Biden: China’s Genocide Of Uighurs Just Different ‘Norms’

/in , /by

Over a million Uighurs and other minorities have been detained in camps in China; but to Biden, that’s just different ‘norms.’

During President Joe Biden’s CNN town hall Tuesday evening, he dismissed the forcible internment, systematic rape, torture, and genocide of the Uighur population in China, labelling what China is committing against the majority Muslim population a “different norm.”

Over a million Uighurs and other minorities have been detained in camps in China, according to estimates. The U.S. declared China’s actions “genocide” last month.

Biden said he is “not going to speak out against” the Chinese Communist Party’s actions in Hong Kong, in Taiwan, or their actions against the Uighurs.

“If you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been, the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home,” said Biden. “So the central, well, vastly overstated, the central principle of [China’s President] Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.”

“I point out to [Chinese President Xi] no American president can be sustained as a president, if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States,” said Biden. “And so the idea that I am not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uighurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan, trying to end the one China policy by making it forceful … [Xi] gets it.”

“Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” Biden said.

Biden has a point; “norms” in China are very different from the United States. For instance, the BBC was banned in China last week for reporting on the systemic torture and rape occurring in Uighur concentration camps.

Asked at the CNN townhall if China will face consequences for the genocide, Biden responded that the U.S. will “reassert our role as spokespersons for human rights at the UN and other agencies.”

“Well, there will be repercussions for China and [Xi] knows that,” said Biden. “What I’m doing is, making clear that we, in fact, are going to continue to reassert our role as spokespersons for human rights at the UN and other agencies that have an impact on their attitude.”

“China is trying very hard to become the world leader. And to get that moniker and be able to do that, they have to gain the confidence of other countries. And as long as they are engaged in activity that is contrary to basic human rights, it’s going to be hard for them to do that,” he said.  “But it’s much more complicated than that, I shouldn’t try to talk China policy in 10 minutes on television here.”

In February, the State Department issued a statement that called China’s actions against the Uighurs “atrocities” that “shock the conscience and must be met with serious consequences.”

The Trump administration designated them a genocide and Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said he agrees with that determination.

*****

This article first appeared in The American Conservative on February 18, 2021 and is reproduced with permission.

 

Antifa Drives Andy Ngo Into Exile – Mainstream Press Silent

/in , , , , , /by

If there is anyone in America who should NOT be silenced, or ignored, it is Andy Ngo. This soft spoken, level-headed, and courageous journalist has tirelessly exposed both the relentless violence of Antifa as well as the appalling negligence of civic authorities to crack down on the violence.

For his trouble, Ngo has been maligned by Rolling Stone as a “right-wing troll,” and by Vox as a “far right sympathizer.” Yielding to the same organized intimidation that prevents city councils from prosecuting Antifa violence, Ngo has been thrown off Pay Pal and Instagram. In Ngo’s home city of Portland, the landmark independent bookstore, Powells, has announced they will not stock his forthcoming book. And now, Ngo, a gay immigrant born in Vietnam, has been driven out of his adopted nation.

Ngo has already been a victim of political violence, in a June 29, 2019 attack by an Antifa mob that the leftist press somehow spun as something he brought upon himself. Their reasoning seemed to rest on the assumption that because Ngo was “biased against Antifa,” he had it coming. But Ngo’s videos speak for themselves.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, visitors to Ngo’s Twitter feed were treated to irrefutable evidence of the violence convulsing the nation, violence that was dismissed by the press as “mostly peaceful.” This violence is ongoing, and in nearly every case, Antifa has been the main instigator. And again and again and again and again, Ngo not only posted videos of the violence, but mug shots of the few perpetrators that would be arrested. And in nearly every case, they were immediately bailed out and charges were dropped.

No wonder Andy Ngo had to flee for his life. As he explained earlier this week on Sky News, Ngo, now in London, said “For a number of months now, there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me. And all of those threats were reported to authorities, and even when I provided names of some of the suspects, nothing was done.”

Nothing was done. This is how people doing genuine investigative work are treated in America today. Ignored by the mainstream media, demonized by the more extreme leftist media, and left to fend for themselves by the authorities.

There is a pattern to this, because Antifa violence never had to spiral out of control in 2020 and engulf half the major cities in America. It was tolerated and even encouraged. And in many cases, the city councils that could have done something about it were too intimidated by Antifa mobs following them to their homes and threatening them.

When ridiculous corporate stooges like ABC Nightly “News” anchor David Muir gravely warn their gullible audiences about the threat from the “right wing,” they know what they’re doing. They’re willfully ignoring a trained army on the Left that has been extremely useful.

Andy Ngo is an American hero. We can only hope his work will continue, and that he will stay safe.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CALIFORNIA: Muslim migrant indicted for attempting to provide financial support for jihad terror group

/in , , , , , , /by

He is a Russian national. Was he vetted when he came to the United States? Of course not — not in any effective way, anyway. That would have been “Islamophobic.”

 

“Sacramento Man Accused Of Trying To Provide Financial Support To Terrorist Group,” 

CBS13, February 19, 2021 (thanks to Henry):

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A Sacramento man is accused of attempting to provide financial support to a foreign terrorist organization, the United States Department of Justice announced on Friday.

A federal grand jury on Thursday returned a single-count indictment against Murat Kurashev, 34, who is also a Russian national, according to Attorney McGregor W. Scott of the DOJ’s Eastern District of California.

Kurashev allegedly tried to provide financial support to terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is based in Syria….

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS: ‘Right-Wing Extremists’ Committed Most Deadly Terrorist Attacks Last Year

Germany: Jesus figure beheaded, several fingers cut off

Nigeria: Muslims screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ kidnap hundreds of schoolboys, shoot one student dead

Sweden: Muslim migrant who taught other Muslim migrants ‘how to behave’ toward women rapes a colleague

PA TV: ‘Israeli institutions are giving free training and grants to young Palestinians. This is an indirect attack.’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Will France Save Us Again?

/in , , , , /by

After saving us in the Revolutionary War, will it save us from wokeness?

France deserves our gratitude, at least from those of us who believe that America is worth saving in spite of its imperfections.

First, France helped us in winning the Revolutionary War. That would be the war that is claimed by today’s poorly educated racial revolutionaries to have been started for the expressed purpose of continuing slavery.

Now French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that American wokeness is a threat to the classical liberal foundation of France. By extension, then, it’s also a threat to the United States, because America has the same liberal foundation.

We should thank him for the warning, although it might be too late for the U.S.

Specifically, Macron was referring to the illiberal virus masquerading as social justice and racial equality that has emanated from American universities and spread throughout American government, media, public schools, and corporations. He and his ministers don’t want it to spread to France.

This follows Macron’s criticism in October of “certain social-science theories entirely imported from the United States.”

France’s Minister for Higher Education Frédérique Vidal was more direct when she recently pledged to conduct an investigation into academics who look “at everything through the prism of wanting to fracture and divide.” She was referring to academics seeing all social issues through the prism of race, which is a foundational tenet of American wokeness.

Another foundational tenet is that the way to address the legacy of past prejudices against non-whites is to replace the former prejudices with new prejudices against whites. This is similar to the psychological condition of abused children becoming abusive parents.

Such pathological thinking is reinforced by the removal of science from the social sciences and the removal of impartiality from history, in a process that began decades ago as political correctness and has since morphed into cancel culture and speech codes.

As a result, races that used to be stereotyped negatively are now stereotyped positively, and vice versa. Non-whites now get a positive spin while whites get a negative one.

Forgotten in this wild swing of the pendulum is the fact that many white ethnocultural groups had also been stereotyped negatively in American history and treated accordingly. For example, the founding white Anglo-Saxon Protestants didn’t look kindly on the Irish in the 19th century, on southern Europeans in the 20th century, on Catholics (papists) in general, and on Jews in general.

On a personal note, as this Italian writer knows, Italians were known as swarts or worse and seen as a half-step up from blacks. Some were even lynched.

