In Bucharest, Romania, on 26-27 April 2024, politicians, think-tankers, businessmen, writers and influencers from across Europe, the United States, Canada and South America gathered for a conference on defending European values and freedom and restoring national self-confidence. In other words, “Making Europe Great Again”. It was organized by the Romanian conservative political party, Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), ahead of elections for the European Parliament to be held in all 27 countries of the European Union during the period 6-9 June 2024. Once elected, some 700 new members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will travel to Strasbourg on 16 July where most of them will join one of 8 trans-national political groups spanning a spectrum from Left to Right, from communist to extreme nationalist. The AUR aims to join the center-right group of European Conservatives & Reformists.

On 27 April, Geoffrey Van Orden CBE, Gold Institute Distinguished Fellow, Former British Army Brigadier-General, and leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament (before the United Kingdom left the EU in 2020), delivered a speech based on the following.

“30 years as a British Army officer taught me to keep my eye on the main aim, not to bring problems but solutions, and to understand the enemy. This also proved useful in my 20 years in the European Parliament, where I stood up for the sovereignty of our nations and against the drive for political integration, led the opposition to the EU’s misguided defense policy, demanded revitalization of NATO and rigorous counter-terrorism policies and sounded the alarm over mass immigration.

Today I see our values and our way of life are under threat and yet we are like rabbits caught in the car headlights, unable to make the right move. We face massive external and internal challenges, but we seem to have lost our way.

There is no doubt that the Covid pandemic inflicted the most enormous economic and social costs on all of us. There are worries about climate change and about conflict. But we have been through worse.

What is different is the widespread mood of pessimism and the undermining of confidence in our nations and our institutions, particularly among young people. This mood is spread by social media and fed by deliberate disinformation coming from Russia and its allies.

This is the backdrop to the most immediate and urgent threat that unfolded just a few miles from here with the Russian attack on the Ukraine, aiming to recreate the failed Soviet Union and that old Russian sphere of influence that embraced eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Romania’s commitment as a vital NATO ally was never more important.

Not only must we give every possible support to Ukraine in her defense against aggression, but the West needs to rearm – to upgrade national military capabilities, and strengthen the NATO alliance and our defense industries.

I am reassured that the United Kingdom is leading the way in Europe with the announcement, just a few days ago, of increasing defense expenditure and a massive replenishment of weapons for Ukraine.

Romania is enhancing its naval capabilities with four new surface combatants and three submarines for operations in the Black Sea. It is deepening its relationship with NATO and hosting NATO’s newest regional headquarters, Multinational Division Southeast.

Russia, with a GDP smaller than Britain’s, is single-minded in its objectives, seeking to recover its great power status and aggressively trying to restore its control of the post- Soviet space. Its people are used to hardship. The citizens of the democracies, meanwhile, seek a world of stability and just want peace, comfort and the good life.

Moscow’s strategy is two-fold. Firstly to convince Western public opinion to appease Russia in order to avoid conflict. Secondly, to separate Europe from the United States – to break the transatlantic alliance that has been our saviour and protection for over 80 years.

This is why I believe that EU Defense Policy, essentially a 70-year old French project, aiming to create an autonomous EU defense structure, separate from NATO – is not only wrong-headed but dangerous.

We are constantly being told that America is turning its back on Europe, pivoting to Asia, and that Donald Trump, in particular, wants to take America out of NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every American president since Eisenhower has wanted the Europeans to contribute more to their own security. Trump just speaks in more brash language. The fact is, he has been a major incentive for the Europeans to do more – two-thirds of NATO’s 32 members now spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Ten years ago, only 3 NATO allies met that meagre target.

The United States now has more troops and equipment stationed in Europe than since the end of the Cold War. It is investing some $5 billion in the European Deterrence Initiative, and in the last few days, the US Congress has approved a $60 billion defense assistance program for Ukraine. It has deployed a rotational Brigade Combat Team to Romania in addition to air and air defense assets. That’s a massive, continuing, and reliable commitment to European security by the United States. And it’s what Russia fears most.

What we need across Europe is more military capability backed by political will, not fanciful EU structures.

The EU is not “Europe”.

The fact is EU defense policy has never been about more military capability – it is a political project to take forward European political integration. Brussels now wants the national veto on EU defense policy to be lifted and to introduce majority voting so that it can impose its political will. And it wants to insist on exclusive EU defense procurement, which by definition would complicate and exclude non-EU providers like the US and UK. You may recall Madeleine Albright’s warning way back in in 1998, against EU Defense Policy. She saw that it would lead to “diminution of NATO, discrimination and duplication” – the famous 3 “Ds”. Unfortunately all of them are hallmarks of EU Defense Policy. This needs to be opposed.

