The Gold Institute for International Strategy deplores the actions of the PYD (Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat – Democratic Union Party) on June 20th, in closing the offices of Kurdistan 24, the premiere source of information from all regions of Greater Kurdistan.
The measure, taken without notice or explanation, casts doubts on the commitment of the administration of Rojava to elemental freedoms, the very freedoms the Kurdish people have fought tirelessly for decades to obtain.
Indeed, this is the second time the offices of Kurdistan24 have been closed, despite the PYD’s assurances that it seeks a “democratic solution that includes the recognition of cultural, national and political rights, and develops and enhances their peaceful struggle to be able to govern themselves in a multicultural, democratic society” for Rojava. Censorship of the press and persecution of ideas does not seem the proper vehicle to reach those lofty goals.
Around the world, many look to Kurdistan 24 to obtain first hand, unbiased reporting of events in all four Kurdistan regions in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, and we view its censorship as a troubling development, made more serious by the subsequent closing of the Semalka border crossing.
We hope that these ominous events do not herald a new era of authoritarianism returning to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and look forward to the free society Syrian Kurds have fought so valiantly to obtain.
Washington, DC — June 16, 2021— The Gold Institute for International Strategy is pleased to welcome Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle EastSimone Ledeen and retired NYPD Detective Investigator Mark Black as senior fellows. Ms. Ledeen’s extensive experience in the Middle East, at DoD and Treasury and Marc Black’s long-time focus in counter-terrorism, intelligence division and computer crimes will undoubtedly add greatly to the Institute’s impressive roster of fellows as well as our work and influence globally.
Simone Ledeen is a strategic influencer of complex, long-term initiatives and plans with global impact. Through her work, Ms. Ledeen has shaped the thinking of the nation’s senior-most leaders, including Members of Congress, other U.S. government officials, and partners abroad, on matters of defense, finance, telecom, and transportation. She is a trusted collaborator leveraging vast networks and superb communication skills to achieve multi-phased program development and implementation across industries.
Ms. Ledeen has served in various U.S. Government and business leadership positions, most recently as the presidentially-appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Middle East Policy where her leadership of U.S. defense policy spanned Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Her experience on multiple oversees deployments influenced key counterterrorism activities, intelligence collection and analysis, as well as military information support operations involving cyber and disinformation, irregular warfare, direct action, sensitive special operations, and personnel recovery/hostage issues.
Ms. Ledeen’s work has also been shaped by her 20 years of experience prior to appointment with the Department of Defense. She draws on her work as Executive Director at Standard Chartered Bank managing multi-national financial crime compliance; Senior U.S. Treasury Representative to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force; Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance; and as a member of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
She is also a Visiting Fellow at the National Security Institute of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law where she advocates to foster global security and facilitate international business. Ms. Ledeen has an MBA from the Bocconi University School of Management and a Bachelor of Arts degree with from Brandeis University. With a strong intercultural competency having lived several years abroad, she is fluent in Italian and conversational in French, Arabic, Polish, and Hebrew. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marc Black served 20 years with the New York Police Department (NYPD), retiring June 2020 at the rank of Detective Investigator. His assignments included:
Counterterrorism Division
Responsible for conducting security and vulnerability assessments (SAVA) and threat assessments on critical infrastructure in New York City. Areas of concentration include houses of worship, utilities, and sports/entertainment venues. Liaison with the Fire Department of New York City Explosives Unit to establish secure logistic routes and venue security of locations which utilize energetic materials. Intermediary with Federal agencies which are working with foreign-friendly nations to establish counterterrorism programs for local law enforcement. Evaluator for the federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) in New York City.
Arson & Explosion Squad
Investigated major post blast and arson crimes associated with fire and blast fatalities in conjunction with the New York City Fire Department and federal and state law enforcement agencies to determine origin and cause. Examined post blast incidents caused by improvised explosive devices as well as explosive materials illegally obtained by individuals and criminal organizations. Investigated arsons and incendiary incidents to determine origin and cause.
Computer Crimes Squad
Investigated computer crimes and analyzed computer forensic information using accepted law enforcement techniques and technologies. Investigations: Computer intrusions/DOS/computer trespass, identity fraud, child exploitation, Internet scams, and financial crimes.
Intelligence Division
Synchronized communications of international terrorist incidents with New York City Police investigators Overseas Liaison Units. Coordinated crisis management programs through the Fusion Center with the New York City Police Department and federal law enforcement agencies, FEMA, U.S. Military, and Office of Emergency Management (New York City).
Education:
B.S. Business Management, Keene State College
Attended University of Haifa, Haifa Israel
M.S. Transportation Management, NY State University Maritime College
M.S. Security Protection, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Originally appeared in the NYPost: https://nypost.com/2021/05/18/no-the-gaza-flare-up-didnt-kill-trumps-wildly-successful-abraham-accords/
America’s foreign-policy establishment and peace-process industry are having a field day: The latest round of fighting between Israel and the terror group Hamas, they insist, has sounded the death knell for the Abraham Accords, the Trump-brokered peace treaties between the Jewish state and several Muslim nations.
Leading the Schadenfreude Brigade was White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who on Tuesday declared from her podium: “We don’t think [the accords] did anything constructive, really, to bring an end to the longstanding conflict in the Middle East.” The peace-processors failed for decades to make Mideast progress, and the Gaza flare-up gives them and their DC mouthpieces (like Psaki) a cheap chance to crow, “I told you so.”
Reality disagrees, however.
The monumental agreements signed last year will continue to flourish, because their foundations remain solid — whereas doing things the peace-processors’ way will return America to the failures of the past.
The peace-process industry (or syndicate) represents the elite’s thinking on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the wider Middle East. It is composed of former diplomats, left-leaning think tanks, nearly all of corporate media and academia and the wealthy donor class that underwrites their work.
The maverick Trump administration’s Mideast breakthroughs in the final months of 2020 gravely threatened the interests of this group. After all, the Abraham Accords challenged several key assumptions of the peace-processors: above all, the notion that Arab reconciliation with Israel could only be achieved after resolving the Palestinian question.
This belief springs from the false notion that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the central drama of the region, linking it to all other problems, which will finally find their panacea only in a “two-state” solution.