For sure, my Italian grandparents who emigrated as poor and poorly educated peasants from Italy in the early 20th century were not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow.

That responsibility lies with Anglo-Saxon Protestants, but even that is an unfair generalization. Puritans of New England, along with the admirers of Cromwell known as Roundheads, tended to be anti-slavery.  Conversely, Southern Cavaliers and admirers of Charles I tended to be pro-slavery.

In spite of such historic facts and important distinctions between the many white ethnocultural groups, all whites are now stereotyped as homogenous and equally responsible for the nation’s original sins.  They’re all tarred as racist and privileged. At the same time, those wielding the tar brushes can’t figure out why this has triggered resentment and a political backlash.

Naturally, progressives among the brush wielders deny their role in causing the social pathologies in so-called minority communities, especially African-American communities. Due to their condescending and paternalistic belief that blacks couldn’t make it without the help of whites like them, they put blacks on the new plantation of welfare dependency, which made men unnecessary in the financial support of children and caused the incidence of families headed by single moms to more than double in short order.

The condescension and paternalism continue today with racial quotas masquerading as diversity and inclusion, with the push to do away with test scores that have a disparate impact on certain races, with formulaic “news” stories that incessantly point out how these same races don’t fare well and need special help because they can’t help themselves, and most noticeably, with advertisers who make sure that the same races are represented in commercials and ads way out of proportion to their population, either because of racial pandering by the advertisers or out of fear of being labeled as racially insensitive by interest groups.

No wonder the French are afraid of importing such racial pandering and divisiveness.

France’s fear is heightened by its problems with the assimilation of Muslim immigrants, especially those from its former colonial outposts. 

The fear isn’t due to racism towards Muslims but to the fact that a large number of them are Islamic fundamentalists who don’t hold Western values about equality, democracy, and women’s rights.

Macron and his education minister have warned that the fundamentalists and their leftist enablers are trying to distract the public from the facts with diatribes about colonialism.

On a related note, the newly published book, Prey:  Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Harper, 322 pages) details the dire facts about the treatment of women by fundamentalist immigrants in France, Germany, and Sweden.

The author is a Somalian immigrant with firsthand experience on the subject. Unlike whites in the West who commit cultural suicide by making excuses for aberrant behavior and sanitizing statistics of incriminating evidence, Ali includes pages of statistics on the staggering increase in rapes and other violence towards women at the hands of migrants from societies marked by polygamy, patriarchy, and illiberalism.

She goes on to lambast politicians and authorities for being quick to document discrimination against the migrants and other minorities but reticent to document their violence against women and other crimes, for fear of being called racist. She has special scorn for feminists who vilify white men while excusing immigrant men of crimes against women because they believe the perpetrators to be “victims of racism and colonialism.”

The worst case of sexual assault by migrants happened on Dec. 31, 2015, when 661 women claimed to have been assaulted in downtown Cologne by hundreds of men, most of whom were asylum-seekers of Arab and North African origin. Only three of the alleged perpetrators were convicted.

It’s understandable that Macron doesn’t want to import American wokeness on top of France’s existing racial troubles.  The question is, will Americans heed his warning?

Probably not. After all, the U.S. didn’t learn from the French experience in Indochina and the Middle East. Ignoring the warning signs of history, it went ahead and lost lives and treasure in both locales, just as the French did.

VIDEO: On The Jihad Against India And The West

/in , , , /by

Robert Spencer on the jihad against India and the West with Kali Dasi.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Jersey public school teaches students that Islam is the ‘true faith,’ objections dismissed as ‘Islamophobia’

UK: Leftist ‘human rights’ orgs enraged at ‘Islamophobia’ of chief of ‘counter-extremism scheme’ review

Islamic State Muslimas sue Sweden for violating their ‘human rights’ by not bringing them back from Kurdish camps

Bangladesh: Muslims rape Christian woman, local Muslims side with the attackers

France: University top dogs enraged as minister for higher education warns of ‘Islamo-leftism’

Iran’s Rouhani: Iran expects Biden’s handlers to make up for Trump’s ‘mistakes’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Nominee for Top State Dept. Spot Wrote About How Jewish Lobby Controls American Politics

/in , , , , , , /by

Another anti-Israel appointment from the Biden Administration. Zionist Organization of America recently stated that the Biden administration “has made the worst group of appointments to cabinet positions with respect to US-Israel relations ever” and is “mainstreaming Jew-hatred at home.”

Another Jew-hater in the demented segregationist’s cabinet.

Biden Nominee for Top State Dept Post Contributed to Book About How ‘Israel Lobby’ Controls American Politics

Uzra Zeya nominated for undersecretary of civilian security, democracy, and human rights

By Washington Free Beacon, February 18, 2021

President Joe Biden’s nominee for a top State Department position played a key role in assembling a book on the nefarious influence of the “Israel lobby” while working for an organization that promoted claims about Jewish media control and dual loyalty to Israel.

As a staffer at the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Uzra Zeya compiled research for a book that argues that “the Israel lobby has subverted the American political process to take control of U.S. Middle East policy” by establishing a secret network of “dirty money” PACs that bribe and extort congressional candidates into taking pro-Israel positions. Zeya, a former U.S. diplomat who was nominated for undersecretary for civilian security, democracy, and human rights, worked for the Washington Report and its publishing group, the American Educational Trust, in 1989 and 1990. The news outlet is staunchly anti-Israel and has published articles questioning the national loyalty of American Jews and opposing taxpayer funding to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Zeya’s work for the Washington Report and American Educational Trust raises questions about her views on Israel and could become an obstacle during her confirmation hearings. Biden’s recent hiring moves on foreign policy and conflicting statements from staffers have made it unclear how his administration plans to approach Israel policy issues. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki recently declined to denounce the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, contradicting statements condemning the movement from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Biden’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Washington Free Beacon recently reported. Biden also tapped anti-Israel activist Maher Bitar for a top intelligence post and is reportedly considering Matt Duss, an outspoken critic of Israel, for a State Department position.

Sean Durns, a research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, called the Washington Report a “fringe organization” that has “published content with anti-Semitic themes,” including claims that the Mossad was behind the JFK assassination and the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Organizations like the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs have a history of propagating fringe and sometimes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and I think it’s absolutely fair for questions to be raised in any sort of potential hearings,” said Durns.

Zeya did not respond to a request for comment sent through her nonprofit the Alliance for Peacebuilding. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment.

Zeya was listed as one of the staffers who helped compile the research for the American Educational Trust’s 1990 book Stealth PACs: How Israel’s American Lobby Took Control of U.S. Middle East Policy, according to the acknowledgments section.

In a section titled “Jewish Power in the Formulation of U.S. Middle East Policy,” the book claims that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gives American Jews secret marching orders on how to vote and which candidates to support financially.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Validating Anti-Semites in Power

Major Jewish groups split over Biden’s anti-Israel staffers

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Hillsdale Imprimis: Who Is in Control? The Need to Rein in Big Tech

/in , , , /by

Editors’ Note: The following January, 2021 Hillsdale Imprimis article is an American wake-up call. The threat and urgency to deal with this advancing danger as described by Mr. Bokhari below is existential for the nation, our liberty, and for the generations to follow. We believe this call parallels Churchill’s warnings to the world in the 1930s.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on November 8, 2020, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on Big Tech.

In January, when every major Silicon Valley tech company permanently banned the President of the United States from its platform, there was a backlash around the world. One after another, government and party leaders—many of them ideologically opposed to the policies of President Trump—raised their voices against the power and arrogance of the American tech giants. These included the President of Mexico, the Chancellor of Germany, the government of Poland, ministers in the French and Australian governments, the neoliberal center-right bloc in the European Parliament, the national populist bloc in the European Parliament, the leader of the Russian opposition (who recently survived an assassination attempt), and the Russian government (which may well have been behind that attempt).

Common threats create strange bedfellows. Socialists, conservatives, nationalists, neoliberals, autocrats, and anti-autocrats may not agree on much, but they all recognize that the tech giants have accumulated far too much power. None like the idea that a pack of American hipsters in Silicon Valley can, at any moment, cut off their digital lines of communication.

