Category Archives: Choke Point

Gruber: Pay More if You Are Fat

Posted on by

There are those that are fat, there are those that smoke and those that need behavior modification. So it is any wonder when we read the highlights of the Obamacare law, we begin to understand what is in the law and why? It is any wonder why Mayor Bloomberg of New York City tried the concept of controlling soda in take, salt on the food and then there is Michelle Obama and her food program. It all begins to come into full view. Read here for the full 2 page essay courtesy of Jonathan Gruber.

Gruber became the healthcare expert on behavior modification that was core in the construction of the Obamacare law. Gruber wrote a book and a detailed essay which is found here.                                          

Every day young people engage in risky behaviors that affect not only their immediate well-being but their long-term health and safety. These well-honed essays apply diverse economic analyses to a wide range of unsafe activities, including teen drinking and driving, smoking, drug use, unprotected sex, and criminal activity. Economic principles are further applied to mental health and performance issues such as teenage depression, suicide, nutritional disorders, and high school dropout rates. Together, the essays yield notable findings: price and regulatory incentives are critical determinants of high-risk behavior, suggesting that youths do apply some sort of cost/benefit calculation when making decisions; the macroeconomic environment in which those decisions are made matters greatly; and youths who pursue high-risk behaviors are significantly more likely to engage in similar behaviors as adults.

                                                            

Taxing Sin to Modify Behavior and Raise Revenue

Jonathan Gruber, PhD, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

U.S. policymakers have long used taxes on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages – so called “sin taxes” – both to moderate consumption of these products and to generate revenue. There is a pronounced inverse correlation between cigarette tax rates and cigarette consumption (Figure 1), and numerous studies have credited tobacco taxes as being the single most effective strategy in achieving our country’s dramatic reductions in smoking. 1 More recently, similar taxes on products linked to obesity have been receiving increased attention, with the Institute of Medicine recommending this strategy as a weapon against childhood obesity, 2 several states and localitites  flirting with significant new taxes on sugary sodas, and an early proposal to use a soda tax as a financing source for national health reform. A just-released longitudinal study showing that a 10 percent rise in the price of sweetened soft drinks was associated with a 7 percent decline in daily caloric intake from sodas, lower overall calorie consumption, lower weight, and improved insulin resistance lends new support to a sin tax on sugary soda.3 States now facing severe budget shortfalls may also find these taxes hard to resist. Estimates produced by the Yale University Rudd Center suggest, for example, that California could raise over $560 million in 2010 alone by taxing sugary beverages at a rate of 3 cents per 12 ounces. 4 Despite this allure, the case for sin taxes is not clear cut. In this essay I review the arguments for and against sin taxes and describe how these considerations play out for cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. I then offer some thoughts on using sin taxes to combat rising obesity rates.

 

 

GOP Demands WH Turn Over IRS Communications

Posted on by

A handful of GOP senators are on the move still investigating the IRS targeting scandal. It appears they have some evidence that the White House was complicit in targeting a long list of conservative groups. This investigation has several moving parts and involves many agencies and people, hence the demands of the White House. The question remains will the White House even acknowledge or comply.

Senate GOP demands Obama turn over all communications with IRS

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 29, 2015

Senate Republicans on Thursday asked President Obama to turn over all communications he and his aides have had with the IRS since 2010, hoping to find out whether the tax collection agency shared private taxpayer information with political operatives at the White House.

The request, made in a letter obtained by The Washington Times, is signed by Senate Finance Chairman Orrin G. Hatch and all 13 other Republicans on the committee, and is addressed specifically to Mr. Obama, saying they want to see if his employees broke the law by acquiring or sharing private information. “We have an obligation to conduct oversight of the federal government’s administration of our tax laws,” the lawmakers wrote. “As part of this oversight, we are seeking to determine the degree to and manner in which the Internal Revenue Service shares taxpayer information with the Executive Office of the President.”

The Republicans said they tried to get the information from the IRS, but it has been “unable to provide a full accounting of its employees’ communications with the White House.” The GOP senators gave the president a Feb. 20 deadline.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The IRS is strictly prohibited from sharing confidential taxpayer information with outsiders, though several high-profile conservative figures have said they believe their information was improperly accessed or shared.

In one instance, the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 to the National Organization for Marriage to settle claims after the agency said an employee made a mistake in releasing the group’s donor information to a citizen who requested it. The information was passed to a gay-rights group that posted the donors’ names online. A federal judge ruled the disclosure was an accident.

