The Preface:

While Federal investigations may have trouble finding specific quid-pro-quos in Russia’s bribing Hillary Clinton, it is now clear that all the key high level Obama administration officials(especially Clinton) knew, as early as 2009, that the Russian government entity ROSATOM’s subsidiaries were actively committing a vast criminal “nuclear kickback” conspiracy in the United States.

New reports have raised legitimate questions about the clear failure of the Obama Administration to inform the CFIUS Federal governmental board, the body that approved the 2010 UraniumOne sale to a Russian controlled corporation, of the Russian “nuclear kickback” case.  However, the more dramatic failure of the Obama Administration was its purposeful neglect in informing Congress of the ROSATOM’s “nuclear kickback” crimes during the ratification hearings for the 2010-11 Russian-American New START nuclear arms treaty.

In effect, Putin bribed Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, in a 2-for-1 corruption scandal.  He bought the UraniumOne approval and the New START Treaty ratification with the same Clinton Foundation bribe.  The problem for the all former high level national security Obama Administration officials is that under 18 U.S.C. 1505 it is a federal felony to obstruct or impede either a Congressional “inquiry or investigation” or a “pending proceeding” before a “federal department” due to corruption. Therefore, the Obama Administration’s 2009 failure to properly and fully inform the Senate, and the CFIUS board of ROSATOM’s criminal enterprise in the United States is a big, severe felony crime.

The Factual Background:

There is currently ample open-source evidence to conclude that all the key National Security officials in the Obama Administration (especially Sec of State Clinton) knew as early as 2009 that Vadm Mikerin, a Russian national, and his “higher officials” Moscow backers, were engaged in a vast criminal conspiracy relating to “nuclear kickbacks” and felony violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act.  Mikerin was a big-wig in ROSATOM.  In 2015, Mikerin pled guilty to the “criminal money laundering conspiracy involving violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” and was sent to Federal Prison for 4 years.

According to its website, ROSATOM is the Russian  “State Atomic Energy Corporation.”   The ROSATOM webite continues to state, “ROSATOM is a proponent of the uniform national policy and best management practices in nuclear power utilization, the nuclear weapons industry, and nuclear safety.”

Did you get that?  ROSATOM a “proponent of the uniform national policy” of the Russian “nuclear weapons industry.”  In the United States, Mikerin set up and ran Tenam which was a subsidiary of Tenex ROSATOM’s foreign trade arm.  So, in 2009 and 2010, Sec. of State Clinton and the entire Obama national security team intentionally and knowingly withheld time-sensitive national security information about the Russian key nuclear-arms corporation while the UraniumOne and New Start treaty were being evaluated by the United States Senate and CFIUS board.

The “Obstruction of Congress” Statute:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Let’s analyze the statute:
I. Whoever

II. A. corruptly, or B. by threats or C. force, or D. by any threatening letter or communication

III. A. influences, B. obstructs, or  C. impedes or D. endeavors to  1. influence, 2. obstruct, or 3. impede

IV. A.1. the due and proper administration of the law under which  2. any pending proceeding is being had  3. before any department or agency of the United States, or

B. 1. the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by  a.  either House, orb. any committee of either House orc. any joint committee of the Congress

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years (not more than 8 years if the offense involves domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Additionally, for the definition of “corrupt” we need to look at the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), which criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official’s duty.

Brief Legal Analysis:

First, the CFIUS board evaluating the UraniumOne sale to the ROSATOM subsidiary was clearly “a pending proceeding” “being had before a department or agency of the United States.”

And, the US Senate’s and even the House of Representatives’ evaluation of the UraniumOne sale and especially of the ratification of the New Start Treaty were clearly a “due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry” “being had” by “either House, or any committee of either House.”

Secondly, the withholding of the information of  ROSATOM’s “nuclear kickback” conspiracy from both the CFIUS board and the Congress clearly “impeded,” and “obstructed” the “inquiry or investigation” of both the CFIUS board and Congress with respect to UraniumOne and the Congress with respect to the New START Treaty.

Thirdly, the Obama administration officials clearly “corruptly” engaged in these actions because , at a minimum, the intentional failure of the Obama national security officials to inform CFIUS and the Congress was, under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) “corrupt” because they were clearly actions where the “commission or omission of” the acts were “in violation of the official’s duty.”

