Based on the latest available data and an enhanced version of a stress-tested methodology from a scholarly journal, a new study by Just Facts has found that about 10% to 27% of non-citizen adults in the U.S. are now illegally registered to vote.

The U.S. Census recorded more than 19 million adult non-citizens living in the U.S. during 2022. Given their voter registration rates, this means that about two million to five million of them are illegally registered to vote. These figures are potentially high enough to overturn the will of the American people in major elections, including congressional seats and the presidency.

Background

In 2014, the academic journal Electoral Studies published a groundbreaking study by three scholars who estimated how frequently non-citizens were illegally voting. Based on data for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, the study found that:

• “roughly one quarter of non-citizens” in the U.S. “were likely registered to vote.”
• “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”
• 81.8% of them “reported voting for Barack Obama.”
• illegal votes cast by non-citizens “likely” changed “important election outcomes” in favor of Democrats, “including Electoral College votes” and a “pivotal” U.S. Senate race that enabled Democrats to pass Obamacare.

The study’s voter registration rate was estimated with data from two key sources:

1. A national survey in which 14.8% of non-citizens admitted that they were registered to vote.
2. A database of registered voters that reveals what portion of the surveyed non-citizens “were in fact registered” even though “they claimed not to be registered.”

By combining these data, the author’s “best” estimate was that 25.1% of non-citizens were illegally registered to vote.

The authors calculated voter turnout with the same datasets, but their methodology yielded a best estimate that 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008—lower than the 8.0% of non-citizens who stated “I definitely voted” and explicitly named the candidate they voted for. This and other matters led Just Facts to engage in extensive correspondence with the lead author of the study to verify practically every detail of it.

Just Facts then conducted a comparable study that used the same datasets, a more straightforward methodology, and related studies to constrain assumptions. This found that roughly 27% of non-citizens were registered to vote and about 16% of them voted in the 2008 national elections.

As is often the case with studies of illegal actions where enforcement is limited, both Just Facts’ study and the one from Electoral Studies have sizeable margins of uncertainty. This is due to relatively small sample sizes and other possible sources of error—some that could produce overcounts and others undercounts.

“Fact Checks”

So-called fact checkers and certain scholars have repeatedly tried to dispute the Electoral Studies paper and Just Facts’ study. However, their criticisms were mathematically illiterate and laced with unrealistic assumptions, empty arguments, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

Now, the Washington Post’s lead “fact checker,” Glenn Kessler, claims to have uncovered new evidence that undercuts the results of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper and Just Facts’ research. This consists of a previously sealed “Expert Report” on non-citizen voting for a 2023 Arizona court case.

Notably, the report was written by the lead author of the Electoral Studies paper, Dr. Jesse Richman, an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University.

In an article titled “The Truth About Noncitizen Voting in Federal Elections,” Kessler quotes several figures from Richman’s 2023 report suggesting that about 1% of non-citizens are registered to vote. This is drastically below the “best” estimate of 25% from Richman’s 2014 paper.

The glaring disparity between the 2014 and 2023 figures prompted Just Facts to scrutinize the methodologies used to produce them. This research revealed that all of the 1% figures are lowball estimates. This was confirmed when Just Facts questioned Richman, who responded:

An important element of context for the Arizona report is that it was written as an expert report in a court case (and indeed it was a confidential part of the case until it got subpoenaed). In that context my focus was on identifying and explicating the evidence most robust to cross-examination. Thus, my goal was to explain to the court the results and the datasets where as many possible counter-arguments concerning how the estimate could be biased upwards were closed off. Of course, no choice about which analyses to focus on comes without tradeoffs. And the tradeoff from focus on analyses where one can minimize the risk that the estimate could be biased upwards is that there is potentially an increased risk that the estimate could be biased downwards.

Beyond portraying minimums as best estimates, Kessler also misleads his readers with a half-truth that the 2014 paper estimated “6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent voted in 2010.” What Kessler fails to reveal is that 2010 was a mid-term election, and Richman explained in Kessler’s newspaper that “these are the patterns one would expect to see if the measures retained validity and non-citizens were a group mobilized more in presidential election years than midterms.”