Equally destructive is the peace-processors’ belief that a solution can be found by leveling the playing field between America’s regional allies and bad actors like the Palestinians. Put simply, they believe that for negotiations to succeed, Israel must be weakened, while Palestinian leaders must be empowered. There is no evidence for why this should be the case, but that hasn’t stopped peace-processors from summiting the commanding heights of American foreign policy for decades.
It’s easy to see how President Donald Trump and his advisers wounded the egos of these processors with the Abraham Accords. The accords started from diametrically opposed assumptions: that the Palestinian drama isn’t central to the region and that diplomacy requires bolstering, rather than weakening, allies. And they succeeded brilliantly.
The accords won’t soon die, because all of the structural reasons that made them possible remain intact. For starters, the Iranian threat that impelled Arab leaders to embrace their former archenemy, Israel, is still there.
Plus, the economic benefits of the rapprochement are too tangible to ignore, including opportunities in tourism, civil aviation, science, technology and innovation, energy, water, environment and agriculture, food security and more.
Then, too, the Arab elite increasingly views Jews as indigenous to the region. Both the UAE and Bahrain correctly pride themselves as nations of tolerance, and they take pride in extending that tolerance to the region’s Jews. Communications technology is also fostering more dialogue and relationships beyond the control of diplomats or the state.
While Arab leaders sympathize with the Palestinian people, the accords showed that Mideast states have wearied of a corrupt and intransigent Palestinian leadership. For four years leading up to the accords, the unmistakable message to Palestinians and their leaders was that the proverbial train was leaving the station, and it was in their interest to get on board, rather than cling to the slogans of the past; the Palestinians didn’t get the message.
These fundamental dynamics remain beyond the grasp of the dangerously deluded peace-process industry, which remains bent on pulling the region backward, all to fit its disproved theories. There is plenty of more work to be done to expand the peace and normalization framework. This work will continue, regardless of predictable regional forces that periodically lash out and in spite of those who gleefully mistake this beginning for the end.
Matthew RJ Brodsky, a former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team,is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy.
In a Newsweek essay published Thursday, Matthew Brodsky, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, blasted the left, claiming it seeks to banish all dissent, and specifically criticized recent calls for the canceling of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
The essay, titled “When Everything is Racist There’s No Room for Reason,” begins by describing today’s progressives as demanding a “profound remaking of the country.” TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE
Progressives today demand a profound remaking of the country. In their regressive Orwellian worldview, anti-Americanism is the new patriotism. In their version of American democracy, big tech thought police substitute for the real police now being defunded in communities across America. A free corporate media, presenting multiple sides of an issue and allowing for an open exchange of ideas on opinion pages, has given way to mob- and media-approved narratives and calls to silence and banish all dissent to the outer rim.
One result of these patterns is the Left’s distortion of any discussion about the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voter integrity.
“Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party‘s political ambitions,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson observed during his show on Monday, April 12. “In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.”
The crux of Carlson’s argument, backed up by evidence he cited, is that Democrats want open borders, no caps on immigrations and blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, thereby “importing a brand-new electorate” that they count on to vote Democratic. In the process, these policies dilute the vote of American citizens.
Democrats’ own words have made Carlson’s point obvious for some time. The commentator pointed to articles in TheNew York Times and quoted Democratic politicians, including Julian Castro and then-candidate Kamala Harris, who managed to say the typically quiet part out loud.
There are other clear examples of Democrats demanding policies that benefit them electorally. Last year in the height of the presidential campaign, many Democrats called for D.C. and Puerto Rico to be recognized as states. Apparently, when they dug a little deeper, they discovered that Puerto Rico might be too competitive as a state in elections, unlike D.C. which would be a solid blue state. While the House recently passed legislation for D.C. statehood, Democratic talk of Puerto Rican statehood has all but vanished.
Nevertheless, Carlson’s comments set off the precise firestorm the Fox News host had anticipated, along with another round of hysterical calls to cancel his show. As is the new norm, the force of these calls can only gain purchase if they cast the issue as one of racism, rather than “a voting rights question,” as Carlson explained.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson discusses ‘Populism and the Right’ during the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel March 29, 2019 in Washington, DC.CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES
This is the unfortunate place our country is in today. For the Left, the connective tissue that runs through every issue is the noxious claim of “systemic racism.” It takes on many forms, such as critical race theory, intersectionality and the accusation that everything is a relic of the Jim Crow era. There is no debate or defense because the accusation is designed to skip the trial and move straight to sentencing. If it’s a symbol it is torn down. If it’s a person they are deplatformed, silenced, fired and doxed by the Twitterati. If it’s a business or corporation it will be listed in TheNew York Times.
It’s no surprise that calls for Carlson’s firing came from the usual woke mob. But even the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that should have a solid handle on what racism is, decided to insert itself in the middle of a legitimate debate about immigration. It forcefully came down in favor of cancel culture by sending a letter of condemnation to Fox News demanding Carlson’s termination.
The letter referred to Carlson’s monologue as a “full-on embrace” and “open-ended endorsement of white supremacist ideology.” Despite writing, “we believe in dialogue and giving people a chance to redeem themselves,” the ADL concluded that “this is not legitimate political discourse.” This letter marks the ADL’s unfortunate transformation into just another arm of the ever-expanding progressive Left. After all, the ADL and the progressive wing it parrots aren’t merely trying to cancel Tucker Carlson. Their goal is to quash the debate on immigration entirely.
Despite these efforts, the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voting integrity is plain for all to see. There is nothing anti-Semitic or racist about pointing out how Democrats have focused on welcoming legal or illegal immigrants from countries that they believe will be ideological allies, and not from countries that tend to be more conservative. And despite the progressive attempt to label all points of disagreement as racist, a much stronger example of racism comes from those who refuse to see people as individuals and instead only as members of racial, ethnic and religious voting blocs.
Anti-Semitism is a real and growing threat. But the elected officials who most consistently attempt to brandish their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism through legislation and as a part of their political platform are Democrats, who are being led by their progressive wing. At the same time, dramatic changes being forced on the American people today by Democratic policies touch all parts of everyday life. Paranoia, instability and fear is the well from which racism springs. In this context, we need more dialogue, not less.
The harnessing of individual grievances and woke ideologies for the Left’s perpetual expansion of political power constitutes a poison pill for the American political body. A real debate over immigration and voting rights is necessary. Panning everything as racist and silencing dissenting voices, at a time when too few politicians demonstrate courage, seems about as far away as one can get from what America’s Founders intended.