Their “Defense” will only sink them further:

A likely defense by the Obama national security officials will be “we withheld the information because if we had divulged the information, CFIUS and Congress would never have let the UraniumOne sale or the New START Treaty pass.”  All they will have proven with this crazy defense is how relevant and vital the information was, and how critical it was to timely inform the FIUS and Congressional Committee’s of the information in the first place.

In short, and in conclusion, the Obama national security team should lawyer-up because they are looking at massive criminal claims coming their way.

A wise man once said, “Before starting a gunfight, count your bullets.”  So, with everyone talking about “military options” in North Korea, it’s instructive to ask what US military options exist.  Or more specifically, to find out the number of the only state-of-the-art conventional “bullets” that would really count in a military conflict with North Korea: Tomahawk missiles.

Then, let’s calculate how Tomahawk missiles stack up against America’s standard B61 nuclear bombs.  Former President Obama’s real “legacy” to the United States is that not only did he empower and enable a nuclear North Korea and soon-to-be nuclear Iran, he also insured the United States become conventionally powerless to militarily stop these nuclear-bomb rogues no matter who became president. As a result, it may very well be that President Trump has to use America’s nukes against North Korea or accept North Korea nuclear-tipped ICBMs ranged against the entire continental United States.

First, various open-source articles approximate America’s world-wide inventory of Tomahawk missiles to be about 4,000 missiles.  That might seem like a lot except America can’t use its entire arsenal of Tomahawks on North Korea, and leave all other defensive theaters without Tomahawks.  , Dedicating a sensible third of the inventory to a North Korea attack leaves only 1,300 missiles.  However, the sobering fact is the first day of the Gulf War, America used 900 Tomahawks and there’s no one who believes a conventional North Korean attack will be a 1 and a one-third day war.  So, on numbers alone, the Tomahawks are a bankrupt conventional option.

The compounded problem in addition  to the low inventory is the fact that despite the 59 Tomahawks President Trump sent against Assad after Assad’s chemical massacre, the attacked air base was up and running a couple of days later.  If the Syrian failure is any indication, Tomahawks will likely prove relatively worthless in really stopping the 12,000 pieces of North Korean tube artillery ranging from 122 to 170 millimeters and its 2,300 pieces of multiple rocket launch of over 107-millimeters.

Once the Tomahawk inventory is spent, the US will be forced to send manned bombers in, a scenario where the risks of capture of US POWs becomes astronomical.

Further, once a North Korean war drags on, the likelihood of Russian or Chinese pro-North intervention escalates, making a conventional attack with 1,300 or even 2,000 Tomahawks have a protracted and unclear end-game.

Now, let’s compare the TNT explosive warhead of the Tomahawk to TNT explosive impact of one B61 nuclear bomb.  A B61 nuclear bomb can be calibrated to produce varying explosive effect.  A B61 can produce 0.3 kilotons of TNT explosive effect on the low side, and can be ratcheted up to 340 kilotons of TNT on the high side.  The Little Boy Hiroshima nuclear bomb used against Japan in World War 2 had approximately 15 kilotons of TNT explosive effect.  So, a B61 programmed to 0.3 kilotons is basically about 1/50 of a Hiroshima-type bomb.  What’s so bad about a toy-nuke bomb that is 50 times weaker than Hiroshima’s?   And, using the high-end of 340 kilotons of TNT, that id about 23 Hiroshima bombs.  Now, that’s a serious bomb.

The real comparison of the B61 isn’t comparing its TNT equivalent to Hiroshima’s Little Boy, but its TNT comparison to the Tomahawk.  Thanks to Obama’s “Treaty” with Russia’s Putin, Obama de-nuclearized the Tomahawk, so the Tomahawk is purely a conventional missile.  And, the Tomahawk only carries 1000 pounds of TNT, and a tonis 2000 pounds.  So, each Tomahawk can only carry one-half of a ton or .5 tons of TNT.

Now, a “megaton” is 1000 tons. So, a B61 on the low-side is equal to 300 tons of TNT.  A simple calculation comparing the Tomahawk to the B61 means the one B61 is equivalent to 600 Tomahawks.  We dropped 900 Tomahawks on Iraq in one day. What’s the moral difference between dropping 900 Tomahawks in one day or one or two B61 – equivalents of 600 Tomahawks each – in one day.  Of course, we’re assuming the American engineers did their work and built bombs that have little nuclear residue.

And, on the high-side, one B61 producing 340 kilotons, or 340,000 tons of TNT is equal to 680,000 Tomahawks. Now, again, that’s a serious bomb.

