and now the promise of a post-Brexit “green revolution” with a new independent watchdog as the centrepiece reform.

And yet when he was appointed to the role, former energy secretary Ed Davey, a Liberal Democrat, said it was like “putting the fox in charge of the hen house”.

He argued that Gove had even tried to remove climate change from the geography curriculum – advisers have hit back to say he only wanted to move the subject to science.

UK will back total ban on bee-harming pesticides, Michael Gove reveals

Others were concerned that an MP whose bullish manner as education secretary alienated large parts of the teaching profession, would be ready to strip back environmental protections in the Brexit process.

But one Tory minister has told the Guardian they believe the opposite has happened – suggesting that Gove had instead undergone a conversion inside the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

“He is greener than Zac Goldsmith and best mates with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF,” the sources said, referring to a Tory MP known for environmental views. “Fox in the chicken coop in reverse.”

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said there was no doubt “Gove has defied many people’s expectations on the environment” with a strong stance on issues like bee-harming pesticides, single-use plastic bottles and the future of the internal combustion engine.

But he said air pollution moves had fallen well short and it was one thing to promise a green Brexit and another to deliver it. “The proof will be in the pudding, especially with the forthcoming agriculture and fisheries bills. But so far the starters are quite good.”

A friend insisted that Gove’s interest in the environment was not all new, pointing to a 2014 speech in which he told the Conservative Environment Network: “I was one of those characters we call ‘shy green.”

But the ally admitted that the MP had become much more passionate. “He is interested in policy and politics and if he is given a subject he will throw himself into it. Hence the ‘shy green’ is now a full-throated environmentalist.”

Even George Monbiot, the environmental campaigner and Guardian columnist, who was highly critical of the MP in previous roles, has claimed: “This is amazing. One by one, Michael Gove is saying the things I’ve waited years for an environment secretary to say.”

He joked that if this environment secretary ever met his former self at education, they’d hate each other.

Michael Gove ‘deeply regrets’ Trump’s approach to Paris climate agreement

And it is no wonder. The pleasant surprise of the green lobby is a far cry from the view of teachers and heads when Gove was in charge of the country’s schools. One union leader, Mary Bousted, called him “possibly the most contentious and divisive education secretary ever”.

And yet from environmental groups – that were deeply concerned by Gove’s promotion – there is some surprising praise.

Tanya Steele, who is chief executive at WWF, said the minister had hit the ground running with a “broad and ambitious agenda”, although she also set out the scale of the task facing him.

“A lot more needs to happen if we are to address major threats to our environment and the global crisis of biodiversity decline,” she said, calling for a 25-year plan with clear milestones.

Craig Bennett, CEO of Friends of the Earth, said that despite initial alarm at the appointment of Gove, which he said was fair enough given previous comments on EU regulations, “he has been making all the right noises and he’s started to make the right action”.

He added: “To his credit, the moment he got the job he reached out and definitely went beyond the normal pleasantries to engage, listen and debate.”

Bennett said the minister’s speech on soil fertility was one that the green lobby had been waiting and hoping that every environment secretary would deliver.

But Bennett sounded a serious note of caution. He described preparations for Brexit in time for spring, 2019, as an “impossible task” and said it was hard to see how the minister could keep to his promise to maintain environmental regulations after the UK leaves the EU.

Michael Gove calls for views on setting up plastic bottle deposit return scheme

“They say they are going to cut and paste environmental regulation – but when you cut and paste often the formatting goes awry and you lose fundamental things and that is our fear,” he said, arguing that leaving the EU would not be good for the environment.

“It will be one of the biggest shocks to environmental protections in years. And that is not to question [Gove’s] good intentions.”

Molly Scott Cato, a Green MEP for the South West England electoral region, insisted that she would keep Gove the environmentalist in “special measures”.

For example, despite the positive move to ban neonicotinoid pesticides, she said he was still allowing limited use under emergency authorisations, which could be damaging.

“I believe Gove is posturing on a series of environmental cheap wins merely to establish himself as a sheep, before revealing himself as a wolf,” she said.

Gove’s friend admitted that Gove’s time inside Defra had impacted on the minister’s views on Brexit – in particular making him embrace the idea of a two-year transition period to help cope with the complexity of preparations.

And he has taken on his cabinet colleague, Liam Fox, by insisting that Britain will not compromise on standards in order to do a trade deal with the US, for example by accepting chlorinated chicken.