Matthew RJ Brodskyis a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, and former Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC.
The Biden administration released its “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” last week in a 24-page blueprint for reordering American society according to leftist dogmas that will also be applied as policy abroad.
A central theme of the text is “democracy,” a word mentioned 24 times. According to the “Guidance,” democracy is the solution at home and abroad, it is under assault, and it must be “revitalized.” One must dig a little deeper and connect the loose threads to understand how the Biden administration imbues the word “democracy” with meaning that goes far beyond what most people would assume.
While lamenting the global rise of authoritarianism, the document argues that our democracy and national strategy were “reinforced by the 12 initial executive actions issued by President Biden in his first two days in office,” which the administration argues “centers on restoring trust with the American people.” In the administration’s version of “democracy,” then, presidential authority that bypasses Congress is considered more democratic.
The national strategy says “a vibrant democracy rejects politically motivated violence in all of its forms,” which most Americans could agree on. It also states, however, that “millions of Americans have braved COVID-19 to demand racial justice.” So not only has history been re-written to remove the most obvious features of reality — such as the violence, burning, and looting that raged across the country during 2020 — but all those who participated are considered brave for having done so while violating local lockdown orders and curfews.
The “Guidance” sees democracies across the world — including our own — as under siege but not from the aforementioned “brave” protestors, which is why U.S. cities from Washington, D.C., to Minneapolis to Seattle remain boarded up. Instead, it identifies the chief causes of this siege as “nationalist and nativist trends,” which is to say that America’s new version of democracy rejects the very concept of a nation-state that pursues national interests while prioritizing the welfare of its citizens.
Another theme repeated throughout is that the United States “will lead with diplomacy” while “renewing our commitment to global development and international cooperation.” In practice, global development means that nation-building projects are back on the list of priorities. For example, it pledges “to provide Central America with $4 billion in assistance over four years,” which is designed, among other expectations, “to address the root causes of … irregular migration.”
Even as we make Central America Great Again, the strategy seeks to keep the red carpet unfurled to its citizens: “We must renew our promise as a place of refuge, and our obligation to protect those who seek shelter on our shores.”
While the document repeatedly references threats that don’t respect national borders, the White House can’t admit that illegal immigration is one of them, much less suggest that it is best addressed by strengthening our border, as that would be a nationalist solution. The answer they offer is to keep America’s borders open while investing in failing countries to make them a better place to live, which would presumably cause fewer people to want to immigrate to the United States.
At least the Guidance admits, “We will not be able to solve all of the challenges we face at the southern border overnight,” because this approach will exacerbate the problem. Likewise, the thematic focus on international cooperation in the context of “principled diplomacy” also reflects a new Democratic Party norm where we don’t have a genuine foreign policy as much as a domestic wish list on how to remake our own country, which we then preach abroad.
If one is unconvinced, the report spells it out clearly:
Because traditional distinctions between foreign and domestic policy — and among national security, economic security, health security, and environmental security — are less meaningful than ever before, we will reform and rethink our agencies, departments, interagency processes, and White House organization to reflect this new reality.
To be clear, nothing has changed the distinction between foreign and domestic policy. What changed is how this administration chooses to see them. One must utterly redefine “national security” to justify the Biden administration’s priorities. For example, one of the few enemies we will aggressively combat is “systemic racism”:
Combatting systemic racism requires aggressive action to address structures, policies, and practices that contribute to the wealth gap, to health disparities, and to inequalities in educational access, outcomes, and beyond.
The Biden administration believes another clear threat facing the United States is climate change. In the 24-page document, the word “climate” appears 27 times (the word “military,” by comparison, only appears 19 times).
You’d also be forgiven for thinking the document was issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Labor Department, since the word “diversity” appears seven times — the same count as the word “nuclear.” Stunningly, the Biden administration pledges that it “will prioritize defense investments in climate resiliency and clean energy.”
While some national security experts may believe too many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the broth, Biden’s approach is to not only include all the cooks but the bartenders as well. The strategy pledges to “develop new processes and partnerships to ensure that state, municipal, tribal, civil society, non-profit, diaspora, faith-based, and private sector actors are better integrated into policy deliberations.”
President Biden’s Strategic Guidance promotes and redefines a leftist wish list as not only a vital American interest but as a vital global interest. In doing so, it completely erases the line between domestic and foreign policy, replacing it with new dividing lines that pit Americans against one another.
America’s genuine adversaries will likely view this document with a mixture of relief, laughter, and incredulity. Americans who read it carefully will realize it’s a national security document that will not make them one bit safer.
The founder and president of the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies told the Star News Network that President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s foreign policy is doomed to fail, because unlike President Donald J. Trump, Biden treats the world as an extension of Washington’s Swamp.
“What President Trump realized is that Washington and the way Washington works is really only acceptable – I didn’t say good – I said it is acceptable – is on domestic matters,” said Eli Gold, who worked for worked in Washington’s think tank world for more than 10 years, before launching the Gold Institute May 2019.
“Trump realized that when you leave our shores and our borders, the rest of the world does not work in the same way Washington works,” Gold said. “By the way, Washington is broken domestically, too, but we can try to figure that out on our own because it doesn’t involve other people. We can decide if we can have Medicare-for-All or private insurance, that doesn’t impact, say Israel, but what Trump realized is that when it comes to foreign policy, you can’t work in a Washingtonian fashion.”
Biden’s foreign policy and methods are a throwback to failure
In this way, Biden differs from Trump in terms of both style and substance, he said.
“President Biden is reverting back to that Washingtonian method,” Gold said.
Before Trump, U.S. foreign policy objectives were stalled and failing because the American foreign policy establishment treats other countries like they are politicians negotiating legislation on Capitol Hill, he said.
“In addition, Biden is bringing back the leftwing policies, such as the ones that established or normalized relations with Iran, rather than holding people accountable and government accountable – a government who calls for ‘Death to America,’ – he would rather normalizing relations with them.”
It is a cliché to say that Biden’s foreign policy is Obama redux, but there is a similar dynamic at play in regards of Biden’s reconnecting with Iran – while paying for it by weakening America’s connection with Saudi Arabia and Israel, the Baltimore native said.
“Biden understands that he cannot normalize relations with Iran and hold Saudi Arabia and Israel in equally high esteem – it would negatively impact his ability to negotiate with Iran,” he said.