But the B61’s real kicker advantage isn’t just the effectiveness of its TNT equivalent, but its cost. Each Tomahawk costs about 2 million dollars. So, as a reference, Trump’s 59 Tomahawk strike on Syria cost American taxpayers 120 million dollars, and the Assad airfield was up and running a few days later. Again, on the B61’s low-side of 0.3 kilotons or 300 tons, a B61 is worth $1.2 Billion dollars worth of the Tomahawk’s TNT. So, dollar for dollar a pair of B61s will wipe out North Korea at a fraction of the cost of the Tomahawk. On the B61’s high-side, the dollar equivalent would break the American bank at an astounding $1.360 trillion dollars worth of Tomahawk TNT.

Any war with North Korea had better be fast, cheap, and a decisive victory for America, or the American public will turn on President Trump. Looking at the options, it looks like either we use our power to win, or we will lose big-time to North Korea, and all the other nuclear armed-dictators coming down the road.

We are living in a sick,news world, not a “fake news” world.  Two of the largest pillars of the American established news media, the New York Times and the Cable News Network (CNN) just happened to omit the central point of US Secretary of Defense James Mattis’,explicit comments during his trip to Afghanistan.

He said that Russia and Iran were arming the Taliban in Afghanistan.  The Wall Street Journal ]reported Mattis’ comments accurately, publicizing the declaration referring to Iran and Russia arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, “Those two countries [Russia and Iran] have suffered losses to terrorism, so I think it would be extremely unwise if they think they can somehow support terrorism in another country and not have it come back to haunt them.”

We are living in a truly ‘sick news’ world in which the NYT and CNN, due to some bizarre-world political slant, fail to report that the US Defense Secretary has openly accused Russia and Iran of actively helping murder our troops in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a new Iranian ‘malign’ development.  In fact,as Yogi Berra would say: With the US in Afghanistan, it’s the US Iraqi Military Catastrophe Groundhog Day all over again.  In Iraq from 2004-2010, Iran, the ultimate terror-state, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad (the same genocidal-psychopath that’s still there), armed the Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq to murder thousands of US soldiers and all the while Presidents Bush, and Obama, and the US military did absolutely nothing to stop them.

After the US spent 3 trillion dollars in Iraq, and lost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands wounded and disfigured, Iran has taken over Iraq, and treats it like the Iranian vassal it is.  Now Iran is doing in Afghanistan what it did to the US in Iraq, and no one is doing anything to stop them.

One may well ask, “Langfan, where’s your proof?”

On April 24, 2014, over three years ago, I wrote an essay entitled “Assad’s al Qaeda Murdered 1,770 US Soldiers in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad’s hands are indelibly coated with the blood of precious US soldiers.”

In the essay, I wrote, “the one person in the world who most directly knows that Bashar al-Assad knowingly funneled al Qaeda terrorist murderers into Iraq through Syria, was none other than the Syrian Ambassador to Iraq after and during the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, Nawaf Fares.  And, Nawaf Fares, who defected in July 2012, stated in a Telegraph interview that, ‘after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the regime in Syria [Assad] began to feel danger, and began planning to disrupt the US forces inside Iraq, so it [Assad] formed an alliance with al-Qaeda.. All Arabs and other foreigners were encouraged to go to Iraq via Syria, and their movements were facilitated by the Syrian government.  As a governor at the time, I [Fares] was given verbal commandments that any civil servant that wanted to go would have his trip facilitated, and his absence would not be noted.  I believe the Syrian regime [Assad] has blood on its hands, it should bear responsibility for the many deaths in Iraq.’”

And as if that isn’t proof enough, only two years ago in 2015, the current Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, then the then-nominated-Joint Chiefs-Chairman, testified in front of Congress that Iran was directly responsible for 500 murders of our precious US troops in Iraq.  On July 14, 2015, Military Times reported that “the startling number emerged last week as Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Army veteran who served as an infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressed the issue at a confirmation hearing for Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who is Obama’s nominee to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

“Senator,” Dunford responded, “I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. We weren’t always able to attribute the casualties we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity even though we didn’t necessarily have the forensics to support that.”

The Defense Department does not specifically track casualties linked to Iran. The 500 estimate is a ballpark figure based on intelligence assessments, according to a Pentagon official familiar with Dunford’s remarks.”How were our soldiers in Iraq ‘killed by Iranian activities’”?  Through Syria with Bashar al-Assad’s full participation.