I published a book on this topic prior to the November election, and many who called me alarmist then are not so sure of that now. I built the book on interviews with Silicon Valley insiders and five years of reporting as a Breitbart News tech correspondent. Breitbart created a dedicated tech reporting team in 2015—a time when few recognized the danger that the rising tide of left-wing hostility to free speech would pose to the vision of the World Wide Web as a free and open platform for all viewpoints.

This inversion of that early libertarian ideal—the movement from the freedom of information to the control of information on the Web—has been the story of the past five years.

***

When the Web was created in the 1990s, the goal was that everyone who wanted a voice could have one. All a person had to do to access the global marketplace of ideas was to go online and set up a website. Once created, the website belonged to that person. Especially if the person owned his own server, no one could deplatform him. That was by design, because the Web, when it was invented, was competing with other types of online services that were not so free and open.

It is important to remember that the Web, as we know it today—a network of websites accessed through browsers—was not the first online service ever created. In the 1990s, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee invented the technology that underpins websites and web browsers, creating the Web as we know it today. But there were other online services, some of which predated Berners-Lee’s invention. Corporations like CompuServe and Prodigy ran their own online networks in the 1990s—networks that were separate from the Web and had access points that were different from web browsers. These privately-owned networks were open to the public, but CompuServe and Prodigy owned every bit of information on them and could kick people off their networks for any reason.

In these ways the Web was different. No one owned it, owned the information on it, or could kick anyone off. That was the idea, at least, before the Web was captured by a handful of corporations.

We all know their names: Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon. Like Prodigy and CompuServe back in the ’90s, they own everything on their platforms, and they have the police power over what can be said and who can participate. But it matters a lot more today than it did in the ’90s. Back then, very few people used online services. Today everyone uses them—it is practically impossible not to use them. Businesses depend on them. News publishers depend on them. Politicians and political activists depend on them. And crucially, citizens depend on them for information.

Today, Big Tech doesn’t just mean control over online information. It means control over news. It means control over commerce. It means control over politics. And how are the corporate tech giants using their control? Judging by the three biggest moves they have made since I wrote my book—the censoring of the New York Post in October when it published its blockbuster stories on Biden family corruption, the censorship and eventual banning from the Web of President Trump, and the coordinated takedown of the upstart social media site Parler—it is obvious that Big Tech’s priority today is to support the political Left and the Washington establishment.

Big Tech has become the most powerful election-influencing machine in American history. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the technologies of Silicon Valley are allowed to develop to their fullest extent, without any oversight or checks and balances, then we will never have another free and fair election…..

*****

If Big Tech’s capabilities are allowed to develop unchecked and unregulated, these companies will eventually have the power not only to suppress existing political movements, but to anticipate and prevent the emergence of new ones. This would mean the end of democracy as we know it, because it would place us forever under the thumb of an unaccountable oligarchy……

Continue reading at Imprimis: Who Is in Control? The Need to Rein in Big Tech

*****

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is a graduate of the University of Oxford and was a 2020 Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. In 2018, he obtained and published “The Google Tape,” a recording of Google’s top executives reacting to the 2016 Trump election and declaring their intention to make the American populist movement a “blip” in history. He is the author of #Deleted: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.

Six Capitol Police Officers Suspended, Others Under Investigation in January 6th Riot

/in , , , /by

What the heck is this all about?

I think Trump’s peaceful patriots are owed an explanation ASAP about what was actually going on at the US Capitol on January 6th.   We need an investigation not run by Nancy Pelosi.

Remember this?

The Blaze has this headline in case you missed it:

6 Capitol officers suspended for alleged role in Jan 6 rioting, 29 others under investigation

6 Capitol Police officers have been suspended with pay for their alleged role in the rioting on Jan. 6, and 29 other officers have been placed under investigation.

A department spokesperson told CNN Thursday that officers could face punishment for violating their policies during the rioting .

“Our Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the actions of 35 police officers from that day. Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman has directed that any member of her department whose behavior is not in keeping with the Department’s Rules of Conduct will face appropriate discipline,” said John Stolnis.

Democrat Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio said that one of the suspended officers had taken a selfie with the rioters, while another had worn a “Make America Great Again” hat and helped direct them at the Capitol building.

Four protesters died at the Capitol rioting while one Capitol Police officer died and another two officers committed suicide in the days following the incident. Early reports indicated that the officer, Brian Sicknick, had been died from injuries he suffered from being hit by a fire extinguisher, but that account changed weeks later after more through investigation.

More here.

NPR on Pittman et al:

Former chief Steven Sund “ …told NPR he was rejected in his request for backup ahead of the Jan. 6th because of optics concerns.”

“Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Rules committees announced plans for a February 23 joint oversight hearing to examine security failures.”

That should be must-watch TV.  Mark your calendars—February 23rd!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Ilhan Omar on Qatar TV calls on Biden’s handlers to back ICC ‘war crimes’ prosecution of Israel

/in , , , , , /by

She also supports the removal of the Houthis from the terror list. Surprised?

Actually, there is a surprise here. She says: “We have to look at this serious and devastating situation and do everything we can to hold the Chinese government accountable for this genocide that is taking place before our eyes.”

Most Muslim leaders have been quiet about the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs, preferring to focus their efforts on the weaker and more vulnerable West. And it’s extremely unlikely that China Joe’s handlers will challenge China — in fact, he just defended China’s treatment of the Uighurs. Will a split open up in the leftist camp over China?

“U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar: Biden Administration Should Support Referral Of Israeli Officials To The ICC; U.S. Should Hold Chinese Government Accountable For Genocide Of Uyghur Muslims,” MEMRI, February 12, 2021:

U.S. House Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who serves as vice chairperson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed her support for the independence of the ICC and said that Israel and senior Israeli officers, who are accused of war crimes, should be referred to the ICC. She made these remarks in an interview with Al-Araby TV (Qatar) that aired on February 12, 2021. Omar said that Muslims should not just be a part of the administration in America, but they should also run for the office of president of the United States and take leadership roles in the country. Omar added that she welcomes the willingness of the current administration to cancel the designation of certain groups, such as the Houthis, as terrorists and to “restore some order and normalcy in regard to who belongs on that list [of terrorist organizations].” She also said that the Chinese government must be held accountable for the “genocide” against Uyghur Muslims and suggested that the U.S. might play its role like it did in Rwanda, Bosnia and “even in World War II with the Holocaust.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar: “We have certainly not seen high official appointment of Muslims by the Biden Administration, but there are a number of Muslims who are part of this administration. This is something we will have to continue to push for, in order to make sure that the Muslims remain an important part of the social fabric in the United States. They should not just be a part of the administration – but Muslims should also run for president, and take leadership roles in this country.”

[…]

Interviewer: “The new Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the Biden administration would not return the U.S. embassy from Jerusalem, to which it was transferred by Donald Trump, and that this administration would continue to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. What has changed, then, from the Trump Administration?”

Omar: “It doesn’t currently seem like a lot will be changed, but there will be an opportunity for us to push for the United States to stand for its values and principles.”

[…]

Interviewer: “Should the Biden Administration support the referral of Israeli officials accused of committing war crimes to the ICC?”

Omar: “I do [support this]. It is also really important for us to remember that the international courts play an important role in rendering justice for people who are not getting justice within their borders. The U.S. should not delegitimize the ICC and the things it must do. It is shocking that the legitimacy of the ICC is something that is being questioned. Their ability to investigate, probe, and render justice is being undermined here in the U.S.”

Interviewer: “Will you demand that the Biden Administration and the State Department support the referral of Israel to the ICC?”

Omar: “I have. This is an important call and we all must guarantee that the ICC remains an independent body. It is an international court that has the authority and the ability to investigate and render justice for people who are denied justice within their borders. No sovereign state should stop the ICC from doing what they should do.”

[…]

Interviewer: “Do you support the removal of the Houthis from the terror list?”