“Joe Biden’s policies in regard to the Israelis and the Saudis are going to be interesting at best, strained at worst,” he said.
Trump’s succeeded at foreign policy with a personal approach
Gold said Trump evolved into his own very personal way of working with people and institutions as a New York City developer outside of politics. “He, therefore, had a one-on-one foreign policy, which really offended and ticked off what we will call the establishment.”
The other reason Trump upset the establishment is he reclaimed presidential authority to run foreign policy, he said.
“What people fail to realize is the role of the president, and the role of the president is to run the country,” he said.
“He is our senior foreign policy guy and in my opinion in 2021, you do not even need a U.S. Secretary of State,” he said. “Why do we have a U.S. Secretary of State? Because when we founded this country, it would take you two months to have a conversation with the French.”
Trump spoke to his secretaries of defense and state, but he took personal responsibility for his policy, Gold said.
“This was the key to his running a one-on-one foreign policy,” he said. “Somehow between 1789 and 2016, the lines got blurred and it became the norm that the president must work by committee, run the country by committee, well, Iran doesn’t run its country by a committee – and this is what Washington fails to realize.”
Trump knew he had to engage other leaders, but there were lines he could not cross, he said.
“For example, he began negotiating and potentially normalizing with North Korea,” he said. “That all ended, when it was understood those lines that could not be crossed would have had to be crossed in order to pursue it – and it was the same thing with China, as well, in particular in the last year of his presidency because of COVID.”
It was fortunate that Trump got personally involved in the process and that led to the Abraham Accords, he said.
The Abraham Accords is a collection of agreements between Israel and Islamic countries, brokered by the United States, that plays on the fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all trace their beginnings to the Bible’s Abraham. Before the end of Trump’s first term, he facilitated a normalization of relations between Israel and Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Bahrain.
Of the four, Bahrain is the most significant geopolitically, because the archipelago kingdom is a client-state of Saudi Arabia, which led to speculation that the Saudis would be next up if Trump remained in office for a second consecutive term.
“I don’t know if it was as easy as just signing a paper for the Saudis to join the Abraham Accords,” he said. “Saudi is the ultimate prize. In my estimation, in order for the Saudis to formally normalize relations with Israel, there would have to be certain goals and certain metrics met. It would also depend on what happens with Qatar and what happens with the Houthis in Yemen.”
The Saudis back the Yemeni government against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.
Gold Institute fellows discuss ‘Iran and Their Proxies: The Current Situation’
Gold Institute senior fellows held a February 28 online seminar “Iran and Its Allies” that dealt with how following Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, Iran and its proxies have taken an aggressive approach within the region and U.S. interests, Gold said.
“Most recently setting a hard line with their commitment to restart or continue their unfettered nuclear program, and missile attacks against U.S. interests in Erbil, Kurdistan and in Baghdad,” he said.
Joining Gold, who moderated the seminar, were retired Army Brig. Gen. Ernie Audino, who is now a senior advisor to the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, and Matthew R.J. Brodsky, who is a Middle East expert, geopolitical analyst.
Gold Institute fellows are practitioners
Gold said he started his institute to bridge what he saw as a gap between policy and action that he witnessed in the meandering that took place before Trump intervened in the discussions that led to the Abraham Accords.
“What I noticed was that Washington think tanks often create policy, but lacked the ability to put forward a blueprint to implement that said policy,” he said.
Gold said a typical example of how Washington handles foreign affairs is the way the State Department tried to line up Middle East countries into an American-led alliance.
“I was talking to an ambassador from a Middle Eastern country – it was actually at a Washington hotel – and we talking about MESA, what President Trump was trying to set up as an Arab NATO,” Gold said.
“It started out at the Riyadh Summit and MESA, which is the Middle East Strategic Alliance, later became the Abraham Accords, but at the time I asked the ambassador to tell me: ‘Where does this stand?’ it was about two years ago, and he said they had yet to give him a blueprint for the proposed MESA.”
The ambassador told him that as a meeting at the State Department, he was pressured to sign up his country for MESA and the State official said: “Afterwards, we’ll sit down and figure it out,” he said. “It was just like Nancy Pelosi saying we have to pass Obamacare in order to find out what is in Obamacare – and the ambassador and his government said: ‘No, we are out, unless you can tell us what you want from us and what our role is, we’re done.’”
MESA was a great idea, but until Trump got hands-on and recognized the opportunity was achieve what became the Abraham Accords, nobody knew how to make it a reality, he said.
Gold said he sought the advice of colleagues and other thought-leaders, such as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, and these conversations convinced him that there was no pro-Western think tank in Washington that had the practical know-how to convert concepts into action.
“We have 25 fellows and each one represents a different area of expertise,” he said.
“The institute is not an ‘American’ think tank,” Gold said. “It is a Western think tank – I am not a globalist by any stretch of the imagination or any definition of the word – we focus on Western civilization and Western values, so three of our distinguished fellows are sitting members of the European Parliament and a former British member of the European Parliament, who is a Commander of the British Empire.”
Other fellows live in Israel, the Kurdish region of Iraq, he said. “We have former members of Congress and former members of the National Security Council.”
A large explosion occurred at approximately 6:30am CST on Christmas morning, Friday, December 25th, 2020 outside of 166 2ndAvenue North and across from the AT&T facility at 185 2ndAvenue North in downtown Nashville, Tennessee. It was preceded by a verbal warning via some type of public address system, purportedly coming from a recreational vehicle (RV) which had arrived at the scene at 1:22amPolice initially came to the scene when there were reports of gunshots at this location at 5:30am, hearing the warning, and subsequently evacuating citizens from the area. Then a very large explosion occurred. This damaged approximately 40 businesses and affected infrastructure which included a portion of the AT&T mobile phone and internet service both locally and regionally as well as interruptions of flights at the nearby international airport. As of this writing, there are no confirmed or named fatalities or persons missing. But, three persons were injured in the blast.The law enforcement agencies handling the crime scene state that this was an intentional act and linked to the suspicious and now destroyed RV. The FBI says that they are conducting investigations against at least one person of interest, to include conducting a search warrant on a residence possibly belonging to that person in the Nashville neighborhood of Antioch. A section of this portion of Nashville has been blocked off and a curfew implemented. A massive recovery effort is underway in downtown Nashville as attempts to restore power, search for bodies, and get the damaged infrastructure back online continue. The Governor of Tennessee has asked for federal assistance for the damaged economic district directly from President Trump. At the time of this writing, no arrests have been made and no fatalities have been reported.The FBI, ATF, and Metropolitan Nashville Police Department are seeking information about the suspicious RV and anyone who may know something about the explosion.