In another ruse, Kessler criticizes and links to a study by Just Facts while coyly describing it as the work of “one researcher.” This avoids the scholarly track record of the organization and the fact that two Ph.D.’s who specialize in data analytics vetted the study and described it as “methodologically sound,” “fair in its conclusions,” and “credible.”

Kessler also misreports the results of Just Facts’ study by claiming that it found non-citizens gave Biden “almost an additional 18,000 votes” in Arizona in 2020. In reality, the study plainly states that non-citizens gave Biden an “extra” “51,081 ± 17,689” votes in Arizona. This equals 33,000 to 69,000—not 18,000.

Ironically, Donald Trump was indicted by a D.C. grand jury for accurately citing the lower bound of those figures.

The redeeming element of Kessler’s article is that it alerted Just Facts to the existence of non-citizen voter registration data from 2022. This enabled Just Facts to update previous studies on this issue with the latest available information.

Using an enhanced version of the methodology that yielded the same “best” registration rate as the 2014 Electoral Studies paper, Just Facts’ new study finds that roughly 10% to 27% of non-citizen adults in the U.S. are now registered to vote.

The data and methodology of the study are detailed in this spreadsheet. Enhancements over previous studies include:

• a more precise formula to calculate sampling margins of error.
• the use of dual methodologies to account for varying possibilities.
• multiple citizenship questions in the survey that limit the possibility of honest mistakes by survey respondents.

As with other studies of illegal actions, there are uncertainties in the results. For example, the study assumes that all people who claim to be “citizens” in the survey actually are citizens. This is unlikely given that the journal Demographic Research published a study in 2013 which found that certain major groups of non-citizens often falsely claim to be citizens in Census surveys. If these dishonest survey respondents register to vote at higher or lower rates than other non-citizens, this could skew the results of the study.

Standards for high quality research require that assumptions be “explicit and justified” to provide “a fully ethical presentation of scientific data.” This standard has been brazenly and repeatedly flouted by scholars who downplay voting by non-citizens. In contrast, the assumptions and justifications of Just Facts’ study are provided here.

In presidential elections, roughly half of non-citizens who are registered turn out to vote. Given that about 10% to 27% of them are currently registered, this means about 5% to 13% of them will illegally vote in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.

The U.S. Census recorded a population of 19.7 million voting-age non-citizens in the U.S. during 2022. This is an absolute minimum because the Census doesn’t count masses of non-citizens who falsely claim to be citizens or don’t fill out Census surveys.

Also, the figure of 19.7 million doesn’t include multitudes of non-citizens who’ve entered since 2022. This includes people who legally immigrated, crossed the border illegally, or were allowed into the country under the Biden administration’s parole policies.

Based on the data above, roughly 1.0 million to 2.7 million non-citizens will illegally vote in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections unless stronger election integrity measures are implemented.

To prevent illegal voting by non-citizens, Congressional Republicans recently introduced a 22-page bill to “require proof of United States citizenship” to register to vote in federal elections.

While reporting on a press conference announcing the legislation, media outlets like the Associated Press, CNN, NBC News, Rolling Stone, and NPR attacked the bill as unnecessary. NPR, for instance, reported that “it’s already illegal” for non-citizens to vote in federal elections and “there’s never been evidence to support the idea noncitizens are voting at anything other than miniscule numbers.”

Those claims—which echo the Biden administration’s statement on this matter—are refuted by the Electoral Studies paper, Just Facts’ research, and the following facts that prove there are wide openings for non-citizens to vote.

All 50 states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections, and federal law forbids non-citizens from falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote. However, enforcement mechanisms for such laws are limited, and opportunities to get around them are ample.

For a prime example, federal law requires all states to register voters for federal elections via a form developed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The form requires people to declare that they are U.S. citizens, but it doesn’t require them to prove it.

Several states, including Arizona and Georgia, tried to require people who register with the federal form to provide “documentary evidence” of citizenship, but they were blocked by court rulings supported by the Obama administration.

So instead of proof of citizenship, the federal form allows people to register and vote with assorted forms of “identification” like a “utility bill” or “bank statement.”

