The Final Leaked TPP Text is All That We Feared

 Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

Jeremy Malcolm

Today’s release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.

Since we now have the agreed text, we’ll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text. Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published by Wikileaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you’re looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that’s how it’s meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties’ flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-andtakedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada’s notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada’s case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile’s system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials”.

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

  • The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
  • A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or “buffer” copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.


Hollywood-Washington Anti-Gunners Promote Gun Violence!

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

In light of the violence across America where a criminal uses a weapon to commit a crime, it is of interest to take note of the blatant hypocrisy of those who are to serve the people.  This happens when they attempt to try and do a disservice by asking those they serve to do the opposite of what it is that they do (Matthew 23:3).  What am I talking about?

Recently, the “people’s pope” was in America attempting to perpetuate a global anti-gun propaganda. What does the pope have to do with guns you might ask? Well, that’s exactly my point. Nothing!

Aside of the obvious, Pope Francis is the one who said people who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian.

Yet, I noticed that he had 18 armed, gun-toting secret service members protecting him from the people that he is to serve, along with bulletproof glass on his car. Funny, I never read where Jesus did that when serving the people.

What of the current President, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro?

Barry cries out the plea for necessity whenever a criminal pulls the trigger.  He says that he wants to keep America safe.  Therefore, he wants to get rid of the guns! How does he want to do that? He wants to disarm you. This is also the same man who voted 242 times to make sure babies are murdered in the womb.

He does this while he has 25 armed, gun-toting secret service in view when he goes out in public to protect himself from the people that he is to serve.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Since when is it government’s business to attempt to strip the rights of the American people away from them? It is not. Neither do they have the constitutional authority to do so.

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Apparently, these Washington anti-American, anti-gunner politicians have not read the Bill of Rights.

If these politicians cannot get you off the Bill of Rights, then what they attempt to do is to get you asking the wrong questions to create an unlawful debate. This debate is designed to gut the pith and marrow out of your God-given right.

Let’s set that record straight.

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” –John F. Kennedy

The United Nations would have you believe that they exist to keep the peace.  However, if you take the time to pull the cover off of them (Luke 12:2), you will see the peace they mean to keep is through bearing arms to control the people. A pistol with a knotted snubbed nose in front of the UN headquarters in New York shows you their hypocrisy.  Guards are within its walls protecting the workers within with, guess what? Guns!

UN Police

Why are the above said in concert attempting to disarm Americans? (Isaiah 28:15)

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

There is only one reason that they want to disarm America!

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

As our forefather replied:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

So, let me ask you, who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers?


Scientists: Genetically Modified Humans Can Fight Climate Change

Genetically modified humans

By Patrick Wood | Technocracy News

It was just a matter of time before Eugenics met Climate Change. Even if it sounds like science fiction and absurd speculation, the discussion is taking place now in scientific circles.

In fact, this is the ultimate application of science to the human condition. For instance, designer babies might be genetically engineered to be smaller as adults: This would proportionally reduce their carbon footprint.

Or genes might be inserted to improve night vision. That would allow nighttime lighting requirements to be reduced, thus saving boatloads of energy and reducing carbon.

Other ideas are increased body hair could keep you warm in the winter to save on heating oil and less intelligence so you wouldn’t be so tempted to be greedy and over-consume earth’s resources. Well of course: Everyone knows that simple-minded people don’t have strong materialistic aspirations.

Somebody might even get the idea to combine all these traits at once to suggest the ideal human design to fight climate change: short, hairy, simple-minded with cat-like eyes to see better at night than in the daytime. Can you imagine a world full of Ewoks?


This stuff is so disturbing that even the United Nations – the global home of climate-change religion – is warning against it. Apparently, people at the U.N. are tracking this discussion and are alarmed.  In a recent press release, the U.N. stated,

5 October 2015 – Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics.

While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications.

“Gene therapy could be a watershed in the history of medicine and genome editing is unquestionably one of the most promising undertakings of science for the sake of all humankind,” the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said in anews release on a report by its International Bioethics Committee (IBC).

But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics,” it said.

This is not the first time that a UN body has raised such concerns. In 2010, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said that “as we develop technologies that enable us to make life-or-death decisions, we need a shared, value-based approach to what are fundamentally moral questions.”

In 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan questioned whether such processes might promote a world dominated by eugenics like that imagined by Aldous Huxley in the novel Brave New World.

“The greatest fear is that we may be trying to ‘play God,’ with unforeseeable consequences, in the end precipitating our own destruction,” Mr. Annan warned then, asking whether the dangers outweigh the benefits and where the line should be drawn between what is feasible and what is desirable or ethical.