ANALYSIS
What was this event? – Was this a terrorist attack?
Many of us with background in this professional realm believe that this was a domestic terrorist attack that successfully detonated a massive VBIED – Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device. It meets all or most of the criteria for a terrorist attack, although the specific motive and target have not yet been confirmed nor the perpetrators identified. The time and place clearly point to it being intentional and a terrorist attack. (more on that below). Contrary to amateur speculation on the internet, this was not a missile attack or some other type of explosive event, such as a gas leak or accident. Initial bomb damage assessments (BDA) and crater analysis all point to this being a VBIED. Whether the method of initiation of the bomb was command detonated, victim operated (booby-trapped), or detonated using a timer or time delay fuse all remain to be seen. Judging by the effects on the nearby buildings, and a series of very obvious “intel indicators,” this very much so was an intentional, pre-planned event and had a very specific motive. The timing, location, and type of blast all point to this being a terrorist attack. More of this is discussed below.
How we will eventually know all of this, and more definitive results pertaining to what is included in this analysis presented here, will come from the now two day old yet rapidly expanding investigation by the FBI, ATF, and Metropolitan Nashville Police Department. The FBI and DOJ have a formidable capability for getting to the bottom of exactly this type of explosion. They have an enormous laboratory at the Quantico Marine Corps base near Washington, D.C. and other capabilities that would astound most. I got an inside look at all of this serving firstly as a Special Forces soldier and then contractor in this war that we are in now, at one point deeply involved in predicting the terrorist’s next moves and targeting them for capture or elimination.
This particular Christmas Day bombing bears some similarities to the bombings on February 26th, 1993 of the World Trade Center in New York City, and on April 19th, 1995 of the federal Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The DOJ got convictions in both cases.
In many other situations, the FBI has conducted sting operations or other proactive measures to thwart attempts to develop IEDs or acquire more sophisticated weapons and conduct domestic terrorist attacks. Federal law enforcement learned a lot from these and other cases involving IEDs. The very expensive and prolonged searches for the domestic terrorist “Unabomber” Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski (nearly 18 years) and Eric Rudolph (nearly 7 years) delivered many lessons learned and caused major changes in how they investigated these cases. Since these, and 9/11, they have gotten very, very good at this. Terrorists tend to copy and improve upon the work of other terrorists, and creatures of habit. The FBI and U.S. Intelligence Community know this, employ massive databases that catalogue and track every bit of it, thereby now being able to connect the dots. They can conduct rapid, granular searches, determining both the forensic grade details of the method of attack as well as the perpetrator in less and less time than ever before.
Bolstering this, and in the most exponential of ways, has been the experience of our military in the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT). On multiple contingents and involving the deployment of over a million troops, one of the three most common methods of attack, and most casualty producing, against our troops has been that of the IED. This advancement in countering IEDs led to the military’s establishment of a massive, highly funded organization to focus on this threat, the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO. Billions of dollars of contracts were awarded via JIEDDO as well as DIA and other entities focused on the defensive and offensive measures against IEDs and those that fund, build, and employ them against us. This has caused one of the most dramatic series of changes ever seen in how our military equips and operates, to include its vehicles, protective items, intelligence processes, and so much more.
Nearly every type of completed and planned terrorist attack on American soil, especially involving explosives, has been terrorist techniques, tactics, & procedures (TTPs) pioneered by and/or that are in widespread use by foreign terrorists. This is especially the case with IEDs. Even the co-conspirators of the Oklahoma City Bombing had the advice of a foreign terrorist organization, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG, a designated FTO very active in the Philippines at the time). The 1993 WTC bombing was the work of foreign and foreign connected terrorists. And, was only partially successful as it did not work as intended. Nearly every element of the set of bombings on April 15th, 2013 at the finish line area of the Boston Marathon was an IED type and method of initiation developed and perfected overseas. In fact, these were among the exact same type that myself and other troops faced in Afghanistan in the first two years of the war. Although much of the Weapons Technical Information (WTI) and “how-to” of IED making originated in the USA, most of it is perfect overseas by our adversaries, to include the Islamic Republic of Iran. And to a rare art form at that. These foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) and malign actors spread these IED WTI and TTPs far and wide. This gets into the hands of persons based in the USA. This is why we are seeing highly successful bombings. The question is who did it and why did they do it.
Who did it and Why?
This bombing most probably was a terrorist attack based upon its method of attack and specific time and place chosen.
However, there are some very peculiar aspects to this event which are not the type modus operandi (M.O.) of international terrorists. At first glance, the choice of the morning of one of the two most significant Christian holidays would lead some to believe that this was the work of foreign, non-Christian terrorists, in particular, islamists / jihadists. And yes, they have for decades very often chosen dates and holidays either of significant to them or to their intended victims. However, I do not believe that this was the work of foreign terrorists. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. Primarily because their M.O. is to seek mass terror, most often by producing the most number of casualties possible in the target population and/or destroying a high value target. Although investigators stated that they have found human tissue remains at the crime scene, there has been no official determination of casualties at the scene yet, to include the perpetrators themselves.
2. The perpetrators issued a warning and picked a time and place that would be completely absent of human activity, in what is becoming obvious was an effort to avoid human casualties. Foreign terrorists almost never do that. In particular, islamists / jihadists. The perpetrators focused their efforts on a time, place, method, and target that was very specific and not at all what an FTO sponsored or foreign inspired, remotely radicalized terrorist would seek to do. Americans almost never specifically set out to target and kill large number of Americans. There have been a few attempts over the years, some successful. But, mass casualty events are almost always the work of foreign national or foreign inspired terrorists, or at least with their assistance. Of course, there are exceptions. In some of those cases, it served the purposes of foreign terrorists to aid domestic terrorists who had a separate agenda.
3. The perpetrators may have chosen a target that is not considered of high value to foreign terrorists. If they had intended to bomb this important cultural hub for live music, eateries, and bars, they would have done so when it was lively and packed with people. If they had intended to bomb the infrastructure present at the site, they would have both picked a more high value target and done a better job emplacing the explosives.