House Republicans have launched several investigations of the IRS in the wake of the agency’s 2013 admission that it improperly targeted tea party groups for special scrutiny, blocking approval of their applications for tax-exempt status.

The Senate, then controlled by Democrats, had been slower in its investigation. But with Republicans now in control, Thursday’s letter suggests the Senate probe into IRS treatment of taxpayers could pick up.

Outside groups already have tried to get a look at the communications between the White House and the IRS, though they have largely been unsuccessful.

Cause of Action, an interest group, has gone to court to try to compel the IRS‘ inspector general to turn over documents it has stemming from its investigation into White House–IRS communications. The inspector general says it has 2,500 pages of records from its investigation but can’t turn most of them over, saying it would violate the privacy of taxpayers involved.

It’s unclear whether those 2,500 pages would show any evidence of White House meddling with the tax agency.

Also Thursday, the GOP senators on the Finance Committee sent a letter to the IRS telling the agency to cut wasteful spending and use the savings to boost the number of taxpayers’ calls it will answer this year.

The IRS, blaming budget cuts, has said it could end up answering only about half of the calls that come in during the upcoming tax season, and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said it could be “miserable” for taxpayers who might see their refunds delayed by a week or more.

Republican senators, though, said the IRS could cut the amount of salaries paid to employees conducting union business on “official time,” could cancel bonuses and could halt its efforts to come up with new regulations to control nonprofit groups’ political activities.

 

 

Obama’s War on Israel

Posted on by

There is no denying, Obama has declared diplomatic war on Israel. Today, Senator Ted Cruz called for a full investigation.

Obama Administration Unloads On Israeli Ambassador Dermer   The recent rift between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has become more contentious lately and by all appearances, will only grow wider. Netanyahu seems determined defy Obama and speak in front of congress. Standing alongside Netanyahu is the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, and he is drawing as much fire from the White House and Bibi’s critics as his boss.

For perhaps the first time, Israel has become a strongly partisan issue in Washington. An axiom that has rung true in American politics since the Liberty Bell cracked is that Jews vote Democrat. In the 2012 election, the Republicans tried to wrest the Jewish vote away from Obama by claiming that his administration did not support Israel.  Those efforts failed, but Congress is strongly divided and with his State of the Union Address, the president set out his battle lines on the issue of sanctions against Iran.

The Israeli ambassador has been walking through this minefield since he was appointed in July 2013. This speech will place Bibi firmly in the crossfire between Democrats and Republicans, on Capitol Hill. There are many who are angered by a foreign leader pushing his way into the middle of what most consider to be a strictly Washington affair. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, normally a strong advocate of Israel and Netanyahu, said that he was offended by the way the Israeli prime minister inserted himself into a domestic debate between the White House and Congress over America’s Iran policy and called it “wicked”. Netanyahu’s speech could be construed as foreign meddling, with Bibi taking the side of Obama’s opponents. Given Bibi’s blatant support of Mitt Romney in the last US election, it could hardly be the first time that Bibi could be accused of this.

The White House is blaming the Israeli Ambassador for the recent blowout with Israel, according to the NY Times. John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu via Dermer, so he is certainly involved and if blame is to be allocated, he deserves a share. An unnamed White House official blamed Dermer for putting Netanyahu’s personal political fortunes above the relationship between the United States and Israel.  This claim sounds convincing since Dermer is considered to be one of Netanyahu’s closest advisers. At the very least, he has been accused of a breach of protocol, by facilitating his Prime Minister’s visit without going through or even informing the White house.

When Mr. Boehner extended the invitation, Mr. Dermer relayed the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. He did not contact the White House. In a subsequent meeting with John Kerry, Dermer still did not raise the issue of Netanyahu’s speech in front of congress.

White House has called the invitation a breach of diplomatic protocol and announced that Mr. Obama would not meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he visits. In addition, they maintain that the decision not to meet with Netanyahu was due to a policy of not meeting with world leaders close to their elections. This is to avoid the appearance of influence. That policy has been ignored in the past, including one meeting between Clinton and Shimon Peres just before he ran against Netanyahu during which an anti-terror agreement was signed, to much fanfare.

Dermer responded to these issues:

“I have no regrets whatsoever that I have acted in a way to advance my country’s interests. My understanding was that it was the speaker’s prerogative to do, and that he would be the one to inform the administration. The prime minister feels very strongly that he has to speak on this issue. That’s why he accepted the invitation, not to wade into your political debate or make this a partisan issue, and not to be disrespectful to the president.”