Omar: “The last administration took a lot of actions, including the designation of certain groups as terrorist. We welcome the willingness from this administration to reverse course, cancel these decisions, and restore some order and normalcy in regards to who belongs on that list.

[…]

“It is definite that the genocide against the Uyghur Muslims in China is something that deserves serious attention from this administration. It also deserves the attention of every single person who is against the massive human rights violations in the world.

[…]

“The United States can play a huge role [in this regard]. As you know, the U.S. played a huge role in regards to the Rwanda genocide, it played a huge role in regards to Bosnia, and even in World War II with the Holocaust. We have to look at this serious and devastating situation and do everything we can to hold the Chinese government accountable for this genocide that is taking place before our eyes.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib speaks at Kashmir event featuring jihad supporters

Biden’s handlers say they’re ready for negotiations with Iran

Amazon banned Parler and Islamocritical book, still sells jihadi and Nazi material

Stealing the West’s Cultural Heritage

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Big Tech’s Influence on the Elections Is Deeper Than You Think

/in , , /by

We have become well acquainted with the autocratic, unchecked power of Big Tech and their censorship. It was just last month that the President of the United States was deplatformed from every social media platform – once one pulled the trigger, the dominos fell and within hours President Trump was removed from the internet.

Poland is considering bold actions against the unchecked power multi-billion dollar corporations have obtained in deciding what speech is acceptable and what is not, comparing the actions of these platforms to what they experienced during the communist era.

Here in America, where freedom of speech is understood as a fundamental, inalienable right of a free people, Big Tech takes advantage of their section 230 protections, while continuing to censor, deplatform, or shadowban users with whom they disagree, garnering outrage from politicians, but no action.

Beyond their deplatforming, shadow banning, and censorship, the 2020 election gave rise to a new influence Big Tech has in our democracy with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg alone giving hundreds of millions to election offices to influence or change the way local elections offices conducted the election.

The idea that Zuckerberg and Big Tech would give away their millions simply out of the goodness of their heart to protect democracy without trying to exert influence for one candidate or ideology is at the least questionable. And we need not simply theorize about their plan, corporations are outright bragging about their master plan of coordinating the results of the election now that it is over:

“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.”

One focus of this election influence is the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) which in 2018 spent a mere $1.4 million, but in 2020 received over $350 million from Zuckerberg and his wife alone. This influence was seen throughout the country – right here in Arizona too.

Capital Research has looked into CTCL and found that it spent $5 million in Arizona, $3 million of which went to Maricopa County led by Democrat County Recorder Adrian Fontes – essentially the electorally decisive county. And what happened in Maricopa County? Though Trump went from 590,465 votes in 2016 to 995,665 in 2020, he lost the county to Biden who somehow doubled Clinton’s 2016 performance, receiving 1,040,774 votes in 2020. This equaled $1.80 from the CTCL per Biden vote in Maricopa County.

But what kind of effect did Big Tech money, and especially Zuckerberg and the CTCL, actually have? It’s just as the Times article brags – “they got states to change voting systems and laws…” In Wisconsin, the Zuckerberg-backed grant stipulated the submittal to CTCL and implementation of the “Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan” circumventing the role of the legislature and other elected bodies in the development of elections procedures.

In Pennsylvania, the grants aided in the placement of a ballot drop box every four-square miles or for every 4,000 voters in Democrat strongholds compared to one drop box every 1,100 square miles or for every 72,000 voters in Republican strongholds.

This is the new Big Tech censorship. Though not removing someone from their platform, they drown out conservative votes by giving money to elections offices to drive up turnout in select locations while ignoring others. This creates a two-tier election system suppressing the turnout of voters Zuckerberg doesn’t like.

The left has complained about the role of money in elections. The hundreds of millions spent at local elections offices wasn’t philanthropy, it was a strategic investment with an expected return. The best approach to ensuring election integrity is a proactive one, but this election is over and we can’t go back, so it is time that states pass strong legislation prohibiting private, outside funding of election offices. Even the appearance of impropriety in elections is dangerous, so elections should be funded, directed, and guided by state governments not private organizations, and especially not Big Tech.

*****

This article was produced by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club on February 18, 2021 and is reprinted with their permission.

‘Chattering liberal elites’ encouraged BLM ‘insurrectionary behaviour’

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

Which is why the Democrats are pinning their civil war tactics on us – it’s what they do. Projection.

‘Chattering liberal elites’ at worst encouraged BLM ‘insurrectionary behaviour’

By: Sky News, February 18, 2021:

Author Andy Ngo says the “chattering liberal elites” in the US were at best silent during the 2020 Antifa riots and at worst encouraged the “insurrectionary behaviour”.

“The chattering liberal elites who have been the loudest in condemning what happened on 6th of January, which should be condemned unequivocally,” he told Sky News.

“These are the same people who were at best silent last year and at worst were actually encouraging, of what I view as, insurrectionary behaviour from far-left extremists.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Moratorium Demand: Muslim Activist Group Wants Biden to Ban Facial Recognition Technology

/in , , , , /by

They claim it unfairly targets marginalized and over-surveilled groups in America—-like those patriots gathered to peacefully protest outside of the US Capitol on January 6th.

LOL! No, they aren’t defending patriots and so-called white nationalists. But, it sure would be a fun exercise if one of the Southern Poverty Law Centers latest “hate groups” contacted them and asked to be added to their coalition.

From CAIR:

CAIR-Washington, Civil Rights Groups Call on Biden to Halt Federal Use of Facial Recognition Technology

(SEATTLE, WA, 2/17/21) – The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Washington) today joined a coalition of more than 40 organizations calling on President Biden to take executive action imposing a federal moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology.

The letter, sent by CAIR-Washington, the ACLU, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Amnesty International, among others, urges the Biden administration to take three critical steps addressing the use of facial recognition technology by the government.

Those steps include:

~placing a moratorium on all federal government use of facial recognition technology and other forms of biometric technology; [by the way, biometric technology is what the Leftie refugee contractors claim is keeping us safe from refugee fraud—ed]

~preventing state and local governments from using federal funds to purchase or access the technology;

~supporting legislation that would codify into law the federal moratorium and place additional limitations on federal funding of the technology.

Read the full letter is here: https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-president-biden-use-facial-recognition-technology

“The use of face surveillance gives the government massively-enhanced powers to identify, locate, and track individuals based on images of their faces,” said Brianna Auffray, Legal and Policy Manager at CAIR-Washington.

“Even if this technology is perfectly accurate—which it is not—the threat of this surveillance has an outsized impact on historically over-surveilled communities.” [Yeh! Like those white nationalists and America First patriots!—ed]

More here.

You should consider joining CAIR’s e-mail list.  There are always some juicy bits of news worth seeing.

Go to CAIR national’s website and sign up for their newsletter.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New York Times’ Brazenly False “Fact Check” About Trump’s Impeachment Trial

/in , , /by

The New York Times has published a “fact check“ by Linda Qui declaring that Donald Trump’s lawyers “made a number of inaccurate or misleading claims” during the Senate impeachment trial. In reality, much of the article consists of flagrant falsehoods propagated by Qui and the Times.

“Inciting Violence”

With regard to Trump’s speech on the day of the Capitol Hill riot, Trump attorney Michael van der Veen said: “Far from promoting insurrection against the United States, the president’s remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically.”

That statement is demonstrably true, as the transcript of the speech shows that Trump asked his supporters to go “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Qui, however, alleges that his attorney’s statement “is exaggerated” because Trump “used the phrase ‘peacefully and patriotically’ once in his speech, compared with 20 uses of the word ‘fight’.”