The federal form also has state-specific instructions which are rife with loopholes that could allow non-citizens to register. The instructions for New Jersey are typical of most states:

The last four digits of your Social Security number OR your New Jersey Driver’s License number is required for voter registration. If you do not possess either of these identifications, please write “NONE” on the form. The State will assign a number that will serve to identify you for voter registration purposes.

Likewise, the NJ State form—which provides another avenue to register for federal elections—contains a checkbox that allows people to register without a Social Security or driver’s license number if they “provide a COPY of a current and valid photo ID, or a document with your name and current address on it.” This can be anything from a “store membership ID” or “student ID” to a “rent receipt” or “government check.”

Ignoring those facts, the New York Times recently criticized Elon Musk for saying that illegal immigrants “are not prevented from voting in federal elections” and “you don’t need government issued ID to vote.”

The Times claimed that Musk was wrong because “federal law requires identification verification from voters when they register.” That hyperlink leads to a document by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice which claims that “new identification requirements” in a 2002 federal voting law “may severely threaten voters’ rights….”

What the Times fails to reveal is that the Brennan Center describes the identification requirements in the law, which don’t require government-issued ID or proof of citizenship—just as Musk wrote. The Center even notes that a “utility bill” or “bank statement” is enough to comply with the law. The text of the 2002 legislation and the current U.S. election code law confirm this.

The lack of enforcement against illegal voting by non-citizens was aptly summarized by Barack Obama shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election when actress Gina Rodriguez asked him if “Dreamers” and “undocumented citizens” would be deported if they voted. Obama replied:

Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera.

After dodging the fact that Dreamers and other unauthorized immigrants are not citizens, Obama’s clear message was that there is no effective way to enforce the law that prohibits them from voting.

Republicans are proposing to fix that situation, while Democrats and the media are telling people it doesn’t exist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Even if the federal government or states adopted a law that requires official government IDs or Social Security numbers for voter registration, this wouldn’t constitute proof of citizenship because identity fraud is rampant among non-citizens.

For a prime example, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated in 2013 that:

• 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 by using Social Security numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.”
• another 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 by using Social Security numbers “that did not match their name.”

Likewise, a 2002 investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that “the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive.” For instance, immigration officials in Los Angeles “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents” in November 1998, including “permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported in 2005, “Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card.”

Perhaps most revealingly, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon publicly stated in 2017:

I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license … if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.

In 2017, President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity asked the states for “detailed, publicly available voter-roll data” that could be cross-checked against other databases with information on citizenship status. However, states refused to turn over the data and filed a flurry of lawsuits to stop the commission.

In the words of California’s Secretary of State:

While the commission is allowed to request the personal data of California voters, they cannot compel me to provide it. Let me reassure California voters: I will not provide the Commission with any personal voter data….

Yesterday’s ruling is merely the first in a string of lawsuits challenging the Commission. Those lawsuits send a strong message—the Commission will face opposition at every step of the way from those who are fighting to protect our voting rights, our privacy, and our democratic principles.

Note that California claims the commission asked for “personal data,” but in reality, the commission explicitly requested “publicly available voter-roll data.” California’s deceptive refusal of this request and the ample openings for non-citizens to vote take on added significance in the light of this next topic.

In the 2008 presidential election, 82% of non-citizens who admitted that they voted stated that they voted for Democrat Barack Obama, while only 18% said they voted for Republican John McCain. Showing this was not a fluke, Richman found in multiple surveys conducted from 2006 to 2022 that 73% to 82% of non-citizens supported Democratic candidates.

Those outcomes accord with the promises and actions of Democrat politicians to give wide-ranging welfare and full amnesty to people who immigrate to the United States legally or illegally. The implications of this are further highlighted by facts like the following:

• A nationally representative bilingual survey of 784 immigrant Latinos conducted by Pew Research in 2011 found that 81% said they would prefer “a bigger government providing more services,” and 12% said they would prefer “a smaller government with fewer services.” In stark contrast, 41% of the general U.S. population said they would prefer a bigger government, and 48% said they want a smaller one.
• Surveys conducted by YouGov in 2008 and 2012 found that 60% to 71% of non-citizens identified as Democrats, while only 16% to 17% identified as Republicans.
• A nationally representative bilingual survey of 800 Hispanic adults conducted by McLaughlin & Associates in 2013 found that 59% were born outside the U.S., 53% considered themselves to be Democrats, and 12% considered themselves to be Republicans.