But asked if environmental responsibility had made the minister regret his hefty support for Brexit, the ally responded: “Not in the slightest – he believes in it. In particular, he thinks it creates huge opportunities in Defra, what he calls a ‘green Brexit’.”

Daily Telegraph: Britain’s record-breaking trees identified: tallest, biggest, oldest and rarest trees have been identified in a new study.

Michael Gove demands end to Sheffield tree-felling programme.

It is not the first time Gove has received a reaction of pleasant surprise while heading a government department. After a rough ride at the education department, his plans to offer prisoners more freedoms and boost learning in prisons were well received when he was justice secretary.

One difference, according to a source, is that Gove had spent years in opposition drawing up his plans for the country’s schools, but when he was moved to justice and environment, briefs he knew less well, he turned to the experts for advice.

Rebecca Pow, MP, on board of the Conservative Environment Network, said her colleague’s time listening to green groups had resulted in him deciding the Tories would “go up a gear” on environmental issues.

She said he had taken bold decisions, and argued that there were signs of his interests in the environment in previous roles, including making sure primary school children could name a variety of animals including amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles.

Bennett, of Friends of the Earth, said Gove was not the first politician to be affected by the role of environment secretary, pointing to former Tory MP John Gummer, whose work while in the cabinet had him branded a “green guru” by one newspaper. He said the same had happened with David Miliband.

Related Stories at MR:

Occupy Hambach forest, another step toward pervasive ecology

Monsanto accused of “buying science” to save glyphosate

Bayer offers buy-out of Monsanto -  use of pesticide glyphosate contaminates majority of Germans

National Vanguard, “EU-Funded Report Tells Journalists not to Write Negative Articles on Migrant Crisis” - Christopher Rossetti 10 Dec 2017:

A new journalistic code of practice, funded by the EU, calls on journalists to avoid reporting on the migrant crisis in a negative way, refrain from linking Islam to terror and avoid mentioning whether or not a criminal migrant was in the country illegally.

The guideline even calls on journalists to report colleagues to the authorities for “hate speech” if they do so.

The code, financed by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship program, defines hate speech as expressions which ‘promote or justify xenophobia’ including ‘intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism’.

The report says that although journalism cannot ‘solve the problem of hate speech on its own…the European Union must reinforce existing mechanisms and support new tools designed to combat hate speech’.

To do this, the report calls on journalists to shop their colleagues to police, as well as people who comment on their articles, on the grounds that they’ve committed a hate speech offence.

The new guidelines ask hacks to not to report ‘migrants as exclusively having a negative impact on society’ and singles out ‘reports that present migration as constituting a net cost to the social safety net’ and to only mention a migrant’s ethnic origin or religion ‘when necessary for the audience to understand the news’.

The code urges reporters not to focus on ‘issues such as whether asylum seekers’ claims are genuine’, which is odd because the EU’s own statistics show that most of those who come are economic migrants who don’t qualify for protected refugee status.

It also calls on journalists to refrain from reporting on crimes committed by migrants unless they include ‘statistics that disprove assumptions that migration leads to rising crime levels’ — a worrying ask for those on the right who frequently write about no-go zones which are directly linked to mass migration.

“Don’t fall into the trap of focusing solely on possible negative aspects of large-scale migration. It is also important to highlight positive contributions of migration and individual migrants,” they say.

The report’s author states: “When problems inside the asylum system occur — e.g, migrants riot, or an increase in small-time criminality is noted — look critically for the root cause” — which on the previous page, the authors say includes “poverty and climate change”. Climate change?!

The report recommends that journalists should not use the adjective “illegal” when referring to migrants.

When reporting on Islam, journalists are asked not to refer to Islamic culture as ‘barbaric, irrational, primitive, aggressive, threatening or prone to terrorism’ and when reporting negative or ‘hateful comments’ towards Muslims, reporters should ‘challenge any false premises on which such comments rely’.

Additionally, the group say that reporters shouldn’t quote politicians or other public figures on migration ‘without challenging their statements’ and recommends approaching migrant advocacy groups for lines that can be used against anti-migration narratives — effectively asking supposedly neutral reporters to become pro-migrant advocates within the media.

* * *

Source: Locust Blog

Jonathan Porritt, author of The World We Made, feels the Green Party must still discuss population.