Qui’s argument presumes that Trump used the word “fight” to denote physical violence. This mimics the Democrat’s impeachment resolution, which declares that Trump is guilty of “inciting violence” because he said in his speech: “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

However, both Qui and the Democrats are quoting Trump out of context. The transcript shows that Trump never called for violence or even vaguely implied that. In fact, it is glaringly obvious that he was talking about legal and verbal fighting. To wit, 10 of the 20 times in which Trump used the word “fight” are found in these statements:

  • Rudy Giuliani has “guts, he fights. He fights.”
  • “Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House.”
  • “If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.”
  • “The American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. … They had their point of view, I had my point of view. But you’d have an argument. Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression. And that’s what happens in a communist country.”

Highlighting the duplicity of those who claim that Trump’s use of the word “fight” amounts to incitement, Trump’s attorneys showed video footage of numerous Congressional Democrats using the word “fight” more than 200 times, including more than a dozen times in which they used the exact phrase for which they impeached Trump: “fight like hell.”

Antifa Involvement in the Capitol Hill Riot

Speaking about the Capitol Hill riot, van der Veen said: “One of the first people arrested was a leader of antifa.” Qui begins her critique of this statement by changing the word “a” so that it becomes “the.” Thus, she claims that van der Veen said: “One of the first people arrested was the leader of antifa.” Qui then writes:

This is misleading. Mr. van der Veen was most likely referring to John E. Sullivan, a Utah man who was charged on Jan. 14 with violent entry and disorderly conduct. Mr. Sullivan, an activist, said he was there to film the siege. He had previously referred to antifa—a loosely affiliated group of antifascist activists that has no leader—on social media, but he has repeatedly denied being a member of the movement. The F.B.I. has said there is no evidence that supporters of the antifa movement had participated in the Capitol siege.

Those four sentences contain five elements of deceit:

  • Sullivan’s claim that he was in the Capitol only to film the riot is flatly disproven by video footage that shows him breaking a window, calling for people to “storm” and “burn” the Capitol, and celebrating the riot with an accomplice.
  • Qui neglected to reveal that Sullivan was also charged with “interfering with law enforcement.”
  • a) Sullivan’s denials of involvement with antifa are implausible given that he:
    was the leader of a group called “Insurgence USA,” which sold “black bloc” tactical gear (often used by Antifa) and rubber pigs (carried by Antifa to mock police officers).
    b) threatened to physically rip Trump out of the White House in accord with antifa’s mission to use violence against people they deem to be “fascists” (this explicitly includes Trump, his supporters, all police officers, and anyone who stands in the way of their self-described “radical left-wing” agenda).
    c) organized an event called “Kick These Fascists Out of DC.”
  • Qui parrots the propaganda of antifa by reporting that they are “antifascist activists,” even though they embrace key tactics and defining elements of fascism, including but not limited to:
    a) using “determined youths, armed, dressed in black shirts and organized in military fashion” to fight in the streets (Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals).
    b) leftist economic policies like a “strong progressive tax” on businesses, heavy unionization, a minimum wage, and government control of industries (Mussolini’s Fascist Manifesto).
    c) the suppression of “all criticism or opposition” (Cambridge Dictionary).
  • Qui’s claim that the FBI found no involvement by antifa in the Capitol Hill riot is outdated and out of context. Two days after the riot, an FBI official was asked about antifa involvement, and he replied “we have no indication of that at this time.” Five days after that, the FBI filed an affidavit for the arrest of Sullivan.

In short, Qui turned the truth about every major aspect of this matter on its head.

Georgia’s Absentee Ballots

Regarding Trump’s statements about electoral fraud, Trump attorney Bruce Castor stated: “Based on an analysis of publicly available voter data, the ballot rejection rate in Georgia in 2016 was approximately 6.42%. And even though a tremendous amount of new first-time mail-in ballots were included in the 2020 count, the Georgia rejection rate in 2020 was a mere four-tenths of one percent. A drop-off from 6.42% to 0.4%.”

Once again, Qui attempts to refute a statement that is entirely true. She does this by alleging:

Georgia elections officials have repeatedly debunked this claim, which conflates the overall rejection rate for mail-in ballots in 2016 to the rejection rate specifically for signature mismatch in 2020. (Ballots can also be rejected for arriving late or not having a signature, among other reasons.)

In 2016, Georgia rejected about 6.4 percent of all returned mail-in ballots and 0.24 percent of those ballots because of signature-matching issues. It is unclear what the 0.4 percent refers to, but in both 2018 and 2020, Georgia rejected 0.15 percent of mail-in ballots because of signature-matching issues.

To the contrary, it is abundantly clear what the 0.4% refers to: the overall rejection rate—just as Castor said. Ballotpedia details the components of this 0.4% figure as follows:

This total was calculated by adding all accepted absentee/mail-in ballots received electronically or by mail (1,327,126) with the total number of rejected absentee/mail-in ballots received electronically or by mail (4,602) and dividing the total number of rejected ballots by the sum.

As of Jan. 7, 2021, the Nov. 3, 2020, absentee voter file provided by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office was last updated Nov. 16, 2020. Following communication with the Secretary of State’s office, there are no plans to update the file further and any such updates, were they to occur, would take place on an ad hoc basis.

Using raw data from Georgia’s Secretary of State, Just Facts confirmed Ballotpedia’s work and calculated a rejection rate of 0.35% in 2020.

That said, the rejection rate of 6.4% in 2016—used by Castor, Qui, and Ballotpedia—comes from a secondary source (the U.S. Election Assistance Commission) that appears to be inconsistent with the primary source (Georgia’s Secretary of State). Ballotpedia mentions this discrepancy in a footnote and calculates a rejection rate of 2.9% in 2016 using the primary source data. Just Facts confirms that these calculations are accurate.

Regardless of whether Georgia’s 2016 mail-in ballot rejection rate was 6.4% or 2.9%, the 0.35% rejection rate in 2020 was at least 88% lower. This means that if Georgia had the same rejection rate in 2020 as in 2016, at least 34,000 fewer absentee ballots would have been cast. In comparison, Joe Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia was 11,779 votes.

Georgia’s Signature Audit

With further regard to potential fraud in Georgia’s election, Castor said: “President Trump wanted the signature verification to be done in public. How can a request for signature verifications to be done in public be a basis for a charge for inciting a riot?”

Qui attacked that truthful statement with the following barrage of misinformation:

This is misleading. Contrary to Mr. Trump’s belief and Mr. Castor’s repetition of it, Georgia does verify signatures. Georgia’s Republican secretary of state noted that the state trained officials on signature matching and created a portal that checked and confirmed voters’ driver’s licenses. In a news conference last month debunking Mr. Trump’s claims, Gabriel Sterling, a top election official in Georgia, explained that the secretary of state’s office also brought in signature experts to check over 15,000 ballots. They discovered issues with two, and after further examination, concluded that they were legitimate.

Neither Castor nor Trump said that Georgia doesn’t verify signatures. Instead, Trump questioned the integrity of the signature verification process in Fulton County, Georgia. This county is a Democratic Party stronghold with an extensive history of corruption.

Moreover, the signature match of more than 15,000 ballots that Qui characterized as “debunking Mr. Trump’s claims” does nothing of the sort. This is because it was performed in Cobb County, not Fulton County. Trump directly addressed this matter in his speech on the day of the riot:

We’ve been trying to get verifications of signatures in Fulton County. They won’t let us do it. The only reason they won’t is because we’ll find things in the hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn’t they let us verify signatures in Fulton County? Which is known for being very corrupt. They won’t do it. They go to some other county where you would live. I said, “That’s not the problem. The problem is Fulton County.”

Summary

In direct contradiction to a so-called “fact check” by Linda Qui of the New York Times, genuine facts prove the following about the circumstances surrounding Trump’s impeachment trial:

  • On the day of the Capitol Hill riot, President Trump explicitly encouraged his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”
  • In the same speech, Trump told his supporters to “fight” legally and verbally, not physically.
  • An antifa leader was arrested for participating in the Capitol Hill riot, during which he called for people to “storm” and “burn” the Capitol, broke a window, interfered with police, and celebrated the riot with an accomplice.
  • Antifa activists, who claim to be “antifascist,” embrace key tactics and defining elements of fascism.
  • In Georgia, the overall rejection rate for mail-in ballots in the 2020 election was 0.35%, or at least 88% lower than in the 2016 election.
  • Despite repeated requests by Trump, a signature audit of mail-in ballots has not been performed in Fulton County—a Democratic Party stronghold with an extensive history of corruption.