This and other clues all lead me to believe that the nature and motive of this attack was at least partially symbolic, perhaps to send a message. One of those clues lies in the location of the VBIED and its positioning.
Therefore, the intent and target of the attack could have been any of the following:
1. A disgruntled former employee at one of the local establishments, or person affected by the economic losses in the pandemic, seeking to inflict damage to an important cultural and economic district in Nashville. I believe that this has a low probability.
2. Someone intending to attack the critical infrastructure present in the very large, multistory building located directly in front of the VBIED, belonging to AT&T and home to a major center for internet and server based digital communications in the region, to include a consideration portion of the phone network. This explosion disrupted or knocked out ATT internet and mobile service both in Nashville and extending outwards to several other states. The president of technology at T-Mobile, stated on Saturday “We continue to see service interruptions in these areas following yesterday’s explosion. Restoration efforts continue around the clock & we will keep you updated on progress,” naming service disruptions affecting Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Birmingham and Atlanta. It also affected flights in the area, temporarily grounding flights at nearby Nashville International Airport. In my monitoring the twitter accounts and websites of these various emergency services agencies in and around Nashville, they continue to have problems getting their services back in proper operation. Portable cell sites had to be brought in to temporarily restore coverage. Therefore, the fact that such an important piece of local and regional infrastructure as the AT&T building cannot be ruled out as being the target of the attack. So, if the AT&T building was the target, any of these motives could have existed:
a. An attempt to damage our critical infrastructure, either for some yet to be known purpose, or to send a message of sorts, as a “sample” of further and continued attacks. Federal law enforcement must always assume that there will be follow-on attacks and a nexus of continued terrorism by an active cell or network until that is ruled out.
b. An ideological motivation that involves the AT&T building, to include possibly the conspiracies involving the developing 5G network. There are some absolutely preposterous theories going on regarding this 5G network, their connection to the pandemic, and more. Much of it is the mind-numbing, mindless “tin foil hat” conspiracy theory nonsense that spreads among intellectually lazy and amateur night folks on the internet. Many of these persons are either mentally ill or driven to the point of delusion and militancy by the fiction spread online. Periodically, the influence of these result in mass shootings, workplace violence, and other terroristic events. Additionally, there is increasing ire and animus towards the various “Big Tech” companies by millions of Americans, to include for their role in election interference, censorship, deplatforming, and a massive destabilization campaign against the President for the past four years. All of this flows through the primary internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile & internet service companies such as AT&T.
c. Something connected to our strife over the 2020 General Election. In less than ten days from the explosion is to be the final counting of the Electoral College votes by our legislature. It may be the most contentious in history. Some of the rhetoric online is concerning. Anyone seeing the contentious and volatile rhetoric on social media and in chat rooms would easily conclude that there is a dramatic uptick the strife and banter over this. To include talk of a “civil war.” After a few hours of this, I have observed very concerning discussions by left wing, libertarian and anarchist, and right-wing account holders. This is not isolated to any one political party or faction. Luckily, our federal counterterrorism capabilities monitor and investigate articulated threats and any nexus to conduct such. They are constantly on the watch both domestically and overseas. Yet there is cause concern, especially when it comes to entities which have clearly demonstrated in the recent past their propensity to act on their threats.
In particular, we have suffered a portion of this year seeing billions of dollars of damage and some casualties caused by left wing militant groups who conducted criminal rioting, domestic terrorism, and insurrection. These were highly funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and coordinated nationwide. Some of this funding was from foreign sources. Some of the methods used showed telltale signs of the same TTPs of foreign militant and terrorist groups who conduct insurrection and insurgencies. These organized rioters and looters were originally preparing for an undesirable result in the General Election later in the year, but activated and launched much earlier due to the events concerning police use of force and purported racial injustice. This bombing was in the middle of a historic legal challenge to the General Election, and days away from both the final certification of the election and court cases to be filed by the President and his campaign. Could this bombing have been some kind of warning? The possibility that the explosion was somehow connected to this cannot be ruled out yet.
3. An elaborate suicide – the clear attempt to cause an evacuation of the area of bystanders, the choice of time of day and a holiday where few if any people would be around, the report of human remains at the scene, and the probability that the explosion could have been initiated by that person or persons, would lead me to not rule out the possibility of suicide. Particularly because the AT&T building was unoccupied and the time & place were to be a ghost town. This could have been combined with any of the motives and targets above. No pun intended, but this could have been a suicide by someone “going out with a bang.” We may learn more about this possible motive from what the investigation unearths. Those committing suicide and those conducting ideologically based terrorist often leave a statement or message somewhere to be found.
Therefore, I believe that there is a likelihood that the motive of this terrorist attack was to send a message. If someone was trying to send a message regarding this is one way that it manifests. Twenty-five years ago someone named Timothy McVeigh did exactly that thing. And, using nearly the exact same method of attack. We may soon know what, if any message or warning there was.
What was different about this terrorist attack from others?
Whether this was an infrastructure attack, attack on a famous cultural district, a more general attack on our heartland, or any of the aforementioned ideological justifications, we cannot rule out either the symbolism or pinpoint nature of this location, date, and method. What is different about this domestic terrorist attack is that it:
1. Appears to have sought to avoid loss of life.
2. Despite having the hallmarks of a VBIED attack, there were some flaws in the conduct of the attack for which is did not achieve the full potential or effects intended.
3. It did not choose a particularly high value target or inflict mass terror. Unless this was a “sample” to send some type of message and warning of possible future attacks, then this attack falls short as compared to the majority of VBIEDs on record.
Judging by the considerable and plainly visible rooftop air conditioning systems and power that goes into the AT&T building, this mostly windowless building houses many servers, cabling, and electronics. Complete destruction of this facility could cause even more serious disruption in a wide area and over several states, far more than what occurred. I observed that this particular building did not have any barriers or other physical security enhancements other than very simple key locked doors and security cameras.