The Ecologist, “Jonathon Porritt calls for progressive case for taking control of EU immigration”, 7 Dec 2017:

JONATHON PORRITT, author of The World We Made, joined the Green Party four decades ago. At that time the party keenly debated population growth, and the impact this would have on the environment. Today, Porritt argues, the referendum and anxiety around immigration means progressives still need to discuss this hotly contested issue.

These increasingly significant deficits are not caused by high levels of immigration: they’re caused by wretchedly inadequate economic and fiscal policy.

When I joined the Green party in the mid-1970s population was a big issue, regularly debated with enthusiasm and intellectual rigour. People joining the Green party today would have to wait a long time before even hearing the word mentioned – and then might easily find themselves ‘warned off’ from this no-go territory.

I just don’t get this. In a world where overall population growth projections are rising, and where global migration is still on the rise, it’s a complete dereliction of all environmentalists’ duty to protect the planet (particularly members of the Green party) to continue to ignore population growth and not to campaign for its reduction. Without such a reduction, all solutions to other aspects of ecological and social concern are made far more difficult to deal with.

A couple of weeks ago, myself and Colin Hines published a paper entitled The Progressive Case for Taking Control of EU Immigration – and Avoiding Brexit in the Process. This case is simple: Brexit could still be reversed; hard Brexit can certainly be avoided.

Population growth

But this won’t happen unless Labour, the Lib Dems and the Green Party stop dickering around and come up with some serious ideas about more effectively managing immigration into and between EU countries. Without that, many of those who voted Brexit will cry out in rage at the referendum result being seen to be ‘set aside’, given that concern about immigration was paramount in their minds at that time.

Uncomfortable though this might be for contemporary greens – and indeed for all progressives – high levels of population growth and immigration go hand-in-hand. If net migration continues at around recent levels, then the UK’s population is expected to rise by nearly 8 million people in 15 years, almost the equivalent of the population of Greater London (8.7 million).

At least 75 percent of this increase would be from future migration and the children of those migrants. As already indicated, future population growth would not stop there. Unless something is done about this growth, it is projected to increase towards 80 million in 25 years and keep going upwards.

It’s important to be completely logical about this. For instance, the UK is already struggling to maintain critical infrastructure, to meet housing demand, and to invest sufficiently in education, healthcare and social services.

As Colin and I unhesitatingly pointed out in our paper, these increasingly significant deficits are not caused by high levels of immigration: they’re caused by wretchedly inadequate economic and fiscal policy, going back at least a couple of decades. But continuing population growth clearly exacerbates those deficits.

Resolutely defended

The UK’s Total Fertility Rate has not been above 2.1 children per mother since 1972, but ‘population momentum’ (increase in numbers of births when babies born at peak of population growth reach reproductive age), plus net immigration, has led to a population increase of nearly 10 million people since 1972.

And these challenges can only get worse. We know, as a matter of increasingly painful inevitability, that the lives of tens/hundreds of millions of people (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) will be devastated by the effects of climate change.

We know that many of those people will have no choice but to leave their homes and communities if they are to have any prospect of survival, let alone a better life. And we know that many of them will seek to come to Europe, as the place that offers the best possible refuge in an all-encompassing storm not of their own making.

How can anyone suppose that an ‘open borders’ positioning is an appropriate response to that kind of backdrop? How can most progressives stick to the line that the EU’s principle of ‘freedom of movement’ should be resolutely defended, especially after resurgent right-wing populism has had such a negative impact on elections this year in France, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria?

All I can do, therefore, is to urge all environmentalists to open up their minds again and re-think the whole population/immigration nexus – from a radical, genuinely progressive perspective. 

This Author

Jonathon Porritt is an environmentalist and author.

The Hill, “Russia recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital”, 6 April 2017:

Russia on Thursday publicly recognized West Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel.

The announcement was made in a statement by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that addressed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In the statement, Moscow reaffirmed “support for the two-state solution” while acknowledging that East Jerusalem should be the capital of the future Palestinian state.

“We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state,” the ministry said.

“At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Moscow’s announcement comes as the new U.S. administration is considering moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the city as Israel’s capital.

Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950, but Russia is the first nation to recognize it as such, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Long-standing U.S. policy has called for the status of Jerusalem to be resolved by the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Russia is currently not planning on moving its embassy to the city.

In the statement, Russia maintained that a two-state solution is the best policy for the achieving peace in the region and pledged to focus on ensuring access to Jerusalem “for all believers.”