In today’s report IBC, comprising scientists, philosophers, lawyers and government ministers, noted that recent advances have opened the door to genetic screening and testing for inherited diseases, gene therapy, the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research and the possibility of cloning and genetic “editing” for both medical and non-medical ends.

It noted that scientists and bioethicists are calling for a wider public debate about the power of science to modify genetically human embryos in the laboratory, so as to control inherited traits, such as appearance and intelligence.

A new genome “editing” technique called CRISPR-Cas9 makes it possible for scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA simply and efficiently, IBC added. It holds out the prospect of treating or even curing certain illnesses, such as sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and some cancers. But germline editing can also make changes to DNA, such as determining a baby’s eye colour, easier for scientists working with human embryos, eggs and sperm.

The report also cautions against the hidden danger of do-it-yourself genetic testing, saying that consumers who tested their own DNA using so-called Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) kits bought online, needed professional genetic and medical counselling to understand and act on the results. It called for clear regulations and information for consumers about such tests.

UNESCO member States adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in 2005 to deal with ethical issues raised by rapid changes in medicine, life sciences and technology. It states lists the human genome as part of the heritage of humanity, outlining rules that need to be observed to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

However, methinks the lady doth protest too much. The U.N.’s dream of Sustainable Development is precisely a Brave New World. As Aldous Huxley penned that book in 1932, he was looking straight in to the face of the Technocracy movement that was sweeping both the U.S. and Germany.

Even though Huxley well-understood Scientific Dictatorship when he saw it, I expect that even he would agree that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.




Patrick Wood is an author and lecturer on elite globalization policies since the late 1970s. He is co-author with the late Antony C. Sutton of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. His latest book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, focuses on the role of science and technology in the quest for global domination, and the elite who are perpetrating it.



Taking On Sanctuary City Lawlessness


Arnold Ahlert | Front Page Magazine

Can Kate’s Law succeed in Congress?

The American left’s contemptuous disregard for laws it doesn’t like is metastasizing. Despite the public outrage that attended the murder of Kate Steinle by Juan Francsico Lopez-Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported five times, the number of illegal alien protection centers known as sanctuary cities hasincreased. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports the number of these law-obstructing entities has grown to 340, compared to only 276 identified as recently as last July. CIS’s analysis is based on new information released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that covers the months of January through September of 2014.

It gets worse. As CIS reveals, a whopping 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport were released on the streets of America, including more than 600 people released at least twice. Moreover, 5,947 or 62 percent of these criminal aliens “had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer,” CIS states. Those histories included 58 percent with prior felony charges or conviction, 37 percent with serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent with multiple prior misdemeanors. Adding insult to injury, 2,320 of those released were arrested for new crimes committed during the same time frame.

Unsurprisingly, ICE was not able to re-apprehend the overwhelming majority of offenders released by the sanctuary cities with 6,460, or 69 percent, remaining at large.

CIS director Jessica Vaughn was infuriated. “Our elected officials must not continue to sit back and watch these sanctuary jurisdictions release thousands and thousands of deportable criminal aliens back into our communities in defiance of ICE efforts to deport them, and then witness the harm that inevitably ensues when these removable offenders strike again,” she said. “There is no more obvious immigration issue on which Congress could act now than to rein in this obstruction of a vital law enforcement mission that keeps our communities safer.”

Senate Republicans are attempting to do just that. Legislation introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) aims to restrict federal funds and grants to cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. The bill would also establish a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal aliens convicted of re-entering the U.S. following a felony conviction, raise the sentence for re-entering the nation twice from two to five years, and establish a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail for immigrants still in America after being removed three or more times.

“Three months ago, Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who should have never been walking the streets in the first place,” Vitter said Wednesday. “In the time since Ms. Steinle’s death, we have seen similar murders and other terrible acts of violence against law abiding citizens across the United States – it is outrageous that the policies allowing these crimes to happen have not changed. We need to send a loud and clear message to any sanctuary cities that their dangerous policies are not acceptable.” ​

The murder of Kate Steinle exposed the bankruptcy of the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and a corrupt media for whom the rule of law is only sacred when it aligns itself with the progressive agenda. When it doesn’t, all of them embrace the selective enforcement of the law that saw the Department of Justice sue states like ArizonaSouth CarolinaUtah and Alabama for attempting to enforce federal immigration law it conspicuously ignored. That would be the very same DOJ that has never filed a single lawsuit against any sanctuary city in open defiance of immigration law.