Although there was damage and interruption of service, this building is still standing. Crews are attempting to reestablish power and function to this facility. With the right type of explosive and knowledge of how and where to emplace it, such a building can be taken out. This particular VBIED did not produce the maximum potential yield that it could have. Despite what appears to be serious damage to the buildings in close proximity to the blast, most of the explosion vented up and down the street and straight up in the air. Explosions go the path of least resistance. Unless they are directed in such a way to yield maximum physical destruction. If this VBIED had been in that location during a typical, pre-pandemic night in that district, the casualty count would have been immense. I examined photos from right before the blast and then a variety of older street view imagery, and determined that this RV could have either gotten onto the sidewalk in front of the AT&T building. Better yet, behind the AT&T building is a large, open, and empty parking lot directly behind which almost any sized vehicle could drive directly up to the side of unhindered. Either the perpetrator did not intend to get the maximum effect of their explosives or did not know how to. This is part of what makes me suspect that suicide by the perpetrator was one of the objectives of this terrorist attack. That would make this what we call an SVBIED – Suicide Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device.
In previous bombings, larger trucks were used. Some were rental and delivery trucks. Since these have been used in many bombings as well as by terrorists to run over pedestrians, law enforcement knows to look for them. An American made recreational vehicle (RV) is certainly less suspicious. More of these are becoming commonplace, particularly as more Americans are homeless due to the economic situation, with RVs being sighted in increasing manner in our cities. A self-propelled RV might have the capacity for the weight of a large IED. If the interior were stripped out, even more so. In many cases, bomb makers had to reinforce the suspensions of their trucks or cars as the weight of the explosives cause the vehicle to look abnormally overloaded. Law enforcement are taught to look for this as an indicator. We may soon know if this RV was modified to hold the additional weight of a large main charge of explosives. We will also know the material used in the main charge and its explosive yield. They will also know how the bomb was built, with what, and how it was initiated. The FBI and other agencies have this type of forensics down to a science.
Whether any of what has been posited here comes to be true, here is something that should be of concern – this bomb worked on the first try. Why this is a concern – They usually don’t. In the world of IED-making there are a large number of misfires and mishaps. Many bombs that our troops faced in the war either failed to detonate (misfire), or “low-ordered” (partially detonated or did not detonate to its maximum explosive yield). Since improvised/homemade explosives have such a high failure rate and certainly not the reliability of military or commercial grade explosives, the IED maker who wants to succeed will often conduct “test shots,” building and improving their IED design by testing it to ensure that it will go off when intended. Therefore, the maker of this particular bomb, a VBIED, most likely conducted tests to ensure that. They must do so in an undetected manner. They had to have used a remote location somewhere to conduct their tests. This also means that there could be additional explosive components yet to be found by law enforcement. This also could mean that there might be others who either were directly involved, or in some manner facilitated or at least knew that something was afoot. This brings me to the next portion of this analysis.
Was attack the work of a terrorist cell or a solo “lone wolf” terrorist?
Almost no terrorist attacks of any major scale are solo in nature. For most successful terrorist attacks, there is a cell of several operatives and a network of many more facilitators and enablers. A ratio of 5 to 20 such support personnel for a single terrorist would not be uncommon. We found in Afghanistan that a single suicide bomber might have a few dozen other terrorists and facilitators involved in the entire operation to get them recruited, trained, equipped, and emplaced at their target. For bombs they themselves, this requires a sophisticated capability for the WTI and logistical support that goes into it. And cost. So, a terrorist must be funded, hidden, given a place to sleep, eat, meet, plan, train, build explosives or prepare weapons, and be able to communicate. Some are assigned to conduct pre-attack surveillance of the target. This often occurs for a period of 4 to 12 weeks before an attack, to narrow down the target, learn the patterns of life of people and vehicles in the area, and a list of other considerations. The terrorist must be infiltrated to the attack site. In this case, if the RV and VBIED did in fact come from the local neighborhood that the FBI just raided in connection with the person of interest, then this ten-mile route would need to be covered without impediment or detection. It is very, very likely that this particular attacker had visited the target site in advance. There are some unconfirmed reports of the RV having been seen in that area in the recent past.
Whatever the case, it is possible for a very determined individual to plan such an attack from beginning to end, and without any assistance of any kind. We have in fact seen lone sniper and lone active shooter attacks in this country on multiple occasions since the 1960s. In doing so alone, many of the indicators and chatter picked up by government surveillance would have not existed and thusly avoided detection. The FBI and DOJ have admitted of years, to include in Congressional testimony, that lone wolf and small cell terrorists are the most elusive and often difficult or impossible to detect and stop before they act.
However, if this was an ideologically motivated attack by some type of extremist, it is highly likely that this perpetrator was connected to other extremists, as many of them do. They rely on each other for information, assistance with logistics, and even encouragement. They cannot help themselves but confide in others. Nearly every planned domestic terrorist attack that has been thwarted by the FBI was against a small cell operating domestically. In most all cases, they had vulnerabilities in their operational security (OPSEC) and communications, flaws in their planning and approach, for which federal authorities were able to exploit and act upon. No matter how hard they try or how cunning that they think that they are, many of these extremists sew the seeds of their own disaster, leaving clues and forensic evidence that are easily found by counterterrorism personnel. That capability, as I have seen firsthand, is quite formidable in the post 9/11 era. Thusly, the FBI will be looking for a network, any facilitators, and to determine or rule out the possibility that there could be follow-on attacks.
What could be coming next?
When such an investigation is underway, some impressive and complex resources are leveraged. The mentioned FBI lab at Quantico, fusion centers, and other assets are hard at work in a worldwide dragnet both to drill down on the localized aspects of this bombing while trying to either confirm or deny an international nexus of terrorism and the possibility of follow-on attacks by the same cell of terrorists, if they do exist. They are very likely in a race at this moment to run this down.
This also includes the large, well-funded National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). It is the focal point of all intelligence and early warning for terrorist related intelligence and knowledge, a veritable nerve center on the watch twenty-four hours a day. This is where they “connect the dots” and issue warnings throughout government and law enforcement. On the ground, the FBI has specially trained & equipped teams that conduct these investigations. Others will conduct a series of raids and warrants, following up on the combination of evidence from the blast crater, the RV, and other mentioned digital & forensic evidence. This is the real-world version of CSI, but much much better. While this is going on, the intelligence centers will be analyzing and feeding back to them information. In some cases, leading them to their next location to conduct a warrant service on. In some cases, leading them to conduct surveillance or interviews. At this moment, all of the above are either going on or being planned. Warrants are being drawn up and approval being sought for them. Special Operations (SWAT) teams and task forces are deployed to assist in some of these warrants, especially for a higher risk suspect or location.