This conflict brings into question Mr. Dermer’s performance of his duties.

“He’s a political operative, he’s not really an ambassador,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel. “What he did was totally unacceptable from a standpoint of diplomacy. To think about going behind the back of a friendly country’s administration and working out this kind of arrangement with the parliament or the Congress — it’s unheard-of.”

Mr. Kurtzer said while it was unlikely the Obama administration would take the extraordinary step of declaring Mr. Dermer “persona non grata” — the official method for a foreign diplomat to be ousted from a country — it could request that Mr. Dermer by reprimanded or removed.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street, a Democratic-aligned pro-Israel group agrees with that assessment. “To be an ambassador, you need to be a representative of your country to the entirety of the other country, and that has not been his role to date.”

There are those who disagree and feel that ron Dermer has performed his duties well.

“He’s more direct than they are, he’s less judicious with his words, but he makes it up with principle,” said Mr. Luntz, who taught Mr. Dermer at the University of Pennsylvania before hiring him in 1993. “He’s got tremendous courage and he’s prepared to take a principled risk. I don’t know anyone who is as focused on a specific goal and is prepared to walk through brick walls to get there.”

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, agrees. “He’s been extremely strong and successful at his most important tasks, which are to represent Israel’s interests and defend Mr. Netanyahu’s prerogatives at a critical time for Israel’s security. This administration has repeatedly sought to both undermine and embarrass this prime minister, and the same Democrats who now profess to be so outraged by this have been notably silent. When the dust settles on this — and the dust will settle — I think that he’ll continue to be effective”

*** But there is more:
Enter Jeremy Bird of One Voice: Operation V15 or Victory 2015 is the Obama team dispatched to torpedo the elections in Israel.
The Obama Administration, through the state Department, is funding a group that is helping an Israeli leftist group to oust Israeli Prime Minister N=Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Washington Free Beacon. One Voice international, which garnered two grants from the State Department last year, and writes on its website that it is a “partner” with the state Department, is teaming with V15, a leftist Israeli group which coyly avoided naming Netanyahu, but stated, “We say ‘replace the government,’ it’s not directed at specific individuals. There have been many years of right-wing governments during which little happened, it’s time to change course and give people hope.”Jeremy Bird, the national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign and a co-founder of 270 Strategies, is now working with V15, according to the Daily Caller, which interviewed Lynda Tran, co-founder of 270 Strategies She acknowledged that her organization and Bird are indeed working with One Voice. Bird is virulently anti-Netanyahu; after Netanyahu was invited by Speaker John Boehner to speak before Congress, Bird tweeted that the invitation was a suck-up to Jewish Republicans, writing, “What do you think Adelson promised GOP in exchange for this insane BiBi House visit?” Bird wrote on Twitter. “Blatant attempt to bolster Israeli PM before elections.”

OneVoice development and grants officer Christina Taler would only admit that her organization would help V15 with voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, claiming that the efforts would be non-partisan. She told the Beacon, “We’ve formed a partnership with [V15], but it’s important to know we’re absolutely nonpartisan. Our biggest emphasis and focus right now is just getting people out to vote.”

Taler protested that One Voice used the State Department funding for other activities, not the Israeli election. She said that the funding was used to “build public campaign support for the [Israeli-Palestinian] negotiations” that Secretary of State John Kerry attempted in 2014.

Yasser Mahmoud Abbas, the son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, sits on the advisory board of One Voice.

Will Hillary Really Do It?

Posted on by

She is lining up the sun the moon and the stars, especially the progressive stars to make her run. Why exactly? Power. Most interesting is Hillary has ordered the State Department to not cooperate with FOIA requests from media on the successes during her reign as SecState. What is she hiding beyond the obvious?

Many news agencies and advocacy groups have been trying to get State Department documents about Clinton with little success, leading to accusations that the stonewall is politically motivated.

The AP reported in December 2014 that it had several outstanding FOIA requests on Clinton’s schedule, calendar, and other records from her four years as secretary of state. One of those requests was over four years old. The state department also rejected the AP’s request for expedited processing—a fast-track for FOIA requests afforded to journalists working on newsworthy stories in the public interest.  It would perhaps be prudent for media to file FOIA request on Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s Chief of Staff.