But again, we are sitting, watching, and doing nothing while Iran, and, now Russia, help murder our precious US soldiers in Afghanistan; and the New York Times and CNN  aid and abet the forces of evil to commit wanton murder because they don’t want to report Iran’s murderous and terrorist activities.  They’re even willing to omit their favorite bête-noire du jour, the “evil-empire Russia,” from their reporting if it protects their beloved Iranian terror state and the nuclear deal Obama made with it.

The ultimate fake news is the New York Times’ motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print;” and CNN’s motto,“Go There – This is CNN – The Most Trusted Name in News.”

On Friday August 11, 2017, President Trump, having apparently been incorrectly advised by the vaunted US intelligence community that North Korea was cowering in the face his “fire and fury” comment, crowed, “‘Let me hear Kim Jong Un say it – he hasn’t been saying much’.”

Surprise, surprise. On September 3, 2017, Kim set off a test thermonuclear bomb originally pegged at a 100 kilotons blast, but later estimated by US intelligence as much larger than 100 kilotons. For the record, even a 100-kiloton nuclear blast is about 7 times the power of the Hiroshima’s gun-type uranium-235 15 kiloton Little Boy nuclear bomb, and 5 times more powerful of the Nagasaki implosion-type plutonium 21-kiloton Fat Man nuclear bomb.

To top things off, around September 11, 2017, the Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, which is North Korea’s official propaganda arm stated, “The four islands of the [Japanese] archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us.”

The word “Juche” translates from the Korean to mean “self-reliance,” and it is North Korea’s ruling ideology that is a blend of Marxism and hyper-nationalism.  Think of North Korea a transnational genetic ideological cross between Stalinist-Communism and Hitleresque-Nazism.  This “Japan should disappear by nuke” threat was then followed by an actual North Korean statement that “Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now.”

Apparently, Kim heard President Trump’s 11 August request for a personal and direct North Korean threat, and Kim delivered not one, but many explicit nuclear threats to the US homeland and US allies. Then, to add some comedy, a rather unimposing, meek bespoke-dressed US National Security Advisor McMaster then firmly stated “There is a military option.”  McMasters’ feckless statement weakened America’s already existing stance because wasn’t there already supposed to be “all options on the table,” that supposedly includes the “military option”?

Net-net, the real questions are two-fold:

1) Militarily, what “military option” actually exists?;

and

2) Politically, what “military option” actually exists that a) will not expose US troops to extensive casualties that will doom a Trump 2020 re-election bid, and b) will also make President Trump look like a immediate clean “winner.”

There really is only one answer: a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea.  And the simple rationale for such a pre-emptive nuclear attack is that 2017 North Korea presents a greater “clear and present danger” to the United States mainland than 1945 Japan presented.  And, since President Truman’s dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 was perfectly legitimate, certainly President Trump’s pre-emptive dropping of nuclear bombs on 2017 North Korea would be perfectly 100% legitimate.

Firstly, would a President Trump pre-emptive nuclear attack on North Korea be legal under the US Constitution, and additionally under international law?  Historically, from 1950 through 1953, President Truman dubbed the Korean conflict a “police action” under United Nations’ aegis and never sought a declaration of war from the US Congress.  And, while an “armistice” was signed, the armistice by its very terms was not a peace agreement, nor was “The United States of America” actually even an actual “Party” signatory to Korean Armistice. The Armistice Preamble, in fact, explicitly limited the Armistice agreement where “said conditions and terms are intended to be purely military in character.”  If the Armistice’s “conditions and terms” are “purely military,” then the Armistice is not a final political settlement binding the parties to peace.

Further, one could easily argue that North Korea has already violated article 6 of the Armistice that states: “6. Neither side shall execute any hostile act within, from, or against the demilitarized zone.”  North Korea’s nuclear tests on the Peninsula itself, its missile launches in all directions, and its bellicose statements clearly constitute grave “hostile acts” “against the demilitarized zone” and the entire region.

Critically, for over 65 years, without a US Congressional “Declaration of War,” successive US Congresses have unlimitedly allocated billions of dollars to the original and continued deployment of US troops to South Korea.  So, in effect, the US Congress has repeatedly sanctioned, by way of the purse, the full panoply of US war powers in Korea to the all the successive US Presidents as Commander-in-Chief including President Trump.