This blatant double-standard in favor of the progressive agenda is so despicable, that a certain level of mayhem, including murder, rape, child molestation and other heinous activity is viewed as a reasonable tradeoff for not only tolerating sanctuary cities, but apparently countenancing the aforementioned increase in the number of them.

If Republicans are genuinely serious about taking on sanctuary cities, it would be quite useful to add a critical element to this piece of legislation. A hint of what the element is was contained in a Politifact hit piece hammering Donald Trump for his assertion that “hundreds of thousands” of illegal aliens are going to state and federal penitentiaries. Politifact gave Ramiro Martinez, a pro-amnesty criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, a platform to insist that Trump’s assertion was “at best unsustainable or more likely pure fiction.”

In a sense Martinez is right, but Politifact was forced to admit why. “Turns out Homeland Security doesn’t regularly track the number of incarcerated illegal immigrants, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Press Secretary Gillian Christensen,” the website revealed.

It is far worse than that. In her book “Adios, America!” Ann Coulter reveals the insidiousness of the federal government’s effort to conceal this information from both Congress and the public. She reveals that in 2011, when Congress “expressly requested” data on immigrant crime, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated there were approximately 351,000 incarcerated criminal aliens in the United States—before saying the state and local portions of that total were “partial.”

How partial? The GAO omitted counting: all legal immigrants in those prisons; convicted illegal aliens for whom the states did not submit federal reimbursement requests; prisoners whose country of birth could not be determined; immigrants who have been naturalized; children born to illegal immigrants on American soil (aka, anchor babies); immigrants without at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions; immigration “detainees;” and former illegal aliens who committed crimes after being granted amnesty via the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Coulter reaches an obvious conclusion. “Knowing how many criminals are immigrants might affect our opinion of our current immigration policies,” she writes.

So would part of a sanctuary city bill requiring the federal government to provide regular and public statistics on illegal aliens who commit crime. That particular addition to a bill virtually certain to be vetoed by Obama—if Congressional Democrats, along with some weak-kneed Republicans, don’t kill it first—would clarify the fault lines between members of our political ruling class still looking out for Americans, and those beholden to special interest groups more than willing to abide the “fundamental transformation of the United States”–into a sanctuarynation.

What may be the most critical election in modern history will occur less than 13 months from now. Americans need to know which politicians are willing to embrace American exceptionalism—or American decline.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


How Obama Lost Afghanistan

Vijeta Uniyal | Gatestone

  • The Taliban seems to have correctly assessed the lack of resolve of the current U.S. leadership and have evidently decided to go for all of Afghanistan.
  • What is visible to everyone except Obama is that this “weak” Putin continues to outflank the U.S. in Ukraine, Crimea and now Syria. The U.S. Commander-in-Chief has failed to show the fortitude required from the leader of the free world.
  • President Obama reportedly offered to strong-arm India into making concessions on Kashmir. According to Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the U.S., Obama secretly wrote to Pakistan’s President in 2009, sympathizing with Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir, and apparently offering to tell India that “the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable.”
  • The results of a Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan would be even more disastrous than its previous reign of terror. The Taliban would not only resume sending trained jihadists across Pakistan’s border to wage war on “infidels” in India, they would also carry out their declared objective of global jihad against the West.
  • With Europe’s borders now wide open, the West is more vulnerable than ever.

The President who gave up Syria and Yemen without a fight is now leading a half-hearted counter-offensive in Afghanistan. The Taliban seems to have correctly assessed the lack of resolve of the current U.S. leadership and has evidently decided to retake all of Afghanistan.

In his first presidential campaign of 2008, then-Senator Obama called U.S. engagement in Iraq the “bad war” and instead wanted his country to focus on Afghanistan – his “good war.”

But after U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011, large parts of Iraq fell under the control of the Islamic State (ISIS), while the remaining part came under the influence of Iran.

So how is U.S. President Obama’s “good war” in Afghanistan going?

On September 29, 2015, Taliban fighters overran the Afghan provincial capital, Kunduz. The takeover created the biggest victory for the Taliban since 2001, when US-led coalition drove the Taliban regime out of Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in New York.

Since its ouster, the Taliban has been lurking in tribal regions, and launching sporadic terrorist attacks in the city. But the Taliban had never succeeding in taking over a population center. With the fall of Kunduz, the Taliban now controls the fifth largest city in Afghanistan.

Taliban militiamen

Taliban militiamen sit atop a US-supplied Humvee that they captured from the Afghan Army, after their conquest of Kunduz last week. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot).