The transatlantic alliance needs to be strengthened, not chopped in half.

We also face an enemy within. The hard Left has never lost its loathing for our nations, for our great histories, culture and traditions, for all that has made us who we are. It will do all that it can to disrupt our economies, target vital industries, and create fear and despair.

We see it in action on our streets with the demonstrations ostensibly about Gaza. Noticeably absent is any condemnation of the Hamas terror organisation, any demands for the release of Israeli hostages, or even puzzlement at the abject failure of successive Palestinian leaders to deliver peace for their people.

And we have another problem. We are incapable, it seems, of securing our borders. Week after week, year after year, we allow countless thousands of strangers into our countries from cultures entirely different to our own. Their sheer numbers make integration into our societies increasingly difficult and now, with the promotion of multiculturalism, we seem to have given up on that possibility.

Last year, net migration to the UK was 672,000. In 2022, net migration to the EU countries was over 4 million.

The EU, wrapped in faulty human rights legislation, has been a massive magnet for migrants. Its mind-set is to continue to lay our countries open but to impose migrant quotas on its member states. Quite rightly, many EU countries have refused to accept this. But it is national governments that have been complacent over mass immigration or have sat at the EU Council table in Brussels and agreed on rules that merely encourage more migration.

At the same time, new laws have been introduced which give unprecedented protection to imported sensitivities and beliefs so that it is now hardly possible to criticize the arrival of people from entirely different cultures and backgrounds in case we are called racist or Islamophobic.

Not surprisingly we now have a generation of young people who know little about their own countries and are being indoctrinated into shame over our great national stories through social media, schools and universities as well as public institutions such as our art galleries and museums.

Let us be clear, most migrants come because they want to integrate into our societies, earn a living, and leave behind the system they grew up with. Many have made a great contribution to our societies and are proud of the country that has adopted them. But the pressure on so many to retain their old cultural baggage and loyalties is enormous.

We have to put a stop to mass immigration before it gets worse. Within the EU, national governments need to regain control over asylum and immigration policy. We need to change welfare and employment systems and human rights legislation that is a massive magnet for migrants. Those that enter our countries illegally or engage in serious criminality must be removed.

One of the biggest obstacles to an effective removal system across Europe has proved to be the European Convention on Human Rights – or rather its overreach and inflated interpretation. Its workings, along with the Refugee Convention, impact on all of our countries.

Neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom nor so many other countries, have any need of an external court in order to protect their very long-standing and positive record of human rights. International laws were drawn up in entirely different circumstances over 70 years ago, after the atrocities of the holocaust and with the communist iron curtain falling across eastern Europe. We now need a concerted effort to change these Conventions and their interpretation.

Increase in defense expenditure, enhancement of NATO, control of our borders and an end to mass immigration – these are policies that our center-right parties should campaign for.

15 years ago, I was instrumental in the creation of the European Conservatives & Reformists political group in the European Parliament. I want to see it again becoming the third largest group in the parliament and a decisive force. It is time the sensible, reasonable, center-right reasserted itself.

We must strengthen the cohesion of our nations, educate our young people about the reality of the threat we face, and carry out a moral rearmament to restore confidence and hope. Our democracy and prosperity, has been hard won over many centuries, but can be easily lost. It would take many generations to recover.

Europe – the United Kingdom, the Nordic countries, the Black Sea nations, the continental European countries – have much in common and have contributed so much to the world. We are a bastion of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. We have been an engine of global creativity and prosperity. Let us show that we are proud of who we are and that, along with our great kindred allies, the United States, Canada, and so many others, we have the resolve and the resources to protect our precious inheritance of freedom and to make a better world.”

(This article first appeared on Kurdistan24.net, https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/28692-Federal-court-ruling-setting-conditions-for-electing-Iraq%E2%80%99s-president-influenced-by-Iran:-Expert)

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – The February ruling by the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court, which stipulated that two-thirds of lawmakers in Iraq’s parliament are needed to elect the country’s president, was made “under the influence of Iran”, argued an expert on Iraqi politics on Monday. 

The remark was made by university lecturer and Iraqi politics expert Kamaran Palani during a panel in Istanbul, Turkey, titled ‘MENA Regional Dynamics: De-escalation and Challenges’ and organized by the Kurdistan 24 Research and Survey Center and the Al Sharq Strategic Research think tank. 

In early February, the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court (FSC) ruled that a two-thirds majority of Iraq’s 329-seat parliament is needed to elect the President of the Republic. 