THE POLITICO’s Mike Allen has given us inside look at the nascent Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Allen’s piece is the latest in a long line of stories explaining how formidable the 2016 operation will be, and assuring us that Hillary has learned from her disastrous failure in 2008. Here are five things we’ve learned about the campaign thus far:

1. Hillary loves power even more than she loves money

Allen reports that Clinton “never really hesitated” in deciding to run for president again. The likelihood that she will run reportedly went from 98 percent to 100 percent late last year.

The decision is somewhat puzzling, given Hillary’s well-document obsession with making money, and “getting houses.” She has made millions on the public speaking circuit since quitting her job at the State Department, and has even scoffed at public university students who have protested the use of taxpayer funds to pay her exorbitant speaking fees. (After all, she already offers universities a special discounted rate of $300,000.)

Her decision to forgo millions in future speaking fees is a curious one, which can only be explained by an even greater obsession with power and self-aggrandizement.

2. So many white bros

The Daily Beast’s Tim Mak notes that some Democrats are beginning to express concern about the conspicuous male whiteness of Hillary’s campaign. Pretty much everyone she has hired for a top role is a white dude:

One operative quipped that the top levels of the campaign are in danger of looking like “white dudefest 2016.”

“If Hillary doesn’t begin hiring well-respected African-American or Hispanic political aides in top positions,” said a senior African American Congressional aide, “I would imagine that people will really start to wonder if she is serious about covering her left flank. If that is the case they will look for a candidate who is eager to demonstrate that senior level inclusiveness is a high priority.”

Allen’s report notes that the campaign is already beginning to discuss potential running mates, and at the moment, two white dudes—Sens. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) and Tim Kaine (D., Va.)—are “dominating the early speculation.”

Canada DEM 2016-Clinton

3. Hillary is obsessed with Hillary, and afters decades in politics, still has thin skin

Allen reports that Hillary 2016 is determined to have a better relationship with the reporters, people she has previously described as having “big egos and no brains.” At the very least, Allen writes, she wants “to have a ‘good cop’ role to help her get off on a better foot with the journalists who will help shape her image.”

That may be easier said than done, given how obsessed Hillary seems to be with reading (and nitpicking) stories about herself:

Advisers know that Clinton doesn’t like or trust the press – and feels that it’s mutual. She remains a voracious consumer of news about herself, occasionally complaining about an article’s tone or omissions.

One of the few top campaign positions yet to be filled is that of communications directors. Potential hires include Karen Finney, whose MSNBC show “Disrupt” was cancelled last year.

4. Hillary possesses an “instinctive insularity,” according to dozens of close aides who won’t stop speaking to the press anonymously

One of the reasons why Team Clinton wants to hire a media-friendly liaison is to serve as “a counterweight to the instinctive insularity of Hillaryland.” This information was relayed to Allen via a number of anonymous aides close to Hillary who have spoken to a number of different reporters over the past several weeks about how awesome Hillary 2016 is going to be.

5. Why she’s running

Actually, the rationale for Hillary’s campaign remains unclear, beyond the fact that she became a grandmother last year, and that made her think a lot about the future. According to Allen, now that a campaign architecture is in place, Team Hillary finally get work “developing her message,” whatever that may be.

*** There is much more you need to know. Hillary has a spy unit and it was created a few years ago. What kind of spy unit? Well American Bridge is an intel army, spying on all of her opposition.   “American Bridge PAC spent last week spying on the private conversations of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The group also plans to spy on the private lives of GOP delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention wherever the convention is located, but Politico reports ABPAC has issued the following threat if the GOP selects Las Vegas as its host city. American Bridge has set up this website at “SinCityGOP” and announces (bold print supplied):

While the Republican Party debates where to hold the Republican National Convention in 2016, American Bridge is preparing our team of researchers and trackers to capture the action no matter what city they choose.

In making their selection, Republicans would do well to remember that Las Vegas is already the city with the most cameras per capita of anywhere on the planet. What’s another two or three dozen American Bridge trackers added to the mix?

And if the RNC does choose Las Vegas, this is the site for all the action. What happens in Vegas… will go right here.

American Bridge was founded by Clinton ally David Brock and is funded by longtime Clinton supporter and billionaire George Soros. American Bridge PAC president Brad Woodhouse boasted that the group’s “trackers” at CPAC had been “in the hallways capturing conversations and that kind of thing.” Meaning? Meaning Hillary’s American Bridge is about invading privacy. CPAC’s today, someone else’s tomorrow. Yours.