“Moscow reaffirms its support for the two-state solution as an optimal option that meets the national interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom have friendly relations with Russia, and the interests of all other countries in the region and the international community as a whole,” the ministry said.

“Russia will continue to provide assistance to the achievement of Israeli-Palestinian agreements. We will focus on ensuring free access to Jerusalem’s holy places for all believers.”

Related:

Pinchas Goldschmidt, Chief Rabbi of Moscow, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, the representative of the Russian Jewish community politically as well: Jews are fighting alongside their Muslim brothers against Old Europe.

“Do you like white women? Because have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players.” - Kendell Briles, Baylor College football recruiter, addressing black football prospects.

Washington Post, “Baylor moves to dismiss lawsuit alleging 52 rapes by 31 football players”, 29 March 2017:

Baylor moved Tuesday to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in January filed by a former student who claimed to have been gang-raped by a pair of football players in 2013. In addition, her complaint alleged 52 “acts of rape” committed by the school’s football players between 2011 and 2014.

Those numbers were far higher than the eye-opening figures cited by school regents from the report of an outside law firm, which found that 17 women had reported 19 incidents of sexual or domestic assault by Baylor football players since 2011. However, in its court filing Tuesday, Baylor said it “does not agree with or concede the accuracy of Plaintiff’s 146-paragraph complaint and its immaterial and inflammatory assertions.”

“Baylor moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s assault, failure to investigate, and negligence claims because they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations,” stated the document, filed with a U.S. District Court that includes Baylor’s home of Waco, Tex., in its jurisdiction. The move to dismiss also claimed that the allegations of the woman, referred to as Elizabeth Doe, “do not rise to the level of ‘deliberate indifference.’ ”

Doe alleged in her complaint that on April 18, 2013 — an annual date known as “Diadeloso” (“Day of the Bear”) at Baylor and marked by a lack of classes and an encouragement of social interaction — she was raped by two freshman football players, Tre’Von Armstead and Shamycheal Chatman, and that Baylor ignored the situation. She also claimed that her position as a member of the school’s female recruiting team, called the Baylor Bruins, contributed to the incident.

“Baylor’s recruiting policies and practices, along with the Baylor Bruin football hostess program, directly contributed to the creation of a culture of sexual violence that permeated Baylor and from which Ms. Doe would soon suffer,” the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit also contended that Kendal Briles, a former assistant football coach and son of former head coach Art Briles, told a recruit, “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players.”

[Art Briles says he ‘did not cover up any sexual violence’ at Baylor]

“While broadly and needlessly impugning the integrity of the many female students who honorably participated in the Bruins organization, Plaintiff does not allege that she herself was ever asked by any Baylor official, directly or indirectly, to participate in the ‘good time’ recruiting policy that she claims to have existed,” Baylor said Tuesday, “nor does she claim that her alleged assault occurred in conjunction with any recruiting activity.”

More broadly, the lawsuit claimed that “Baylor football players were responsible for … the most widespread culture of sexual violence and abuse of women ever reported in a collegiate athletic program,” adding, “Baylor football under Briles had run wild, in more ways than one, and Baylor was doing nothing to stop it.”

“Although Baylor appreciates the sensitivity and seriousness of the issue of sexual assault — a fact demonstrated by its voluntary release of the Pepper Hamilton investigation findings in May 2016 — Plaintiff’s inflammatory and immaterial allegations must be disregarded when evaluating whether Plaintiff has stated a claim,” the university said in Tuesday’s filing.

Former Baylor football player Tre’Von Armstead arrested on sexual assault charges.

Armstead and Chatman were arrested last week and indicted in connection with the 2013 incident. Another former Baylor football player, Sam Ukwuachu, had a sexual-assault conviction overturned last week by a Texas appeals court, with the case remanded for retrial. Two other ex-Bears, Tevin Elliott and Shawn Oakman, have been convicted of and indicted on rape charges, respectively, in an ongoing scandal that has cost the jobs of Briles and other senior Baylor officials and spawned numerous lawsuits.

On Friday, lawyers for 10 women (in addition to Doe) who are suing Baylor for its alleged indifference to their rapes by football players filed notice to subpoena materials from Pepper Hamilton’s investigation into the school. “It’s long past time for the truth of how senior administrators discouraged and retaliated against the young women for reporting sexual assault,” Jim Dunnam, one of the lawyers, said Monday (via the Waco Tribune-Herald).