Every illegal vote cast by a non-citizen nullifies the legal vote of a citizen, thereby subverting their Constitutional right to vote.

A wealth of data and corroborating facts show that:

• non-citizens have ample openings to illegally vote.
• roughly 10% to 27% of them are registered to vote.
• about 5% to 13% of them vote in presidential elections.
• the vast bulk of them vote for Democrats.

Given the estimates above and the fact that more than 20 million non-citizen adults live in the U.S., roughly 1.0 million to 2.7 million of them will illegally vote in 2024 unless stronger election integrity measures are implemented. This could easily overturn the will of the American people in close major elections.

Instead of reporting these facts or mitigating this threat to every citizen’s right to vote, “fact checkers,” major media outlets, and elected Democrats are denying this problem exists.

*****

This article was published by Just Facts and is reproduced with permission.

The genocidal anti-Semitic attack on October 7, 2023 by the Islamic terrorists of Hamas at first aroused horror throughout the Western world. It took only a few hours, however for the horror to fade — long before Israel had even begun to respond. Demonstrations against Israel, and in support of the terrorist group, Hamas — sometimes “cleaned up” to be labeled “pro-Palestinian” — exploded just hours later on October 8, before hundreds of charred bodies had been removed from their homes. These well-planned and well-funded professional demonstrations, complete with instant Palestinian flags and, later, instant identical tents — rapidly metastasized throughout North America and Europe.

The slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” — calls for the total destruction of Israel, which, by coincidence, happens to be located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – and “Death to America” were chanted by tens of thousands of self-described “progressives,” Muslims and their followers. The campuses of several American and European universities — including, among other places, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia and New York University — became sites of acts of pure anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic violence, under the guise of “free speech.” If the demonstrations had been against gays or Blacks, does anyone think that “free speech,” or violence masquerading as “free speech, would have lasted five minutes? Whatever happened to all those demonstrations against China’s genocide of the Uyghurs, or crushing Hong Kong; or Russia’s scorched-earth war in Ukraine; or Iran’s rape, torture and execution of women, children and, now, rappers, or North Korea‘s “murder, enslavement, torture, [and] enforced disappearances”?

“Stop Calling Them ‘Pro-Palestine’ Rallies,’” wrote the Rochester Institute of Technology’s A.J. Caschetta. In blunt Australia, euphemisms were dispensed with altogether in favor of “Gas the Jews” and “F—k the Jews.”

The whitewash of the terrorist group Hamas had begun. European politicians in France and Belgium, supporting Hamas, call it a “resistance movement.”

As Israel’s military response in the Gaza Strip progressed — meticulously crafted to avoid harming Palestinian civilians — many European leaders turned on Israel. They falsely accused it of acting “disproportionately” while Hamas’s widespread use of its own civilians as human shields was almost totally ignored. As Hamas also meticulously plans, the gullible international community accuses Israel of killing innocent civilians, not the Palestinian officials in Gaza who intentionally place them in harm’s way, even shooting at them to keep them from fleeing to safety in the south as the Israelis were urging them to do.

Also ignored is that Hamas officials seize virtually all of the free humanitarian aid, then give it to their terrorists or sell it to civilians on the black market for extortionate prices.

Although there is “‘no food shortage’ in Gaza,” several of Israel’s most steadfastly hostile critics, such as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, nevertheless falsely accuse Israel of causing a “famine” in Gaza.

As early as March 19, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, like so many European political leaders, falsely accused Israel, not Hamas, of “causing a famine” in Gaza. He even added that “100 percent of the population in Gaza is at severe levels of acute food insecurity”. Israel is now forced to allow hundreds of trucks into Gaza that Israeli soldiers escort. Gaza, in fact, reportedly receives far more food than the population of Gaza needs. Gee, what could be happening to it?