The points above don’t address every falsehood in the fact check, but they reveal a pattern of brazen dishonesty and/or incompetence by the Times.

*****

This article first appeared in Just Facts on February 17, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the author.

Six Principles for State Legislators Seeking to Protect Free Speech on Social Media Platforms

/in , , , /by

Political free speech in the United States is under attack. Tech media giants who own and control virtually all social media platforms available to Americans are working together to silence groups with whom they do not agree.

In just the past year, large, multi-billion-dollar, multinational corporations—including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter—prevented a sitting president from communicating directly with the American people. Members of Congress have been banned from communicating with their constituents. Newspapers were stopped from providing important reports about election topics. And perhaps worst of all, everyday Americans have regularly been blocked from sharing their own political views with friends and family on popular social media platforms.

Confronted with these assaults on speech, the founders of Parler listened to big-tech apologists who endlessly told conservatives, “If you don’t like it, you can go build your own platform,” and built their own social media business. But after experiencing monumental growth by promising to be a bastion for free speech, big-tech companies crushed Parler, shutting the entire platform down. As of this writing, it remains unclear whether Parler will return.

When Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996, which created the now-infamous Section 230 statute that big-tech companies use as a justification to silence speech, America’s powerful big-tech cartel did not exist. The internet was much more democratized than it is today.

At the time Congress passed CDA, it explicitly found that the internet played a crucial role in empowering people to share their views without censorship, including political views. Congress also made clear that it believed users should control for themselves the information they do and do not wish to receive and share. In fact, Congress explicitly stated that Section 230 was designed to preserve open political discourse and to encourage internet platforms to continue providing uncensored political speech—not to suppress it.

However, the rise of the present big-tech cartel has destroyed the internet as it existed in 1996. Even those who have long been defenders of giving companies great leeway in determining how they control their businesses and property, including libertarian icon Ron Paul, are now warning against, in Paul’s words, the “social media purges” conducted by large technology corporations.

Paul has rightfully said these “purges” are “shocking and chilling,” and that a nefarious marriage between massive tech companies and the government has formed that regularly restricts political speech and suppresses dissent.

“Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independently of U.S. government interests are ignoring reality,” Paul said.

Free speech is the central tenet of any representative form of government, and it is far too important to allow a cartel of multinational corporations to attack and restrict it while intellectuals discuss and debate how market forces might somehow, someday, someway find a strategy to penetrate the government-protected tech cartel that now operates in a system that is anything but a free market. The situation has been made even more difficult because government works hand-in-hand with the tech cartel, grants market-inhibiting advantages and protections through corporate law, and provides additional market-inhibiting protections through the misapplication of Section 230.

Currently, the internet is a ubiquitous and extremely powerful means of shaping and potentially repressing free speech, political discourse, individual rights, the outcomes of elections, and a host of other important political activities. Multinational tech giants currently block Americans from utilizing the internet to discuss many important topics, including irregularities in election vote-counting, COVID-19 medications that could save thousands of lives, and self-contradictory statements issued by the World Health Organization.

The Heartland Institute believes in finding and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. That means that in the vast majority of cases, we believe the fewer regulations and restraints on businesses, the better. Everyone prospers in a truly free-market system. However, tech giants like Amazon, Facebook, and Google are not the products of a free market. They arose in large part because of market-corrupting government favoritism and legal protections, and they have exploited those advantages to suppress political free speech. When such a cartel of multinational corporations works in concert to suppress individual rights, champions of free speech and human rights must avail themselves of all means advisable and necessary to protect Americans’ most basic liberties.

To read the rest of this article click here.

*****

This article first appeared at Heartland Institute on February 5, 2021 and is republished by permission.

CALCULATED INSULT: Biden first president in 40 years not to contact Israel’s leaders upon taking office

/in , , , /by

He called Xi. He called Putin. But it’s clear now: Biden’s handlers intend to put immense strain on the U.S.-Israel alliance over the next four years. Trump was the most pro-Israel president since the founding of the modern state of Israel, and all he got for it were accusations of anti-Semitism. Biden’s handlers are clearly laying the groundwork for a massive betrayal of a nation that is on the front lines of the global jihad and has been a loyal ally, and he will be hailed as a great friend of Israel.

“Biden Makes History: First President in 40 Years to Punt on Contacting Israel,”

by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 12, 2021:

President Joe Biden is the first American leader in 40 years not to contact Israel’s leaders as one of his first actions in the White House, setting up what could be four years of chilly relations between America and its top Middle East ally.

Biden has already phoned multiple world leaders, including Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping, but during his 23 days in office has yet to speak with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu—making Biden the first president in modern history to punt on bolstering U.S.-Israel relations during his initial days in office. Every president going back to at least Ronald Reagan in 1981 made contact with their Israeli counterpart within a week of assuming office, according to a review of news reports.

Congressional foreign policy leaders slammed Biden’s Netanyahu snub, prompting a flurry of questions for White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who has declined to disclose when or if Biden will call the Israeli leader. Psaki also said on Friday the White House would not list Israel as a U.S. ally when asked about the relationship during her daily press briefing.

Modern presidents going back to Reagan made calls or overtures to Israel during their first days in office, sending a message the United States would continue to stand for the Jewish state’s security. Biden’s diplomatic slight comes as Israel faces encroaching terrorist threats and the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. He also has hired several individuals with a background in anti-Israel activism, including Maher Bitar, a top White House National Security Council official who spent his youth organizing boycotts of the Jewish state. The State Department’s Iran envoy, Robert Malley, also has been a vocal critic of Israel….

President Barack Obama, who faced criticism from Republicans for policies they branded anti-Israel, called the Jewish state’s leaders on his first day in office. Obama also called Palestinian leaders that day, laying the groundwork for that administration’s failed bid to foster peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

President Donald Trump not only called Netanyahu but made the historic decision to invite him to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22, 2017, two days after he took the oath of office….

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Palestinian’ PM says Biden’s handlers told him they’d restore aid, reopen PLO office in DC, open US consulate

Sharia-Enforcing Amazon Brownshirts Delete Book That Criticized Islam

NYC Mayoral hopeful Andrew Yang’s new campaign manager has close ties to Linda Sarsour

Sweden: Preschool ordered to remove suspected jihadis from its board or face closure

Switzerland: Muslim migrant sprays fashion model with acid

Syria accuses Israel of ‘aggression,’ says it intercepted Israeli missiles over Damascus

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Takes ‘Death to America’ Terrorists Off Terror List, Replaces Them With Republicans

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

Democrats say Muslim terrorists aren’t terrorists, but their political opponents are.

The Biden administration responded to protests against its stolen election by embedding a domestic extremism office into the National Security Council. The man in charge of making it happen, Joshua Geltzer, had previously denied that Black Lives Matter was a terrorist threat and had attacked the Trump administration’s response to Antifa and BLM violence in Portland.

That means that the only domestic extremists the NSC will be fighting are Republicans.

Even while the Biden administration is preparing to double down on Obama’s abuse of the national security state to target his political opponents, it’s also giving real terrorists a pass.

Joe Biden, whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, announced he was ending support for American allies fighting the Houthis, and then went even further by preparing to remove the terrorist organization whose motto is, “Death to America”, which took American hostages and tried to kill American sailors, from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The motto of Iran’s Houthi Jihadis is, “Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Houthis took over parts of Yemen as a result of the chaos unleashed by Obama’s pro-Islamist Arab Spring. Since then they’ve been engaged in a protracted war while causing a local famine by confiscating food from the local population.

Last year, the Trump administration had finally secured the release of three American hostages, Sandra Loli, an American aid worker who had been held for 3 years, another American who had been held for a year, and the body of a third American, in exchange for 240 Houthis, including three dozen Islamic terrorists who had been trained in the use of missiles and drones by Iran.