“We’ll never have transparency until they stop saying this was just a football problem,” he added. “Every time they say it is just a football problem is further victimization of the over 100 young women who were wronged that had nothing to do with football.”

Baylor’s Kim Mulkey: “Knock Parents Concerned About Sexual Assault Scandal ‘Right In The Face.”

DeadSpin, “Baylor’s Kim Mulkey: Knock Parents Concerned About Sexual Assault Scandal ‘Right In The Face”, 25 Feb 2017:

Today was senior day for the Baylor women’s basketball team, and rather than spending her time at the mic focused solely on her soon-departing players, head coach Kim Mulkey took a different route.

The storied coach decided to share a few choice words for parents voicing concern over sending their daughters to a place currently being sued for allowing and enabling football players to commit an alleged 52 sexual assaults in four years. Or rather, she shared some instructions for the fans—who cheered her both during and after her speech—telling them that if a parent tells them they won’t let their daughter attend Baylor, they should “knock them right in the face.”

Related Story at MR: Miscegenating female college students.

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration (they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks).

The New Observer, “Netanyahu: Race-mixing to Destroy Liberal Jews”, 3 Dec 2017:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly predicted that racial mixing between liberal Jews and non-Jews will wipe out Reform Judaism in America by 2070—and that as a result, the Jewish ethnostate must prepare itself for survival without being supported by the US.

The comments, first reported by the Hebrew-language Makor Rishon daily newspaper in Israel, have highlighted two important facts: firstly, that Netanyahu is acutely aware of the threat to racial identity posed by racial mixing of any sort; and secondly, that the liberal Jews in America are behind the support that country provides to Israel.

In the original report, Netanyahu said that Reform Judaism—which, according to Pew Center estimates, represented 35 percent of American Jews—“would disappear within two generations due to assimilation.”

The publication of the report in Makor Rishon caused an uproar amongst Jews in America, and Netanyahu’s office issued an oblique denial in a tersely-worded statement which said that the report was “inaccurate and do not reflect the Prime Minister’s views.” It was significant that the statement did not specifically deny using those words, a tactic often employed by politicians as a way of publicly backtracking from comments.

Makor Rishon’s diplomatic correspondent, Ariel Kahana, however, confirmed that Netanyahu repeated the assessment several times in private talks, and that Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, has been heard making similar projections.

According to Kahana’s reports, Netanyahu spoke of the scenario of the demise of Reform Judaism as a threat to Israel, saying the Jewish state needs to prepare for a day when it would no longer enjoy the base of support provided today by the Jewish community in the United States.

As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency pointed out, Netanyahu has been criticized by leaders of Reform Judaism “in the United States and beyond” over his government’s refusal to implement a compromise that enlarges the space devoted to allowing Jewesses to pray at the Western Wall, as well as its support for a bill that would give the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate formal control over conversions—which would further cement Israel’s ban on marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

The JTA makes no reference to the real reason for the split between “left” and “right” wing Jews, namely on how best to present Israel to the outside world.

The JTA also ignored the other elephant in the room—the fact that the Jewish lobby in America and European countries still all support Israel and its racial policies—while vehemently attacking any white people who dare to say that they seek to emulate Israel’s plans to protect itself from being overrun by racial aliens.

Netanyahu’s assessment that liberal Jews in America will disappear due to racial mixing is based on reportedly high intermarriage rates with non-Jews amongst that community.

This is however unlikely to affect the power of the Jewish lobby, because the Conservative and Orthodox branches of American Jewry—together the majority of Jews in the US—still maintain their Jews-only marriage policies, and will not disappear.

In fact, it is precisely the Orthodox Jews who wield such strong influence over the Donald Trump administration, which is proof in itself that the disappearance of Reform Jews will not dramatically affect the power of the Jewish lobby in America.

As the Israeli Haaretz newspaper reported in April 2017, the “New Jewish Elite of the Trump Age” are the “ultra-Orthodox and pro-Israel Hawks.”

Haaretz reported that “among many moves aimed at reversing his predecessor’s policies, President Trump recently decided not to make public the White House visitors logs.

“Had they been open, the lists would reveal the profound change 100 days of a Trump administration had brought about to the Jewish community’s power structure.