Soon, all the mainstream European media stopped talking about the horrors of Hamas and instead turned their attention to the suffering Palestinians of Gaza – without noting that the people responsible for their fate and the death count are Hamas. Hamas even freely admits that its strategy is to use human shields. As far as Hamas is concerned, the higher the Palestinian death-count, the better.

The United States has been Israel’s main ally for decades, discounting occasional fluctuations here and there. Historically, American leaders’ support for Israel has been unwavering – until now. In February, America’s Democrat politicians voted to block aid to Israel. As the Israeli author and historian Gadi Taub noted last week:

“The U.S. is holding Israel on a leash by rationing the American-made ammunition on which the war effort depends; it has forced us to supply our enemies with ‘humanitarian aid’ which Hamas controls and which sustains its ability to fight; the U.S. is building a port to subvert our control of the flow of goods into Gaza; it refrained from vetoing an anti-Israel decision at the U.N. Security Council at the end of March; it leaked its intention to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally; it allowed Iran to attack us directly with a barrage of over 300 rockets and drones without paying any price whatsoever; and then told us that Israel’s successful defense against that strike (which was mostly stopped by a combination of superior Israeli tech and faulty Iranian missiles that crashed all over the Middle East, and to some extent by U.S. interceptors) should be considered “victory”; it consistently protects Hezbollah from a full-fledged Israeli attack; it did all it can to prevent the ground invasion of Rafah, which is necessary for winning the war; it is trying to stop the war with a hostage deal that would ensure Hamas’ survival.

“The U.S. is not protecting Israel from the kangaroo courts in The Hague which now threaten to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and others. Instead, it is goosing those warrants, in part by itself threatening to impose sanctions on a unit of the IDF, thus subverting the chain of command and pressuring IDF units to comply with American demands rather than with orders from their superiors. “

By now, most mainstream American media are as negative towards Israel as most mainstream European media.

In the days that followed October 7, the Biden administration generously provided arms and ammunition to Israel, as well as positioning several warships in the area, presumably to keep the conflict from spreading. Yet even then, pressure was put on Israel’s government. US President Joe Biden bizarrely asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “not to be consumed by rage”. Soon, as the Israeli military countered the terrorist threat in Gaza, US pressure on Israel was accompanied by harsh –and curiously public — criticism.

On January 9, despite unprecedented Israeli precautions to avoid harming civilians, Blinken announced, “the daily toll of war on civilians in Gaza is far too high”, and accused the Israeli Defense Forces of “indiscriminate bombing” — an accusation, as Blinken must have known, that could not have been less accurate.

John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, wrote:

“The Israel Defense Forces conducted an operation at al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip to root out Hamas terrorists recently, once again taking unique precautions as it entered the facility to protect the innocent; Israeli media reported that doctors accompanied the forces to help Palestinian patients if needed. They were also reported to be carrying food, water and medical supplies for the civilians inside

“None of this meant anything to Israel’s critics, of course, who immediately pounced. The critics, as usual, didn’t call out Hamas for using protected facilities like hospitals for its military activity. Nor did they mention the efforts of the IDF to minimize civilian casualties.”

Not only were Blinken’s comments untrue, they seemed intended to give arguments to Israel’s enemies.

On February 7, Blinken went further and said that the October 7 massacre did not give Israel — trying to defend itself in a war it did not start — a “license to dehumanize others.” Unfortunately for Blinken, that is the last thing Israel is doing, but the main thing Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar and Iran are doing.

On February 8, Biden himself said abruptly, “A lot of innocent people are starving. A lot of innocent people are in trouble and dying. And it’s got to stop.”

All right. If it has “got to stop”, why not demand that Hamas, Iran and Qatar stop it?

On March 25, the Biden administration refused to use the American veto and allowed the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution, proposed by Algeria, demanding an immediate unilateral ceasefire from Israel — with no condemnation of Hamas.

On April 4, Blinken tried to create a false moral equivalence between a terrorist group and a liberal democracy by charging that Israel had no reverence for human life and that if Israel did not do more to protect civilians in Gaza, Hamas and Israel could become “indistinguishable“. He then cited an old Jewish saying — that “whoever saves a life, saves the entire world” – contortedly, grotesquely implying that the Israel’s attempt to defend its own country and people is in contravention of the values of Judaism itself.