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

The Houthis lived up to their “Death to America” slogan by repeatedly launching cruise missiles at the USS Mason which had been protecting shipping in the area. And they lived up to the second half of their slogan by ethnically cleansing the remaining local Jewish population, locking them up, and confiscating their homes and land. Local reports stated that the Houthis were “cutting off water & electricity to Jewish homes and preventing Jews from purchasing food.”

“No Jew would be allowed to stay here,” one of the Jewish refugees said.

The Iran-backed Islamic terrorists fight using 18,000 child soldiers. The soldiers, many abducted, some as young as 10, are taught to hate America and to kill enemies of Iran.

None of this stopped Biden’s State Department from taking the Houthis off the terror list.

“Secretary Blinken has been clear about undertaking an expeditious review of the designations of Ansarallah,” the State Department claimed. “After a comprehensive review, we can confirm that the Secretary intends to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations of Ansarallah.”

‘Ansarallah’ or ‘Defenders of Allah’ is what the Houthis call themselves. Blinken had only been confirmed on Tuesday. By next Friday, he had already somehow completed the “comprehensive review”, amid all the other minor business like China, Russia, and a global pandemic, and decided that the Islamic terrorists whose motto is “Death to America” aren’t really terrorists.

How can the Biden administration deny that Islamic Jihadis backed by Iran who attacked Americans are terrorists? The State Department claimed that this, “has nothing to do with our view of the Houthis and their reprehensible conduct, including attacks against civilians and the kidnapping of American citizens.” Not to mention the attacks on the USS Mason.

But the Biden administration isn’t even going to pretend to care about attacks on our military.

The Bidenites are claiming that they’re taking the Houthis, whom they don’t deny are terrorists, off the list of designated terrorist groups because of the “humanitarian consequences”.

That’s a lie, no matter how often you hear it in the media, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would be providing licenses to “humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen and to certain transactions and activities related to exports to Yemen of critical commodities like food and medicine.”

That’s despite the fact that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was caused by the Houthis.

Nevertheless the media, echoing propaganda from the Iran Lobby and Qatar, a close terrorist ally of Iran, has falsely claimed that the Houthis are the victims of the Yemen famine. A number of politicians, mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, as well as various aid groups, have pushed this same disinformation campaign about the causes of the Yemen famine.

America and its allies have spent billions providing food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to Yemen. That aid has been seized by the Houthis who have used it for their own troops or to resell on the black market. This is a familiar problem from Syria to Somalia, and aid groups have refused to honestly address their complicity in aiding the terrorists who caused the crisis.

There’s no money in admitting that the aid an organization is providing is being seized by the terrorists, prolonging the conflict and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Some aid organizations share the same goal as the Houthis of worsening the crisis because it boosts their donations.

That’s why international aid organizations don’t want to talk about the Houthis taking their food donations, or about their use of child soldiers. “It’s a taboo,” an anonymous aid official had said.

When Secretary Pompeo announced that the United States was finally designating the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, the United Nations took the lead in claiming that it would cause a humanitarian crisis. But the UN’s World Food Program had already admitted that its food shipments weren’t getting to the starving people because the Houthis were intercepting them.

The Middle East director for UNICEF also admitted that the Houthis were seizing food.

An Associated Press investigation found entire stores seling “cooking oil and flour displaying the U.N. food program’s WFP logo.” The former Houthi education minister said that 15,000 food baskets that were supposed to go to hungry families instead went to the Houthi terrorists whom the Biden administration is defending. Massive amounts of aid have been pumped into Yemen, and the famine has only grown worse because the Houthis have used starvation as a weapon.

The only way to end the famine is to end Iran’s grip on Yemen through its Houthi terrorists.

That’s obviously not what Biden or the Democrats have in mind. The loudest Democrat voices against designating the Houthis as a terrorist group have a troubling history with Iran.

“Reversing the designation is an important decision that will save lives and, combined with the appointment of a Special Envoy, offers hope that President Biden is committed to bringing the war to an end,” Senator Chris Murphy tweeted.

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

And Murphy had met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last year. That same year, he had advocated lowering sanctions on Iran for “humanitarian reasons”. Biden had also joined the push to use the pandemic as a pretext for reducing sanctions on the terror state.

That same year, the Left succeeded in forcing out Rep. Elliot Engel, one of the few remaining pro-Israel Democrats, and replaced him with the militantly anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose election was backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her antisemitic ‘Squad’.

Engel, who had served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was replaced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, a strong backer of the Iran Deal. Meeks’ position was cheered by Iran Lobby groups. As far back as 2009, Meeks had declared at a hearing, “I have developed a tremendous appreciation for the work of the National Iranian American Council. I am pleased that we will hear the perspective of NIAC’s President, Mr. Trita Parsi.”

Emails released allegedly showed Parsi telling Iran’s Foreign Minister, “I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians.”

Speaking to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official state news agency of the Islamic terrorist state, Chairman Meeks allegedly stated that he was willing to travel to Iran and had been engaged in dialogue with Iranian legislators.

Meeks took the lead in attacking the designation of the Houthi Islamic terrorists as terrorists, arguing that, “No solution in Yemen will be sustainable unless the Houthis are involved.”

And that gets at the real reason why Biden and Democrats oppose the designation.

It’s not about humanitarian aid, which would have kept on going anyway, only to be stolen by the Houthis. It’s about supporting Iran’s bid to take over parts of Yemen in order to control shipping and tighten the grip of the Islamic terrorist regime over the entire region.

The ‘diplomatic’ solution advocated by Biden and the Democrats would finalize Iran’s grip over parts of Yemen. Designating the Houthis as terrorists would get in the way of another in a series of Islamist dirty deals with Iran that began with Obama and that will continue on under Biden.

Even while the Democrats insist loudly that the Houthis must be part of the solution in Yemen, they just as vocally cry that the Republicans must be isolated and eliminated in America.

The Democrats militarized D.C. with an armed occupation and are criminalizing political dissent. They have claimed that one riot, after a year full of them by their own activist wing, requires a permanent state of emergency that will be run through the National Security Council.

The Biden administration is not only taking the Houthis, and likely other Islamic terrorist groups, off the terror list, it’s putting the domestic political opposition on its terror list. This is an extension of the same Obama policy that illegally shipped foreign cash to Iran even while it was using the NSA to spy on pro-Israel members of Congress and on the Trump campaign.

The Democrats are happy to fight terrorism by designating their domestic political opponents as terrorists while removing the “Death to America” Houthis who have kidnapped and killed Americans, who fired on the USS Mason, and ethnically cleansed Jews, from the terror list.

And what do the Houthis plan to do with their newfound support from the Biden administration?

In addition to sanctioning the Houthis, the Trump administration sanctioned three of their leaders, beginning with Abdul Malik al-Houthi. The Houthi leader has made it clear that he intends to build up the same missile program that was used to attack the USS Mason.

“To have rockets that could reach far beyond Riyadh, this is a great achievement,” he said, referring to the Saudi capital.

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

“Many of Yemen’s tribesmen are ambitious to fight against Israel, and they are looking for the day to participate along with the freemen of the Islamic nation against the Israeli enemy,”

This is the terrorist group that the Biden administration and the Democrats are bailing out even while they’re criminalizing the Republican political opposition as terrorists.

“Death to America” is something that the Houthis and their Democrat supporters can agree on.

COLUMN BY

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ilhan Omar named Vice-Chair of House subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Virginia: Gang Data Base to be Discontinued, Too Many Non-Whites Are In It!

/in , , , , , /by

Until this morning, I had never heard of The Red Elephants, but here they are reporting on a Washington Post story from late January.

A gang database that has been used for ten years to help law enforcement keep track of gang members in Maryland and Virginia is being attacked by Leftwingers as racist.

New Americans! Maryland/Virginia MS-13 arrested in 2019 for gang murder claimed to be refugees.