Issued “under the influence of Iran,” the ruling made it impossible for the Oct. 10, 2021, election winners to elect a president by themselves, Palani noted.

“I would make a strong argument [or] statement,” he said, adding that the neighboring country made the decision. 

The panel also shed light on the role played by the Kurds in the Iraqi political process since last fall’s parliamentary elections and the “significant and unprecedented” political impasse that ensued. 

Palani outlined the three main challenges the Kurdistan Region faces due to the present political crisis in Iraq. These are rocket and drone attacks on its capital Erbil, the FSC’s ruling (also in February) against its oil and gas law, and domestic political divisions. 

Erbil requires international support to withstand these threats, particularly the rocket attacks that intend to destabilize the capital, Palanai argued. 

Iraq’s current political impasse has the potential to lead to armed confrontations and civil unrest, according to Nahro Zagros, a Kurdish academic and the panel’s moderator. 

Zagros believes Turkey’s role, along with that of the international community, is “paramount” for enabling the Kurds in Iraq to confront the current challenges. 

The energy potential of the Kurdistan Region was another topic the panel discussed.

Howri Mansubeg, an energy expert, also participated in the panel. He focused on the potential of the Kurdistan Region’s natural gas resources to be exported to Turkey and other countries.

He argued that it is in the “national security interest” of Turkey to support the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), as Erbil is one of Ankara’s most “trustworthy” allies in the region. 

A private panel titled ‘KRG and Turkey: Strategic Alignment or Tactical Arrangement’ was later held. It focused on Turkey-Kurdistan Region relations in light of the evolving world and regional order.

To watch the

Nahro Zagros is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington DC based foreign policy and defense think tank.

This artcle orginally appeared in the Star News Network at https://thestarnewsnetwork.com/2022/05/27/questions-swirl-around-law-enforcements-response-to-uvalde-shooting-ap-sro-driving-nearby-not-at-campus/)

The director of the southern section of the Texas Department of Public Safety cut short his Thursday press conference as reporters shouted questions at him about why local law enforcement was ineffective for the hour after Tuesday’s spree shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary School as gunshot victims languished inside. The crisis ended when Border Patrol Tactical officers arrived, engaged shooter Salvador Ramos, and killed him.

DPS Regional Director Victor Escalon: “One more, one more question, please.”

Reporter 1: “Eyewitnesses and some parents of the students were urging that the police go in while you were waiting for a tactical SWAT team. Even some parents were asking to borrow police armor, so they could launch a counterassault on the school.”

Escalon: I have heard that information, but we have not verified it yet.

Reporter 2: What haven’t you verified?

Escalon: “We have not verified that that is a true statement or not, or is it just a rumor out there – so, you got to understand, we’re getting a lot of information. We’re trying to track down what is true. We want to vet it.

That’s all I have for questions. Thank you so much, so look, we appreciate the questions.

Reporter 3: What were your officers doing between 11:44 and 12:44?

Escalon: I got you. Yes, sir. I have taken all of your questions into consideration. We will have updates.

Reporter 3: “We’ve been given a lot of bad information – why don’t you clear this all up? Why don’t you explain to us how it is that your officers were in there for an hour, and yet, no one was able to get inside that room? You guys said he was barricaded. Can you explain to us how he was barricaded, and why you could not breach that door?

Escalon told the reporters he would circle back as he closed the presser.

When the press conference opened, Escalon put out two shocking corrections to the previous official timeline of events: there was no initial confrontation with a school resource officer, and the door to the school was not locked.

The Associated Press reported that an anonymous source said the SRO, the armed guard responsible for the school’s security, was driving nearby and not on the grounds when Ramos entered the school.

Watch DPS Regional Director Escalon’s press conference remarks here.

Black: Access control of a building is the key to the building’s security

Marc Black, who retired from the New York City police department as a detective investigator, said that while many people focus on armed guards, he focuses on a building’s access.

“This is my background from a security and vulnerability perspective from physical security,” said Black, who now is a senior fellow at the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies.

“At all these shootings, here’s the question, and nobody in the press ever asks this. What are the access controls for the school? And where were they deployed? That’s an extremely important question,” he said.

“The access control needs to be robust, and it needs to detect, deter, deny, and delay the threat, so it gives enough time for the good people to distance themselves from the bad guys. Were the doors locked?” the detective said.

“Physical security is done in layers. Did they have security personnel outside the school who can observe the school if there was anything that was suspicious?” Black asked.

“Everybody thinks of the resource officer and guns. If you have a resource officer who’s going for their gun, did the physical security somewhere fail? That’s the last line of defense,” he said.