The news of “capturing” private conversations at CPAC follows on the heels of multiple congressional investigations into the Obama-run IRS, which has been using the government to ask Tea Party groups about the contents of their members’ prayers, what books they read, and the contents of private phone calls and media interviews. A second controversy has erupted over the NSA collection of “metadata”—including the phone numbers of all Americans.

The news of Clinton’s high tech spies peering into private conversations at CPAC and set to peer into the private lives of GOP delegates comes as the privacy of American citizens has erupted as a major political issue in both the 2014 and 2016 campaigns.” More here.

 

Chechens in Syria, Joining Islamic State

Posted on by

Battle-hardened fighters are on the move from Chechnya to the Middle East. This is not a recent development however a new dynamic is underway. First there was Syria, now there is Islamic State and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is happy to have new fighters.     

 

***  There may, in fact, be as many as four separate categories of Chechens in Syria — or even five, if an unconfirmed recent report that a detachment of the Chechen security forces is fighting in Aleppo on the side of Assad is indeed true.

The first category are the battle-hardened veterans of the North Caucasus insurgency. It has been suggested, but not proven, that Qatar and Saudi Arabia financed the recruitment of those experienced former insurgents because “the Chechens are regarded as the best of the jihadist fighters.” 

“The Guardian” profiled in September 2012 a brigade of fighters that included Chechens, together with fighters from Libya, Tajikistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The author of that article described the Chechen fighters as “older, taller, and stronger” than their comrades in arms, many of whom clearly lacked any previous combat experience. He further noted that the Chechens “carried their weapons with confidence and distanced themselves from the rest, moving around in a tight-knit unit-within-a-unit,” suggesting that many have been members of the North Caucasus insurgency.

The second category is Kists — members of Georgia’s Chechen minority from the Pankisi Gorge close to the Georgian-Chechen border. Two of the Chechen commanders in Syria, Abu Omar al-Chechen (the commander of the brigade profiled by “The Guardian”) and Saifullah, are reportedly from Pankisi.

One of those fighters from Pankisi, who gave his name as Abu Hamza, told a Western journalist two months ago that he was motivated to travel to Syria and join the opposition by video footage on the Internet of Syrian government forces killing innocent women and children. The Georgian-Russian border is so tightly controlled that it is far easier for the Kists to travel to Syria than to enter Chechnya to join the North Caucasus insurgency.

The third category is young Chechens from among the estimated 250,000 who left Chechnya since the beginning of the first war in 1994 and settled in Europe and elsewhere. Abu Hamza said most of the Chechens he encountered during the several months he spent in Syria were from this category.

Pro-Moscow Chechen Republic head Ramzan Kadyrov has confirmed that young Chechens from Europe are fighting in Syria. He claims some of them, from low-income families, were attracted by the prospect of “violence and looting,” while others were victims of a concerted effort by Western intelligence services to recruit fighters by means of jihadist websites. Last summer, Kadyrov had affirmed that if young Chechen refugees in Europe wanted to take up arms they would travel to the North Caucasus to join the insurgency.

The fourth category is young Chechens from the Chechen Republic who either abandoned their studies at Middle Eastern universities to fight in Syria or managed to leave Chechnya with the explicit aim of joining the Syrian opposition forces.  Kadyrov categorically denied last summer that any “Russian citizens from the Chechen Republic” were fighting in Syria. But over the past two months he has admitted on several occasions that Chechens from both Chechnya and the émigré community in Europe and Turkey had traveled to Syria to fight.

On May 6, Kadyrov implied that the latter category far outnumber the former: he said “a few” Chechens from Chechnya were fighting in Syria, and that “hundreds” from Europe and Turkey had been killed. Two weeks later, however, Kadyrov said “just a few” Chechens from Europe had been killed in the fighting.

The exodus of young men from Chechnya intent on fighting in Syria was discussed at a session of Chechnya’s Economic and Social Security Council on June 6. The website Kavkaz-Uzel quoted an unnamed member of that body as saying 29 Chechens have left Chechnya for Syria, seven of whom have been killed. That source did not specify a time frame. He did say, however, that those who left were mostly aged between 25 and 30, which contradicts Kadyrov’s repeated claims that the men in question are immature adolescents seduced by recruitment videos posted on the Internet.