Included in their search will be still and video footage from all available CCTV, security cameras, ATM machines, traffic cameras, and other systems in the vicinity of the explosion and working outwards. Connected to other investigative tools, they will look for evidence of the suspects conducting pre-attack surveillance and other activities (such as “casing” and “drive-bys” and “dry runs”), anyone that they may have come into contact with, and much more. They will compare physical and even biometric evidence from the crime scene, to include from the bomb and any bodies, to the same in other vehicles, workplaces, and residences that they may have been recently. These can become veritable jackpots for investigators, as even an explosion of that magnitude does not destroy everything. Our personnel were able to lift fingerprints of insurgents off of fired and abandoned rocket launchers, the tape used to make a bomb, or residue of explosives on the fly of their pants and shoelaces. We once traced the origin of where the bombers got their materials based upon some unique yet carelessly discarded packaging for string that one of the components came from in a nearby country.
For example, a locker at a gym regularly used, bicycle, dishes in a sink, bottoms of shoes, and contents of a garage can yield significant evidence to connect the dots.
When it comes to investigating bombings, our federal law enforcement has this down to a science.
What I believe will surface will be some type of death note, message, or other communication by the perpetrator(s) about their motive. This will possibly be uncovered via exploitation and computer & digital forensics examinations of their personal electronics and accounts connected to them. This includes possibly internet search history to prepare for blast and acquisitions of materials to learn how to develop the type of IED used. Or, the perpetrator could have timed a release of such information.
Initial Assessment – In consideration of the above, and breaking information from the crime scene, my initial assessment is that this was certainly a domestic terrorist attack, though very possibly not the work of a terrorist network nor is there a nexus seeking to conduct similar attacks and not the work of foreign nationals. This looks to be the work of either a lone actor or a small cell, a single target that was attacked, and for a very specific ideological rationale. This was planned far in advance and implemented some of the TTPs used in other terrorist attacks of this kind.
However, in connection with political events and increasing strike, the possibility of a network and follow-on attacks cannot yet be ruled out. Particularly because of the current political environment and timing of events, the vulnerability of our country considering an election in question and upcoming inauguration, and a list of other considerations which our federal counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and law enforcement officials are toiling over as we speak.
(an impressive website for research and those interested on all manner of terrorism information)
John Milton Petersonis a contributing author/analyst at the Gold Institute for International Strategy.
Mr. Peterson is a combat veteran of the U.S. Army Special Forces (a.k.a. the “Green Berets”) with multiple deployments to the Middle East and Asia. His post 9/11 experience includes a series of government positions and contracts in support of national security and the Global War On Terrorism. These include being recruited to a position at the new U.S. Department of Homeland Security after 9/11, followed by contracts for the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community focused on counterterrorism, intelligence, special operations, and training of personnel in these professions.
During this period, he worked on more than one assignment where he was deployed overseas assigned to collect and analyze intelligence on terrorists, including specialized training and assignments focused on targeting IED networks.In another, he taught special operations troops intelligence techniques & tactics for targeting of terrorist networks.He has also taken part in as a role player and been a developer of elaborate counterterrorism training scenarios for the military, to include involving IEDs and WMD.
For the past 23 years, he has been serving on the Advisory Board of the International Association of Counterterrorism & Security Professionals (IACSP), serving as their Special Projects Director, contributing to their long running journal many times, and representing the organization in presenting about terrorism at national level conferences as well as instructional invites to government.
His professional memberships include such natsec related organizations as the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, AFCEA, National Tactical Officers Association, OSS Society, Global SOF Foundation, Nine Lives Associates, National Press Club, and is a life member of the IACSP, AFCEA, and five veterans service organizations.
Diamonds, castles, fancy titles, prestige and honor.
He had it all.
Statues, culture, diversity, heritage and pride.
We have it all.
What is intrinsically wrong with some people that want to throw away their heritage, history, the good and the bad, their rights and their privileges? What is it about their dignity, their moral servitude, and the courage to stand up for their convictions, that causes a person to try and fade into obscurity, a population to fade away from the spotlight and countries to downplay their greatness?
Prince Harry is all that is wrong with the Change movement. He wants to blaze his own path, throw off the yoke of Royal responsibilities bestowed to him at birth, throw away his title and replace it for something better, shinier and more modern. Hence, he leaves the U.K., burdens all his responsibilities onto his older brother, and starts a new quest. To bring about change.
On a recent video call with the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT), Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, spoke about Black Lives Matter and the changes needed within ourselves to bring about a renewed sense of identity. The irony of the call speaks volumes. Prince Harry, having served his country with dignity and sacrifice, surely understands more than most, how to sacrifice his own needs, and working for the good of the people. There is nothing more impressive then someone who serves his country, putting their life in danger, and risking all for others, for the greater good and safety of others.
The allure of building a better world appeals to him as he perceives the old one to be somewhat faulty or wrong. All around the world, the white person is conceived as the disease that needs to be cleansed and changed, so that a new and improved white person can be born. Attacking the Commonwealth and indeed all the work that his Paternal Grandmother, the Queen of England has put her heart and soul into for the last six decades or so, will surely ensure that his return to England will be unwelcome, should he ever wish to return.
The fickleness and enamor of change, glamor and glitz are momentary, gone in a puff of smoke. Transformation, protest and the promise of a better and changed world are all momentary, here today, gone tomorrow. What is left after the dust settles? Unhappiness, broken dreams and shattered communities.
Let’s not throw our away our rights, our dignity, and our power for a group of people that have little or no respect for our country, our history or our sacrifice. Once our history is changed, our statues toppled and our dignity eroded, it will be difficult to reclaim.
Statement from the Gold Institute on the DC Appellate Court’s granting of the Writ of Mandamus in Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s case today:
Today, after more than three years of a baseless prosecution fueled by partisan animus, the DC Appellate Court ordered Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to comply with the unopposed Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice, the charges against General Michael T. Flynn.
Despite the lower court’s efforts to continue trying a case where no controversy or dispute exist any longer, with the sole purpose of creating a political controversy for the Trump administration, reason prevailed.
One could argue that the entire case, predicated on falsehoods and promoted by spite should have never started, and should have been rejected by the District Court on the strength of lack of merit alone.
We rejoice in the full exoneration of a man we have always known to be innocent of the charges against him, and wish him a speedy return to the service of a Nation he has dedicated his life to protect.