The on September 29, Taliban forces, launched a coordinated attack on Kunduz from three directions. The Afghan Army failed to offer any significant resistance and rushed for cover at the city’s airport. Apparently the Afghan soldiers were hoping for aerial reinforcements from US-led coalition forces. Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Sediq Sediqqi, confirmed that the city of Kunduz had fallen into “the hands of the enemies.”

Despite heavy U.S. airstrikes, the Taliban are evidently well dug in, indicating that the terror militiamen intend to hold onto their recent territorial gains and have no intention of retreating. Clearly this Taliban is not the hit-and-run one of yesteryear. It seems to be a new Islamist force, bent on conquest, and ready to challenge the U.S. and coalition forces.

Although the Afghan Army, directed by the President Ashraf Ghani’s government in Kabul, has failed to mount a counteroffensive to the advancing Taliban forces, the blame for the wider military and geopolitical disaster probably deserves to go to Obama.

President Obama never fails to remind the world that he commands “the strongest military that the world has ever known;” and indeed the strength of United States’ military might and the courage of its brave men and women in uniform are beyond question. But the Commander-in-Chief has failed to show the fortitude required from the leader of the Free World.

Additionally, Obama seem to have established a pattern of underestimating America’s adversaries. He famously called ISIS a “jay-vee team,” and recently stated that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, went into Syria “out of weakness.” But what is visible to everyone except Obama, presumably, is that this “weak” Putin has been outflanking the United States in Ukraine, Crimea and now in Syria. It is Obama who seems weak.

As with his approach elsewhere, Obama has been alienating allies and strengthening foes.

In an apparent attempt to persuade Pakistan to stop supporting Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, President Obama offered to strong-arm India into making concessions on Kashmir. According to Pakistan’s former Ambassador from Pakistan to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, President Obama secretly wrote to Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in 2009, sympathizing with Pakistan’s stand of Kashmir and apparently offering to tell India that “the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable.”

According to the Haqqani’s account, made public in 2013, Pakistan, the recipient of billions of dollars of U.S. assistance annually, rejected President Obama’s offer, and continued to train, arm and shelter international terrorists – including Osama bin Laden. Many of these terrorists directly planned and carried out operations that killed nearly 2,000 and wounding 20,000 U.S. service personnel.

President Obama thereby alienated India while getting nothing in return from Pakistan.

India’s would not have need much convincing to back U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. New Delhi shared Kabul’s concerns over rising Islamic militancy in the region. India also faces an existential threat from Islamic militancy in Muslim-majority Kashmir province and beyond. Since mid-199os, terrorism has claimed more than 30,000 civilians and security personnel in India in total nationwide casualties.

President Obama, when in India, apparently preferred to play the “travelling salesman” for the religion of Islam, repeatedly smacking Hindus for being intolerant to its Muslim minority, negating what has appeared the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindus that began 70 decades ago with the creation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and continues to this day. Not only were millions of Hindus forced out of Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) when the two countries were created in 1947, but the remaining Hindu populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh were nearly expelled or exterminated during the following decades. The ethnic cleansing culminated in the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971 perpetrated by Pakistan army. It killed some three million ethnic Hindus and Bangladeshis and forced more than 10 million refugees to flee into India. By contrast, the Muslim population in India has grown from 35 million in the early 1950s to about 180 million in 2015, making India home to the world’s second largest Muslim population, second only to Indonesia, followed by Pakistan.

The Taliban’s offensive in Afghanistan is the direct result of Obama Administration’s consistent policy of alienating friends and emboldening enemies. Be it Israel, Iran, Egypt or Afghanistan, President Obama has evidently preferred dealing with Islamist and Jihadist actors, rather than with liberal, secular democratic forces.

The results of a Taliban retake of Afghanistan would be even more disastrous than its previous reign of terror. The Taliban would not only resume sending trained Jihadists across Pakistan’s border to wage war on “infidels” in India; it would also carry out its declared objective of global Jihad against the West. With Europe’s border now wide open, the West is more vulnerable than ever. This time, however, al-Qaeda would not need to sneak secretly into terror cells; it would be able to regroup entire combat units in the heart of Europe.

Vijeta Uniyal is an Indian current affairs analyst based in Europe.