The true number of Chechens who have headed to Syria to fight may be even larger. Kavkaz-Uzel quoted a representative of a local NGO as saying he knows of some 30 who have left, while an unnamed cleric suggested the true figure could run into dozens, or even hundreds. Predictably, the Chechen authorities are reportedly exerting pressure on the parents of those young men to persuade them to return to Chechnya.

Federal Security Service head Aleksandr Bortnikov told journalists earlier this month that some 200 militants from the Russian Federation are fighting on the side of the “terrorists” in Syria. He did not, unfortunately, give any indication how many are from which republic.

Last fall, the insurgency website Kavkaz Center reported that there were 150 fighters from the “Caucasus Emirate” in Syria, divided into four brigades. One of those brigades is from Kabardino-Balkaria. *** Shock Waves From Insurgency Commanders’ Defection To IS Felt Beyond North Caucasus    The decision late last year by several prominent North Caucasus insurgency commanders to retract their oath of allegiance to Caucasus Emirate leader Aliaskhab Kebekov (Sheikh Ali Abu-Mukhammad) and pledge loyalty to Islamic State (IS) leader Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi has apparently engendered confusion and discord not only across the North Caucasus but within the Chechen diaspora community.

That at least is the message conveyed by Akhmad Umarov (nom de guerre Abu Khamza), the brother of Caucasus Emirate (IK) founder and leader Doku Umarov and the IK’s official representative abroad, in a 15-minute video address posted last week on Checheninfo.com, the website of the Chechen wing of the North Caucasus insurgency.

In that video footage, Umarov requests a statement of moral support from Kebekov and Emir Khamzat (Aslan Byutukayev), the commander of the Chechen insurgency wing, in response to what he terms the “groundless accusations” dreamed up against him by the pro-IS faction and the latter’s “childish” attempts to justify their actions.

He says it is “unacceptable” that those who do not obey Shari’a law “are trying to obstruct us in our work and spread discord,” and insists that those persons who do so, whether unwittingly, or at the behest of “enemies of Islam,” or in the hope of securing a comfortable post within the IS leadership, should be held responsible under Shari’a law, and will answer for their actions on Judgment Day.

Umarov appeals to Kebekov and Khamzat to explain why Chechen commanders are violating their oath of loyalty to Kebekov and their theological arguments for doing so. He says failure to clarify their arguments will only deepen the split between the two factions.

Umarov then presents his superiors with a choice: either to issue a statement of support for the stance adopted by the IK representation abroad with regard to the defections to IS that would make clear to all fighters from Chechnya and Daghestan that they should “abide by all demands that do not contradict the Koran and Sunna,” meaning remain loyal to Kebekov. Or, “if you have doubts about what we are saying and our sincerity, then we ask you to appoint new people to replace us and dismiss us from our posts. If you have faith and confidence in us, then we ask you to grant us additional powers to restore order and establish a strict and functional system in accordance with Shari’a law to address urgent questions which it is imperative to resolve — questions concerning religion, politics, and social, financial, and informational issues.”

Umarov then addresses Chechen fighters both in the Caucasus and beyond “who are trying to help the cause and to defend our religion and honor,” urging them to take a clear stance against the renegade faction. He says he can provide an explanation for what that faction “is saying behind our backs,” but does not say what those criticisms are.

With regard to Syria (he does not use the toponym “Sham” favored by the Chechens fighting there), Umarov affirms unequivocally that “any fighter who travels to Syria to take part in jihad there should understand that he will have to answer for that on Judgment Day. We appeal to you, especially to the young people of the Vilayat Nokhchiicho [Chechnya], to stay where you are. Your holy duty today is jihad in the Caucasus…to defend our land, the territory of the Caucasus Emirate,” from the “primary foe” in the person of the Kremlin regime and its apostate collaborators, meaning the pro-Moscow Chechen leadership.

Given that Umarov speaks in very general terms, it is impossible to assess the extent of support among IK fighters for IS and the magnitude of the threat that faction poses to the cohesion of the insurgency ranks. But his request for “additional powers” suggests he faces a serious challenge.

Since the statements of support for Baghdadi by six Chechen and Daghestani commanders last month, several insurgency commanders from Chechnya and Ingushetia who for reasons they do not specify are no longer in the Caucasus have reaffirmed their loyalty to Kebekov. So too has Emir Salim (Zalim Shebzukhov), commander of the Kabardino-Balkar-Karachai insurgency wing.