On April 4, according to journalist Barak Ravid:

“President Biden laid out an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their call on Thursday: If Israel doesn’t change course in Gaza, ‘we won’t be able to support you,’ he said, according to three sources with knowledge of the call.”

According to the Times of Israel:

“During a security cabinet meeting after the call, Netanyahu noted that the White House readout similarly didn’t explicitly condition a ceasefire on a hostage deal. It said that Biden told the Israeli premier ‘that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and protect innocent civilians…’”

The Biden administration does not appear ever to have issued the slightest threat, warning or ultimatum to the authors of the war: Hamas, Iran or Qatar. Hamas in Gaza, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, is now most likely seen universally as the tail wagging the American dog.

Although the UN Security Council resolution of March 25 was not binding, any further ceasefire would mean Hamas won the war, simply by surviving to repeat the October 7 attack, time and again, until Israel is annihilated, as Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said.

Hamas, on October 6, 2023, had a ceasefire with Israel. On October 7, Hamas violated it. Hamas did accept a second ceasefire a few weeks into the war and exchanged nearly half the hostages it held. A ceasefire now, especially a “temporary” one that would surely be pressured into becoming permanent, would just enable Hamas to regroup, rearm, and replenish its supply of terrorists from Israeli prisons.

US Senator Chuck Schumer, after declaring himself a friend and defender of Israel, suggested overthrowing Israel’s democratically elected prime minister, and — as if Israel, and not America, were within his jurisdiction — called for new elections:

“If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course.”

Schumer’s speech, yet again putting America’s outsized foot in the middle of Israel’s domestic policy, and ordering its ally to take direction from the Biden administration — including accepting a terrorist Palestinian state on its borders — and effectively disregard what the Israeli people have democratically chosen — was seen by most in Israel as a vicious blow.

Biden immediately backed Schumer up. “He made a good speech,” the president said in the Oval Office during a meeting with Ireland’s prime minister. “I think he expressed serious concerns shared not only by him but by many Americans”.

Biden, it seems, is frustrated that Netanyahu is objecting to humanitarian aid — which basically resupplies Hamas. Hamas, Israel’s argument goes, released hostages only after unremitting pressure. Relieving that pressure by backing Hamas makes the probability of seeing any more hostages released less likely. Biden is also reportedly frustrated that Netanyahu, for some inexplicable reason, objects to the creation of a terrorist Palestinian state next door.

Hamas would doubtless love as many humanitarian aid workers in Gaza as possible; they would provide Hamas with a fresh batch of human shields to prevent Israel from entering Rafah and removing Hamas’s remaining four battalions and terrorist leaders. Hamas is apparently already killing aid workers to steal food. How much better if they could be used to obstruct Israeli soldiers from entering the tunnels where the remaining hostages are believed hidden.

Netanyahu, accused by his adversaries of needing a war to avoid new elections, is being praised by others as “Israel’s Churchill.” Israelis remember that he was the leader who had the courage to address the US Congress in 2015 to counter President Barack Obama lethal, illegitimate “Iran nuclear deal,” officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Netanyahu, who has not been short on courage, either in combat or in refusing to submit to US pressure to go along with the JCPOA — despite the Obama administration’s interference in an Israeli election — may feel an overriding obligation, as he has said from the beginning, to make sure that Hamas will never again be able to launch another October 7; to take out the terrorist leaders presumed to be concealed in tunnels, as well as the four remaining Hamas battalions in Rafah, and above all, to rescue the hostages — many of whom may have since been murdered.

Meanwhile in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where anti-government demonstrations began again, one of their leaders, Ami Dror, revealed on social media that the demonstrations and riots are part of a plan by the Biden administration to bring down the Netanyahu government.

The US, according to Gadi Taub, is intent on removing the democratically elected Netanyahu and replacing him with someone more, shall we say, compliant:

“In the eyes of the Biden administration Hamas is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. is willing to live with Iran’s proxies everywhere, as part of its “regional integration” policy—i.e., appeasing Iran. But they are unwilling to live with Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition…. Netanyahu clearly does not want to learn from his would-be tutors like U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken how to “share the neighborhood” with genocidaires in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Tehran, whom his electorate understands to be bent on murdering them.