As troubling as these items were, now the emotional center of gravity for the Robb School shooting is the lack of action by local law enforcement.

Although there were officers in the school coordinating the evacuation of students, faculty and administrators, according to the official timeline, two officers were shot and injured by the shooter soon after he entered the school, and afterward, neither they nor any other officers engaged the shooter until the tactical unit arrived.

The Associated Press spoke to one parent of one of the dead students, who said he demanded the police take action to save the children inside.

Javier Cazares, whose fourth-grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school as the massacre unfolded. When he arrived, he saw two officers outside the school and about five others escorting students out of the building. But 15 or 20 minutes passed before the arrival of officers with shields, equipped to confront the gunman, he said.

As more parents flocked to the school, he and others pressed police to act, Cazares said. He heard about four gunshots before he and the others were ordered back to a parking lot.

“A lot of us were arguing with the police, ‘You all need to go in there. You all need to do your jobs.’ Their response was, ‘We can’t do our jobs because you guys are interfering,’” Cazares said.

Black said after the April 20, 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the NYPD changed its procedure so that patrolmen no longer waited for officers from the department’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU).

“In New York City, if something like this happens, you don’t wait for ESU,” he said.

Black said all officers are trained in the same procedures so that if officers from different parts of the city arrive at the scene of an emergency, they can work together.

“It’d be like this. Maybe we all have the same training. I never met you. You never met me, but coincidentally, now we have this situation, but we’re all trained to the same standard, and we go in,” he said.

“What we’re trying to do there is isolate the scene or actually stop the threat.”

Evans: Often, victims survive gunshot wounds but bleed out without immediate medical attention

Craig Evans, the Northern Virginia Emergency Medical Services Council executive director, said it is surprising that many gunshot victims can survive in a mass casualty situation if they are attended to in time.

“The primary injuries that you can help correct, as a paramedic or on-the-scene initially, are severe bleeding, sucking chest wounds and airway compromises – depending on where the bullet goes,” said Evans, who retired from the City of Fairfax, Virginia, fire department in 2020.

“Immediate intervention makes the difference,” the retired firefighter said.

“If you want to survive a shooting, you don’t need a gun; you need a tourniquet and a 14-gauge needle, in case you have to do a chest decompression on yourself and some dressing, in case you have a sucking chest wound,” he said.

Victims with those injuries can survive, he said. “If those three things can be fixed immediately – but, an hour is a very long time.”

Evans said the Robb School shooting victims, especially the students, would not have much time to wait before they bled out from their wounds.

“The average 10-year-old weighs about 70 pounds so that they would have roughly 2.7 liters of blood,” he said.

“A 15 percent loss of that and you would be in severe shock – about 400-to-500 milliliters of blood – half a liter,” he said. “One 20-ounce bottle of soda is 591 milliliters, so theoretically, one bottle of soda is enough to put a 10-year-old into shock.”

Shock is when the body does not have enough blood to nourish tissue, and the body withholds blood from extremities to preserve the heart, brain and the core, he said.

All other gunshot injuries fall into one of two categories, Evans said.

“The majority of other injuries are either survivable, meaning you can go to the hospital the next day, or they are fatal,” said the member of the adjunct faculty of George Washington University’s Emergency Health Services Department.

“If you got shot in the arm, and it did not hit any major vessels? You could go to the hospital in two days, and you’d be fine,” he said. “If you got shot in the head, you could not survive it. If you got shot in the heart, you could not survive it.”

– – –

Neil W. McCabe is the national political editor of The Star News Network based in Washington. He is an Army Reserve public affairs NCO and an Iraq War veteran

As we prepare to observe this Memorial Day let us take a moment to remember all the members of our military who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms we hold dear.

Let us take a moment to remember ALL our heroes who have sacrificed their lives while taking up the task to defend this nation from those who wish to destroy all it stands for.

Most importantly let us take a moment to thank God for those who continue to stand up and fight to protect our freedom, and to ask for his continued guidance and protection.

O God, our Father, Thou Searcher of human hearts, help us to draw near to Thee in sincerity and truth. May our religion be filled with gladness and may our worship of Thee be natural.

Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretense ever to diminish. Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy. Guard us against flippancy and irreverence in the sacred things of life. Grant us new ties of friendship and new opportunities of service. Kindle our hearts in fellowship with those of a cheerful countenance and soften our hearts with sympathy for those who sorrow and suffer. Help us to show forth in our lives the ideals to Thee and to our Country. All of which we ask in the name of the Great Friend and Master of all. – Amen (West Point Cadet Prayer)

May God bless us all,