“The atmosphere has changed, at least for us. There’s a sense of familiarity and greater receptivity and that makes a better atmosphere,” said Abba Cohen, vice president for federal affairs at Agudath Israel of America, a group representing the ultra-Orthodox stream.”

The real threat to Jewish power in America will only come when—and if—America tips majority nonwhite, because the Jewish Lobby’s power is directly linked to the presence of a majority white electorate—as controlling the electoral choices of a majority nonwhite population will prove much harder to do.

I’ve published this full article by The New Observer in order to allow the article to build up to this last - crucial - paragraph:

“The real threat to Jewish power in America will only come when—and if—America tips majority nonwhite, because the Jewish Lobby’s power is directly linked to the presence of a majority white electorate—as controlling the electoral choices of a majority nonwhite population will prove much harder to do.”

It makes a point, inadvertently in all likelihood, and it is a chief point that Kumiko has become vigilant about - that non-Whites who are aware of the JQ, its power and destruction to ethno-nationalism, are being compelled where they are observant, to oppose White advocacy in general (just as the Jews would have it via controlled reaction to cultural Marxism) because it (right-wing reaction) has become engrafted with Jewry and their agenda. The Alt-Right is no relief from this fact; quite the opposite, it is the ultimate in crypsis as it basically has a quid pro quo relation with Jewry’s right wing position upon its full ascendancy (approximately following the 2008 American housing bust).

And so, while David Duke, KM, TRS, Mark Collett et al. will continue to make excuses for (((Trump’s administration))); some Alt Right tents will bolster their JQ cred by apologetics for Nazi Germany; but generally they will wield the anti-social stigma that Jewry will encourage among Whites; while other tents among their big tent will be in their circuit ready to express their “compassionate side” by running apologetics with and for Lauren Southern, John K. Press, Mike Enoch and Faith Goldy…. in their broader sphere will be Stephan Molyneux, Breitbart, Fox etc.

That is to say, the Alt Right and its perspective against “the left” has been and remains a Jewish trick at the most fundamental, epistemic level of (against) praxis; a trick which non-White and White ethnonationalists alike cannot afford to ignore. For it is the anti-social right, bereft of social accountability in propensity for naturalistic fallacy and unhinged idealism that has precipitated wars catastrophic for everybody except for the ultimate benefit of YKW.

A whistleblower has told House Democrats that eleven minutes into Donald Trump’s inaugural speech, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn [shown inset] was texting a former business associate to say, “we’re going to rip-up those (Russian) sanctions and a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.” Flynn specified that their private nuclear proposal which Flynn had lobbied for would have his support in the White House.

TampaBayTimes, “Whistleblower: Flynn texts broached nuclear plan, sanctions”, 6 Dec 2017:

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Donald Trump delivered his presidential inaugural address last January, his national security adviser Michael Flynn told a former business associate in text messages that a private plan to build nuclear reactors in the Mideast was “good to go” and that U.S. sanctions hobbling the plan would soon be “ripped up,” a whistleblower told congressional investigators.

The witness did not specify which sanctions Flynn was referring to in his texts. But the nuclear project that Flynn and his business associate had worked on together was stymied by U.S. financial sanctions on Russia.

The witness’s account, made public Wednesday by the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, raises new concerns about the extent to which Flynn may have blurred his private and public interests during his brief stint inside the White House.

Trump fired Flynn in February, saying he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, pleaded guilty in federal court last week to one count of making false statements to the FBI and is now a cooperating witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russian intermediaries during the 2016 election.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Wednesday the whistleblower’s allegations raise concerns that Flynn improperly aided the nuclear project after joining the White House as one of Trump’s top national security officials. The project has yet to get off the ground.

Cummings detailed the whistleblower’s allegations in a letter to committee chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and urged Gowdy to authorize subpoenas to Flynn and his business associates to learn more about his efforts.

In a reply late Wednesday, Gowdy said he had shared Cummings’ letter with Rep. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman and ranking Democrat heading the House intelligence committee inquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Gowdy spurned Cummings’ request for subpoenas, echoing his replies to previous Cummings subpoena requests.

“If you have evidence of a crime, you should provide it to the Special Counsel immediately,” Gowdy wrote.

Flynn had been a paid consultant for the venture before he joined the Trump campaign last year. The plan, backed by a group of investors, nuclear power adherents and former U.S. military officers, was to construct dozens of nuclear reactors across the Mideast with aid from Russian and other international private interests.