“If the Netanyahu problem is too big to contain, then it follows that it must be solved. And it seems that the Biden administration has zeroed in on…finding a local proxy who will impose the U.S. agenda on a reluctant Israeli electorate…..According to the leaders of the Never-Bibi demonstrators, the White House is in constant touch with them for coordination.”

The US State Department has, for more than a year, been providing financial support for protests hostile to the Netanyahu government. They took place every week in Israel for three quarters of 2023, and were accompanied by Israeli military reservists proclaiming that they would refuse to serve — a vow that no doubt helped to invite Hamas’s October 7 invasion.

One cannot leave aside that the Biden administration, through ignoring sanctions on Iranian oil, has allowed the Iran’s regime to earn up to an estimated $100 billion. Some of these funds were most likely used by the mullahs to finance their own militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in addition to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi militias, and of course to accelerate Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Without those funds, the massacre of October 7 would not have been possible, Hezbollah would not have been able to fire so many missiles into Israel from Lebanon, and Iran itself would not have been able to launch more than 300 drones and ballistic missiles at Israel in April, and to attack US troops more than 150 times on, just since October 7, 2023 — evidently in an attempt to drive the US out of the Middle East.

The Biden administration, it seems, does not want a definitive end of the conflict — as with Ukraine as well — especially if the end would entail the defeat of Hamas or Russia. Hamas is a protégé of Qatar and Iran, the world’s two leading state sponsors of terrorism. The Biden administration has been rewarding them — Iran with money and Qatar with renewing its protection by Al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters of America’s CENTCOM, as well as controlling the new terror pier the US has built in Gaza At the same time, the Biden administration is falsely accusing Israel of violating human rights.

As the great historian Bernard Lewis wrote, “America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.”

The Biden administration may even be complicit in the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that might be issued by the International Criminal Court – possibly as a way to dispense with him. So far at least, the US administration has not lifted a finger to stop it.

Without the billions of dollars the Biden administration bestowed on Iran through sanctions waivers, the situation for Israel — and the stability and security of the entire region, including that of the United States — would have been quite different.

On April 1, a strike attributed to Israel destroyed a building defined as an annex of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus and eliminated seven members of the Quds Force, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who had reportedly been directing hostile operations in Israel. Once an embassy – or a school or a mosque or a church – is used to engage in military operations, it loses its status as a site that is officially “protected”. Iran blamed Israel and vowed retaliation. US Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood said that the Biden administration had “no involvement or advanced knowledge” in the attack, but he did not condemn Iran’s threats to Israel.

A report in the Jerusalem Postnoted that Iran informed Turkey of its desire to strike Israel and that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, in turn, informed the Biden administration. The Biden administration the report adds, asked that the Iranians remain “within certain limits” –implying that the Biden administration accepted Iran’s attack on Israel, the same way he implied that he would accept a “minor incursion” into Ukraine by Russia.

On April 13, Iran in fact launched a massive strike against Israel: 300 attack drones and ballistic missiles launched at a country smaller than New Jersey. Sadly, a 7-year-old Bedouin girl was wounded. Fortunately, apart from that, not much damage was done. American, British, Jordanian and Saudi militaries helped as well.

Biden then told Israel to “take the win” — not to retaliate and risk escalating the conflict. He warned that that the US would not help in any military offensive against Iran. Thwarting an attack, however is not the same as a “win”, and certainty does not prevent an aggressor from trying again.

Israel’s subsequent strikes nevertheless revealed that if Israel decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities near Isfahan, they could be hit. Iran seems eager not to have strikes on its territory; presumably that is why it has proxies in the first place — to launch attacks so that any retaliation will have to be absorbed by them, not Iran. The mullahs are, in effect, using their proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and so on — as their “human shields”.

“What happened last night [in Isfahan]”, Iranian FM Hossein Amir-Abdollahian nevertheless insisted “was not a strike”.