Hence, if President Truman had the legal constitutional authority without a Congressional Declaration of War to send 36,574 US troops to their death with an additional 103,284 wounded with 7,926 missing in action, and with 4,714 taken as prisoners fighting in Korea between 1950-1953, President Trump has full legal authority to send several decapitating nuclear bombs against North Korea to protect both the 30,000 US soldiers now deployed in South Korea as well as the threat to the United States homeland.

Secondly, as a “clear and present danger” to the United States homeland in 2017, North Korea is many orders of magnitude a “clearer” and infinitely more “present” danger than Japan ever was to the US mainland during the entire World War Two, let alone in 1945 when the Japanese military had already been militarily and economically decimated.  I will enumerate just an abridged short list of the catastrophic threats North Korea immediately presents to the United States security.

North Korea has clearly miniaturized a nuclear bomb with an over 100 kiloton warhead and has the missile delivery capability to deliver such a bomb certainly against the South Korea and Japan, if not to American territory itself.

As Major Miller USAF posited in 2005, and I related in a 2013 article, such a North Korean nuclear tipped missile can be used as a tactical EMP “leveling the playing field weapon” against the South where the North could effect a EMP blitzkrieg and capture 30,000 living US Prisoners of war checkmating any US President from responding at all, let alone with nuclear weapons.  Therefore, North Korea has a highly reliable and effective rational military trump card against the nuclear deterrence theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.  MAD theory never countenanced the possibility of a “rational actor’s” rational use of tactical nuclear EMP to capture 30,000 living US soldiers as hostages so as to pre-empt any nuclear retaliation by the US.

North Korea presents an immediate threat against the US homeland with such weapons.  And, in North Korea, China and Russia have a perfect useful idiot nuclear “proxy” that they can claim they have no control over.  Again, this “nuclear-proxy” variant scenario renders MAD a useless prophylactic against a North Korean attack because is the United States going to consider a nuclear attack by North Korea as an attack by Russia and/or by China so as to obliterate both Russia and China if North Korea fires a nuke?  Of course not!

Then, what exactly would an American annihilation attack against just North Korea destroy anyway?  There’s practically nothing there now.  Mutually Assured Destruction theory only works if there is not only “mutual destruction” but also, comparatively equal destruction between all the involved parties.  So, the United States trading nuclear destruction missiles with North Korea isn’t true mutually assured destruction, it’s only the “Act One” destruction of the United States and destruction of the nothing country of North Korea, leaving Russia and China completely unscathed for an “Act Two.”
In fact, an Act One nuclear exchange between the United States and North Korea might even put the United States into such a weakened strategic position in Act Two that fully-nuclear-armed and untouched Russia or China could then effectively threaten secondary follow-on Act Three nuclear attacks on an already severely crippled United States.
Of course, then, there’s the certainty that Iran has already bought the nuclear technology and bomb from North Korea.  Perversely, former President Obama gave Iran 150 billion dollars and a huge slice went to North Korea to fund its breakout testing of nuclear bombs and missiles.  Be sure, whatever North Korea has, Iran already has, or will soon have.

Every minute the North is allowed to continue to exist exponentially increases the probability that the North Korea has already transferred the nuclear bomb to Iran.  Obama’s billions to Iran and his dropping of the sanctions rendered all the sanctions against North Korea a nullity.  Iran can fund North Korea from a fraction of the 150 billions, and its newly-de-sanctioned oil exports.

In short, if President Truman found 1945 Japan to be of such “clear and present danger” to the United States so as to enable and necessitate the use of nuclear weapons against 1945 Japan, President Trump clearly can find 2017 North Korea to be an even greater danger enabling and necessitating the use of nuclear weapons against 2017 North Korea.  And, the sooner President Trump acts, the better.

The self-hating American Jewish organization J Street, and its director Jeremy Ben-Ami, have attacked President Trump as being “an obstacle to peace.” President Trump isn’t an obstacle to peace, he’s the only thing standing between Israel and the US governmental Deep State which would not mind seeing Israel wiped off the face of the planet. Ben-Ami further attacked the State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert asserting she “displayed dangerous ignorance about the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what it will take to end it.”

How did Ms. Nauert display “ignorance” according to Ben-Ami? Ben Ami attacked Ms. Nauert because she wouldn’t officially “endorse” the Two-State solution, J Street’s central policy. The American Jewish Left is now attacking the Trump Administration because it appears not to be actively forcing Israel into the 1967 Auschwitz borders.. J Street’s attack on Trump only proves two things: 1) J Street ‘s agenda is the destruction of Israel, and 2) that President Trump may be on the right track of protecting Israel from a Two-State annihilation.