Obama Is Using The Threat Of A UN Resolution That Would Divide The Land Of Israel To Blackmail Netanyahu

Obama Is Using The Threat Of A UN Resolution That Would Divide The Land Of Israel To Blackmail Netanyahu-media-2

Michael Snyder

Barack Obama has sunk to a new low.  He is using the threat of a UN Security Council resolution that would divide the land of Israel and give full UN recognition to a Palestinian state to blackmail Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Many had expected France to submit this resolution to the Security Council for a vote in September, but the French made it very clear that they were not going to go ahead unless they had U.S. approval.  So that means that all of the power is in Obama’s hands, and apparently he is not shy about using it as leverage in order to get what he wants.  And apparently one thing that Obama wants is for the Israeli government to keep any new settlement construction from happening in “Palestinian areas” of east Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

I have not seen anything about this in the U.S. media, but this is major news over in Israel.  The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared in a major Israeli news source

The administration of US President Barack Obama has denied reports in Israeli media Tuesday, according to which Obama threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against lifting the unprecedented building freeze in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Channel 2 reported on Tuesday night that Netanyahu folded to pressure from Obama, who threatened that if Israel approved new construction following the wave of Arab terror attacks, the US would not veto a looming UN Security Council resolution that would establish “Palestine” and declare “settlements” in Judea-Samaria illegal.

This potential UN Security Council resolution is still very much alive.  At the end of September I wrote an article that quoted a Jerusalem Post piece about it, and just yesterday I quoted a Politico article that discussed how Obama has been weighing his options regarding this resolution.

Ultimately, I believe that Obama will throw his support behind this resolution and it will be submitted to the UN Security Council for a vote, but for the moment he seems to be using the threat of it to push Netanyahu around.

Of course the Obama administration is publicly denying all of this.  U.S. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner told reporters that everything that Channel 2 was reporting was untrue, and that there is no reason to be concerned.

But this is what Obama and his minions do.  They lie and then they tell more lies to cover up their previous lies.  What is true really doesn’t matter to them.  The only thing that matters is what is politically expedient.

And the media over in Israel is not really buying what the U.S. State Department is selling.  Here is another excerpt from the article that I quoted above

Despite Toner’s claims, Judea and Samaria regional heads who met with Netanyahu on Tuesday night say he refused their demands to renew building, directly referencing international pressure.

The report of Obama’s threat comes just a week after a report in Politico that revealed Obama twice refused to veto a UN resolution establishing a Palestinian state.

According to the report, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid asked White House chief of staff Denis McDonough twice this year to have Obama publicly announce he would veto a UN Security Council call establishing “Palestine.” On both occasions, Obama flatly ignored the request.

Obama does and says all sorts of things behind closed doors that he would never admit to publicly.  That is why we can never trust any of these “public denials”.  In so many instances we find out that things that the Obama administration “denied” later turned out to be true.

In this case, Obama truly is playing with fire.  As author William R. Koenig has pointed out, there are very serious consequences for trying to divide the land of Israel.  An article published by the Examiner summarized just some of the things that we have seen in that regard in recent years…

Nine of the ten costliest insurance events in U.S. history, six of the seven costliest hurricanes in U.S. history, three of the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history, nine of the top ten natural disasters in U.S. history ranked by FEMA relief costs, and the two largest terrorism events in U.S. history all transpired on the same day or within 24-hours of U.S. presidents applying pressure on Israel to trade her land for promises of peace and security, sponsoring major land for peace meetings, or making major public statements calling for a Palestinian state.

For example, October 1991, President George H. Bush promoted and proudly signed the infamous Oslo Accord at the Madrid Peace Conference. The Oslo Accord was labeled a land for peace accord that demanded Israel award their land to the Palestinian terrorists in exchange for peace. This perverse proposition was if you give us your land and we’ll stop killing you.

The next day the Perfect Storm hit Kennebunkport, Maine. Waves over 30 feet demolished the home of President George H. Bush, the instigator of the Oslo Accord. This very rare storm started in the north Atlantic, moving east to west, the wrong direction for storms to move.

I don’t know exactly when Barack Obama threatened Netanyahu, but it is quite interesting to note that Hurricane Joaquin has been creating tremendous havoc along the east coast of the United States in recent days.  Officials in South Carolina described it as “a 1,000-year storm“, and major flooding caused billions of dollars in damage.

Could it be possible that there is some connection?

Of course what will be much worse is when Obama finally tires of toying with Netanyahu and decides to move forward with this resolution at the UN Security Council.  By playing a pivotal role in the dividing of the land of Israel, Obama will be cursing this nation.  Let us hope and pray that day is put off for as long as possible.

I know that this must sound very strange to many of my readers.  If you are skeptical, just take note of the date when this UN Security Council resolution finally gets approved and watch what happens to this country afterwards.

I think that you will be absolutely shocked by what takes place.

Source: End of the American Dream