The Biden administration has placed the existence of Israel in danger to protect Biden from the dangerous voters of Michigan.

When Israel shows unshakable determination, noted the American journalist Jonathan Tobin, Israel is respected. He recommended Israel should fight without wavering. It is because Israel appears invincible, he stated, that its enemies do not attack it; Israel must reestablish its invincibility.

Another American journalist, Matthew Continetti, wrote:

“The political heroes of this moment are the men and women who have retained the ability to make clear distinctions … between freedom, equality, and the rule of law and violence, terror, and fear”.

Continetti emphasized the need for “moral clarity”. What is threatened in the Middle East today, he wrote, are the values of our civilization.”[T]he fate of our society, our nation, and our civilization depends on Israeli victory.”

It is to be hoped that the Biden administration, which, right after October 7 had been supportive of Israel, will regain its moral clarity.

“There is no way to describe Biden’s actions except as a complete betrayal of Israel”, wrote political commentator Eric Levine. In a devastating about-face, presumably aimed at the voters of Michigan, the Biden administration is “delaying” precision-guided weapons to Israel. The irony, of course, is that after the Biden administration complained to Israel that its attacks were “indiscriminate“, it is actually forcing Israel to be indiscriminate, and then will presumably blame Israel.

Worse, with the Biden administration now having come down squarely against Israel and on the side of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, they have to feel no inclination to agree to anything. Why should they? Iran’s mullahs have a new proxy, the United States, backing their terrorism for them.

Even worse, at almost the same time as the US told Israel it was withholding arms shipments that Congress had already approved (a move for which Democrats tried to impeach then President Donald Trump), the Biden administration waived sanctions for arms purchases by Lebanon, Qatar and Iraq — countries that host groups working to destroy Israel.

Worst of all, if you are Ukraine, Taiwan, China, Russia, Japan – just about any US ally or foe — you probably cannot avoid thinking something like: We have watched the supposedly mighty US surrender Afghanistan, its ally of 20 years, to a bunch of terrorists, the Taliban. Now we are watching the US surrender its closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, the only democracy there, to terrorists: to Hezbollah in Lebanon with 150,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israel, and to Hamas in Gaza by sending “humanitarian aid,” that will used by terrorists.

Israel, meanwhile, surrounded by a terrorist “ring of fire“, is fighting for its existence.

Even some Democrats, such as US Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), are telling the Biden administration:

“Innocent Israelis were the victims of a terrorist attack… We must support Israel in their efforts to eliminate the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized.”

The Biden administration has failed to counter attacks on Israel by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court — all prosecuting Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces officials for alleged but unsubstantiated “war crimes”. Israel and the US are not even affiliated with the ICC . Where are any prosecutions or sanctions by the UN and international courts for war crimes and human rights violations on countries such as Qatar (here and here), China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen and Sudan?

The Biden administration was even considering placing unprecedented sanctions on units in the Israel Defense Forces, based on unfounded allegations coming from an anti-Israel non-governmental organization, DAWN, “Democracy for the Arab World Now.” According to the meticulous NGO Monitor:

“[A] number of DAWN officials, including board members, have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and have voiced support for the Hamas terrorist group. According to the NGO, ‘Many of DAWN’s donors remain anonymous‘; however, NGO Monitor was able to identify the sources for approximately 44% of DAWN’s 2022 income, including from Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Arca Foundation.”

The Biden administration also does not even try to cut the funding used for the murder-for-hire program, run the Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinians are incentivized to murder or attempt to murder Jews by being rewarded with a salary for life, as well as an apparently supra-official promise of Paradise.

Currently, the Biden administration appears to want three things: Netanyahu OUT – reportedly to be replaced by a puppet who will do whatever the US tells him; a terrorist Palestinian state IN, and to preserve Iran and Qatar’s client, the terrorist group, Hamas. So far, all the pressure from Washington has been on Israel, none at all on Hamas or on its patrons, Qatar and Iran. The fighting could indeed stop tomorrow if either of them or the US seriously ordered Hamas to stop fighting and immediately return the 132 remaining hostages.

Did the Biden Administration even ask?

*****

This article was published by the Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.