First, Ben Ami’s declaration that President Trump is “an obstacle to peace” is not a badge of dishonor, but a crown of holiness. Why? Because, up to now, the Israeli and American Leftists two-staters have called Israel’s ‘settlers,’ Israel’s greatest heroes, “obstacles to peace.” Israel’s settlers are Israel’s greatest heroes because they have put their bodies and their family’s lives on the line to protect Israel from a ‘West Bank’ Palestinian State that would rain katyusha rockets into the highly and densely populated Tel Aviv-Hadera Sharon Coastal Plain.

Israel’s ‘settlers’ have endured Israeli Leftist attacks and Palestinian terrorist murders to protect the Nation of Israel. The fact that many Israelis don’t understand the ‘West Bank’s vital military value to Tel Aviv doesn’t mean Israel’s ‘settlers’ aren’t heroes. It only proves the Jews living in Judea and Samaria are modern-day super-heroes for enduring the vile attacks from their fellow Jews while they sacrifice everything for the greater good. Hence, for President Trump to be called an “obstacle to peace” by the Jewish Left is medal of supreme greatness.

As for Ms. Nauert being “ignorant” of the Middle East, it is the Israeli generals who oversaw the idiotic retreat from Gaza who are ignorant, along with the coterie of left-wing Israeli politicians who authorized that so-called “Disengagement from Gaza.”  Even Gen. Gershon Hacohen, the Israeli general who oversaw that 2005 Gaza retreat, now admits that  “The disengagement was a strategic laboratory experiment, one which worsened the security situation.”   Arutz Sheva further reported, that “Hacohen called for lessons to be drawn from the failed plan and noted that a similar withdrawal from Judea and Samaria was as dangerous as the withdrawal from Gush Katif.”

A “failed” “strategic experiment”?  Between 2001 and 2005, there were hundreds of rocket and mortar attacks on pre-1967 Israel from the Gaza Strip.  Any moron, let alone rational military general, could have figured out that when Israel unilaterally retreated from Gaza without any agreement in 2005, there would an escalation of the rocket attacks into Israel.  Instead of the Israeli Left-wing understanding the reality and danger of the Gaza rockets, they deluded themselves into the group-think that everything would be just fine.  Israeli left-wing politicians should be put on trial for their 2005 Gaza Disengagement lunacy.  Instead, they are voted in as Knesset members, and allowed to continue to ply their national-suicidal plans.

It’s only because the land around the Gaza Strip is sparsely populated and the Jews in the south relatively poor that the Palestinians are allowed to rocket them.  If those same rockets hit the wealthy areas of Tel Aviv, the “West Bank” Palestinians would be destroyed, and the whole world would accuse Israel of war crimes at the Hague.  That is until the United Nations fielded a “peace-keeping” force to protect the “West Bank” Palestinians while the Palestinians lobbed the Katyushas over their heads into Tel Aviv.

Ben Ami is either totally ignorant of the reality of Palestinian Gaza rockets hitting Israel, and the obvious analogous danger to Tel Aviv, or Ben Ami wants the same Gaza type rockets to be smuggled into the ‘West Bank’ and fired into Tel Aviv.  Let’s agree, for the sake of this discussion, that Ben Ami isn’t ignorant of the Gaza rockets.  That means Ben Ami, a leftist American Jew, sitting all protected and safe in America, wants the Palestinians to be able to fire rockets from the ‘West Bank’ Palestinian state into Tel Aviv.  In such case, J Street and Ben Ami are self-hating Jewish enemies of the Israel and the Jewish people.

In conclusion, J Street and Ben Ami’s attacks against President Trump are badges of highest honor for President Trump.  For, there can be no higher honor for anyone than to be placed in the same class as the brave and heroic Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria who are, at this very moment, protecting the Jewish people with their own bodies and their own families.  In fact, it’s fair to say they we all are praying that President Trump becomes as great a hero to Israel as the ‘settlers’ are heroes to Israel.

Make no mistake.  This isn’t a local American-Israeli Jewish dispute over a section of the Western Wall or conversion rights.  This is an all-out assault on the security of the nation of Israel by Israeli and American leftists who want to destroy the Netanyahu right-of-center government and impose a two-state solution on the Jews of Israel.