By the way, one of its uses by law enforcement was to be sure that when they jailed a gang member they didn’t put him in with an opposing gang member.

Seems like one good reason for the Democrat Socialists to like the data base. Nah, race baiting is so much more fun and profitable for them.

Here is The Red Elephant, not pulling punches as the WaPo does in its story:

Northern Virginia Task Force Gets Rid of Gang Database Due to Gangbangers Being Mainly Non-White

If you spot patterns, you might just be a racist.

Heck, any public body that notices not-so comfortable patterns about criminal behavior could be in a lot of trouble. Hence, the decision by the North Virginia Regional Gang Task Force to discontinue using GangNet, a database that compiles a list of alleged gang members in the D.C. area.

Anti-white activists claimed that this database intentionally over-represents the instances that non-whites are involved in crimes. Previously, when people’s brains weren’t infected by the woke virus, these databases were reliable tools law enforcement officials used to track gang activities. Now, ethnic panderers believe that statistics that show non-white criminality are suddenly racist.

[….]

More than 120 law enforcement agencies in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C. use GangNet. The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) runs this database and claims that the files of 7,800 alleged gang members are stored in its database. The database has been used for around a decade.

The Red Elephant shows some truths….from the FBI!

CLICK HERE FOR FBI INFOGRAPHIC ON ARRESTS IN 2018

More here.

NEXT UP: Biden/Harris are coming for your guns. It is racist of you if you want to protect yourself from roving gang members.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WAR ROOM VIDEO: The CCP Backed Antifa and BLM

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney explains all the ways the Chinese Communist Party interfered in the 2020 election: the CCP virus, backing Antifa and BLM, and using Marxist organizations like Seed the Vote.

VISIT: Present Danger China

©War Room. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Troop Deployments in Washington Are a Disaster Waiting to Happen

/in , , , /by

“Tyranny in form is the first step towards tyranny in substance,” warned Senator John Taylor two hundred years ago in his forgotten classic, Tyranny Unmasked. As the massive National Guard troop deployment in Washington enters its second month, much of the media and many members of Congress are thrilled that it will extend until at least mid-March. But Americans would be wise to recognize the growing perils of the militarization of American political disputes.

The military occupation of Washington was prompted by the January 6 clashes at the Capitol between Trump supporters and law enforcement, in which three people (including one Capitol policeman) died as a result of the violence. Roughly eight hundred protestors and others unlawfully entered the Capitol, though many of them entered nonviolently through open doors, and most left without incident hours later.

The federal government responded by deploying twenty-five thousand National Guard troops to prevent problems during President Joe Biden’s swearing-in—the first inauguration since 1865 featuring the capital city packed with armed soldiers. Protests were almost completely banned in Washington for the inauguration.

Instead of ending after the muted inauguration celebration, the troop deployment was extended for the Senate impeachment trial. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) declared, “So long as Donald Trump is empowered by Senate Republicans, there is still the chance that he is going to incite another attempt at the Capitol.” But the Senate vote on Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) motion labeling the trial as unconstitutional signaled that the trial will be anticlimactic because Trump is unlikely to be convicted. The actual trial may be little more than a series of pratfalls, alternating between histrionic Democratic House members and wild-swinging, table-pounding Trump lawyers. A pointless deluge of political vitriol will make a mockery of Biden’s calls for national unity.

Then the troop deployment was extended into at least mid-March because of unidentified threats made to members of Congress. Acting Army Secretary John Whitley announced last week: “There are several upcoming events—we don’t know what they are—over the next several weeks, and they’re concerned that there could be situations where there are lawful protests, First Amendment-protected protests, that could either be used by malicious actors, or other problems that could emerge.”

“We don’t know what they are” but somebody heard something somewhere, so the military deployment will continue. Threats have occurred in waves toward members of Congress at least since the farm crisis of the 1980s, but prior menacing did not result in the occupation of the capital city.

Perpetuating the troop deployment is also being justified by melodramatic revisionism. In congressional testimony last week, Capitol Police acting chief Yogananda Pittman described the January 6 clash at the Capitol as “a terrorist attack by tens of thousands of insurrectionists.” Apparently, anyone who tromped from the scene of Trump’s ludicrous “I won by a landslide” spiel to the Capitol was a terrorist, or at least an “insurrectionist” (which is simply “terrorist” spelled with more letters). Is “walking on the Mall with bad thoughts” sufficient to get classified as a terrorist in the Biden era?

Placing thousands of troops on the streets of the nation’s capital could be a ticking time bomb. The longer the National Guard is deployed in Washington, the greater the peril of a Kent State–caliber catastrophe. The Ohio National Guard’s volley of fire in 1970 that killed four students and wounded nine others was a defining moment for the Vietnam era.

Forty years later, the Cleveland Plain Dealer published an investigation of the Kent State shooting based on new analyses of audio recordings from the scene. The Plain Dealer concluded that an FBI informant who was photographing student protestors fired four shots from his .38-caliber revolver after students began threatening him. That gunfire started barely a minute before the Ohio National Guard opened fire. Gunshots from the FBI informant apparently spooked guard commanders into believing they were taking sniper fire, spurring the order to shoot students. The informant denied having fired, but witnesses testified differently. (The FBI hustled the informant from the scene and he later became an undercover narcotics cop in Washington, DC.) Though there is no evidence that the FBI sought to provoke carnage at Kent State, FBI agents involved in COINTELPRO (the Counterintelligence Program) in the 1960s and 1970s boasted of “false flag” operations which provoked killings.

If some malicious group wanted to plunge this nation into chaos and fear, National Guard troops at a checkpoint would be an easy target—at least for the first moments after they were fired upon (most of the troops do not have ammo magazines in their rifles). The sweeping reaction to January 6 might be far surpassed if troops are gunned down regardless of whether the culprits were right-wing extremists, Antifa, or foreign infiltrators. An attack on the troops would likely perpetuate the military occupation and potentially spur Biden to declare martial law.

Last spring, when riots erupted after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, President Trump warned that “the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.” Many activists were justifiably appalled at the specter of Trump seizing dictatorial power over areas wracked by violent protests. But the danger remains regardless of who is president.

Martial law is the ultimate revocation of constitutional rights: anyone who disobeys soldiers’ orders can be shot. There are plenty of malevolent actors here and abroad who would relish seeing martial law declared in Washington, the paramount disgrace for the world’s proudest democracy.

Unfortunately, Biden would have plenty of support initially if he proclaimed that violence in Washington required him to declare martial law. As the Washington Post noted in 2018, a public opinion poll showed that 25 percent of Americans believed “a military takeover was justified if there were widespread corruption or crime.” The Journal of Democracy reported that polls showed that only 19 percent of Millennials in the US believed that it would be illegitimate “in a democracy for the military to take over when the government is incompetent or failing to do its job.” But trusting to military rule for Millennial wish fulfillment would be the biggest folly of them all. Support for martial law is the ultimate proof of declining political literacy in this nation.

Regardless of the risks, some politicians are clinging to the presence of the troops in Washington like Linus clutching his “security blanket” in a Peanuts cartoon. Will we now see regular alarms from a long series of politicians and political appointees working to “keep up the fear”?

History is littered with stories of nations scourged by “temporary” martial law that perpetuated itself. Anyone who believes America is immune should recall Senator Taylor’s 1821 warning against presuming “our good theoretical system of government is a sufficient security against actual tyranny.”

*****

This article first appeared on Mises Wire, on February 10, 2021, and is reproduced with permission granted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

VIDEO: Perspectives on Biden’s Foreign Policy from 2 Former Israeli Ambassadors.

/in , , , , , /by

I spoke with two former Israeli Ambassadors to the United states about who forms foreign policy and what that policy would look like based on the past record of Biden’s picks.

Watch my interviews Ambassadors Yoran Ettinger and Danny Ayalon speaking from their personal experiences.

Part 1. Biden Foreign Policy and Israel.

Part 2. Perspective on President Biden from two former Israeli Ambassadors.

©Barry Shaw. All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.