House Democrats noted that a federal ethics law requires White House officials to refrain for a year from dealing with any outside interests they had previously worked with on private business.

“Our committee has credible allegations that President Trump’s national security adviser sought to manipulate the course of international nuclear policy for the financial gain of his former business partners,” Cummings said.

The whistleblower told House Democrats that while Trump spoke in January, Flynn texted from the Capitol steps to Alex Copson, the managing director of ACU Strategic Partners and the nuclear project’s main promoter. The whistleblower, whose identity was not revealed in Cummings’ letter, said that during a conversation, Copson described his messages with Flynn and briefly flashed one of the texts, which appeared to have been sent 10 minutes after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Mike has been putting everything in place for us,” Copson said, according to the whistleblower. Copson added that “this is going to make a lot of very wealthy people.” The whistleblower also said that Copson intimated that Flynn would ensure that U.S. financial sanctions hobbling the nuclear project were going to be “ripped up,” allowing investment money to start flowing into the project.

Attorneys for Flynn and Copson did not immediately return email and phone requests for comment. White House lawyer Ty Cobb declined to comment on the allegation.

In Flynn’s plea agreement last week, prosecutors said he lied to FBI agents about his discussions on sanctions against Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition.

Copson had promoted a succession of nuclear projects designed to include Russian participation dating back to the 1990s. In an earlier note to the committee, Copson said his firm had provided Flynn with a $25,000 check — left uncashed — and paid for Flynn’s June 2015 trip to the Mideast as a security consultant for the project.

Flynn’s financial disclosure did not cite those payments, but he did report that until December 2016, he worked as an adviser to two other companies that partnered with Copson’s firm. That consortium, X-Co Dynamics Inc. and Iron Bridge Group, initially worked with ACU but later pushed a separate nuclear proposal for the Mideast.

___

Associated Press writers Chad Day and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

NewsWeek, “Flynn’s Secret Text Messages Show Trump Colluded With Russia, Experts Say”, 6 Dec 2017:

Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business partner that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as soon as Donald Trump took office, according to an anonymous whistleblower.

The revelation is the latest evidence suggesting the Trump campaign may have agreed to help Russia in exchange for Russia’s help getting Trump elected president, experts say.

Special counsel Robert Mueller had already secured Flynn’s cooperation in his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, and Wednesday’s revelation publicly provides new evidence that will embolden Trump critics, experts say.

“It won’t come as a surprise to the special counsel, but it reveals to the public that there was something in the nature of an exchange or quid pro quo,” Lisa Griffin, a law professor at Duke University, told Newsweek.

“There are at least four potential avenues of criminality that the special counsel and others are exploring, and this provides more circumstantial evidence,” Griffin continued. “This might be relevant to the possibility of a bribery case, or assistance with the campaign that was done in exchange for what the Russians want most: the easing of sanctions.”

Whistleblower: Flynn was doing private Russia-related business on his phone during Trump’s inauguration speech https://lnkd.in/d2STwWp
7:52 PM - Dec 6, 2017

Flynn Was Conducting Private Russia-Related Business on His Phone During Trump’s Inauguration Speech, Whistleblower Tells Congress.

Flynn pleaded guilty last week to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador at the time, including speaking with him about U.S. sanctions against Russia. Flynn is known to have maintained close business ties with people in Russia and Turkey.

According to the whistleblower, Flynn also wanted U.S. sanctions against Russia lifted in order to complete an international energy project he was working on. The whistleblower said Flynn texted his former business associate on the day of Trump’s inauguration to say that the project was “good to go.”

The information was given to Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who published an open letter on Wednesday to the committee’s chairman, Trey Gowdy, explaining the revelations.

“General Michael Flynn—within minutes of Donald Trump being sworn in as president—was communicating directly with his former business colleagues about their plans to work with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East,” the letter reads.

“Our committee has credible allegations that President Trump’s national security advisor sought to manipulate the course of international nuclear policy for the
financial gain of his former business partners,” Cummings continued. “These grave allegations compel a full, credible and bipartisan congressional investigation.”

Flynn Was Conducting Private Russia-Related Business on His Phone During Trump’s Inauguration Speech, Whistleblower Tells Congress.

The revelation is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to date that the Trump administration wanted to cancel U.S. sanctions against Russia, and it sheds light on why Flynn originally lied about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, a former Watergate prosecutor says.

READ MORE...