On New Year’s Eve Two New York Police officers were stabbed in an apparent terrorist attack.
Their alleged assailant, 19-year-old Trevor Bickford, was identified as a recent convert to Islam. Armed with a kukri knife common to South Asian nations such as Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, Bickford reportedly wounded two officers before being shot in the shoulder by another officer on the scene.
All the available evidence seems to suggest that Bickford carried out the attack as an act of jihad.
Fox News reported that a “high-level police source” stated that Bickford was being “watched by the FBI’s counterterrorism task force in the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack.” According to media reports Bickford also left a message to family members prior to the attack, urging them to convert to Islam.
This is the first high profile attack reported in the US in some time and the law enforcement response and actions indicate that the nation remains largely in denial about the ongoing threat of jihadist violence.
For those who closely monitor such things, this attack was not a complete surprise. Over the past month, as the Islamic State (IS) named a new emir, Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurayshi, dozens of IS affiliates around the globe released videos pledging their allegiance. In the past the Islamic State has been able to inspire and/or direct individual acts of jihad like Bickford’s attack, something that other jihadist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, have had less success accomplishing.
The report that Bickford was known to the FBI and “on their radar” as a known “extremist” is unsurprising, another example of a long-standing trend of terror suspects “watched by the FBI’s counterterrorism task force” all the way up until they conduct their attacks. A significant number of those attackers were also jihadists.
One can also not help but wonder whether the FBI is taking its eye off the ball due to command influence from the Biden administration. For more than two years now President Biden has repeated the claim that the major terrorist threat in America is from “white supremacists” or right-wing extremists. This oft-repeated claim comes despite the fact that the FBI has not a single white supremacist on its most wanted terrorist lists—lists dominated by jihadist terrorists.
Just a few weeks ago the United Nations Security Council—hardly a sentinel for the security of freedom-loving peoples—issued a report warning that the threat from “terrorism” has increased and has spread around the globe.
The report specifically mentioned the regenerating threat from Al Qaeda and the Islamic State and financing that is reaching them. The UN’s counterterrorism chief specifically mentioned the groups’ activities in Africa and Afghanistan.
U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, acknowledged that there were “8,000 terrorist incidents across 65 countries, killing more than 23,000 people” last year.
The overwhelming majority of the 8,000 terrorist incidents in 65 countries that Nuland referred to were acts of jihad. And most of them occurred in Africa. The “hateful incidents” in America she mentions, without reference or attribution, are presumably violations of hate crimes statues, in no way comparable to the threat from global jihad. Nuland’s comments reflect the profound ignorance that pervades this administration as well as a growing willingness to conflate terrorism with other, less lethal, issues.
As we head into 2023 we have more than a warning from the UN to alert us to the threat from jihadist terrorism. We have a new terrorist leader who has garnered pledges of allegiance from jihadists from Nigeria to Afghanistan to the Philippines. And now we have a jihadist terrorist attack on police officers on the streets of America.
EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-01-03 21:51:372023-01-03 21:51:37Latest Jihadist Attack Shows Biden Bureaucratized Counterterrorism Apparatus is Out of Touch
Nasrallah had been scheduled to make a televised speech Friday evening, but postponed the address, with Hezbollah’s media relations department claiming he was suffering from an influenza infection which would “prevent him from speaking in a regular and normal manner.”
Since then, however, reports from Lebanon and Saudi Arabia have claimed that Nasrallah in fact suffered a stroke last week and has been incapacitated. “Nasrallah’s illness, which led him to be admitted to the hospital, is not the ‘flu’, as has been claimed, but rather is a second stroke,” Saudi journalist Hussein al-Gawi wrote.
“Arab sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a stroke, with one source going so far as to say Nasrallah has died and that the news of his death is being kept secret for the time being. There are no confirmations yet as to Nasrallah’s current status,” said former Israeli intelligence official and regional analyst Avi Melamed.
Hezbollah also said its leader is “receiving the appropriate treatment” and will speak on Tuesday evening at a Hezbollah rally commemorating slain Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and slain Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, but “If Nasrallah either cancels or doesn’t show for the speech on Tuesday, it could indicate a wider issue with his health,” continued Melamed.
“While right now rumors are the only potential indicators of Nasrallah’s present condition, their reverberation throughout the Arab world clearly indicate the distaste that many Arabs have for Nasrallah. Those detractors, great in number are certainly hoping that Hassan Nasrallah is indeed dead,” Melamed concluded.
In August 2010, Nasrallah, making his first public appearance in more than a year, told hundreds of cheering supporters at a rally that Israel was “a cancerous growth,” and that “[t]he only solution is to destroy it without giving it the opportunity to surrender.” “The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest,” he added. “It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world…. We say to America, Israel, Great Britain and their regional tools, we say to every enemy and friend … we in Hezbollah will not abandon Palestine and the people of Palestine. Call us terrorists, criminals, try to kill us, we Shi’ites will never abandon Palestine.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-01-03 09:51:142023-01-03 09:51:14Hezbollah Chief Nasrallah Rumored to Have Suffered Stroke
by Andrea Cavallier, DailyMail.com, January 1, 2023:
The alleged Islamic extremist who stabbed a rookie NYPD cop in the head with a machete in Times Square on New Year’s Eve has been pictured.
Trevor Bickford, 19, from Wells, Maine, is seen in unsuspecting photographs shared by his mother on Facebook from his birthday in the summer.
She refers to him as an ‘old soul’ and repeatedly tells him how much she loves him after he left their home for Seattle in September.
Her social media also reveals her other son Devin is in the US Army, with him pictured alongside the suspected jihadist in one shot.
It comes after Bickford allegedly slashed two officers with a machete on 8th Avenue near Times Square around 10pm last night.
Another officer shot him in the shoulder and he was rushed to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, along with the two cops. They are all expected to survive.
There appears to be no criminal record for Bickford, police sources said. But they say the FBI in Boston do have an open case on him. He is on a ‘guardian list’ because of his radicalization. The New York Post reports that Bickford apparently made statements to his aunt about a desire to go fight in Afghanistan, and she notified the authorities.
The attack happened just outside of the high-security zone where thousands of revelers were screened for weapons as they prepared to ring in 2023.
Both officers were slashed in their heads, including the rookie cop who suffered a skull fracture along with an 8-year veteran who had a head laceration….
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-01-02 07:51:162023-01-02 07:51:16NYC: Muslim Who Stabbed Two Cops in Times Square Was On The FBI’s Watchlist
German scientists published a peer reviewed study on autopsies of twenty five people who had died suddenly. Reports of otherwise healthy people suddenly collapsing and dying need to be investigated. But the very agencies responsibility for such a task are the least interested. Just the opposite. They don’t want to know. And worse still, they don’t want people to know.
Medical pathologists from Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany have published direct evidence showing how people found dead after mRNA vaccination died. As this team of six scientists explore in their study, these mRNA-vaccinated patients suffered from heart damage because their hearts were attacked by their own immune cells. This autoimmune attack on their own heart cells then leads to their damaged hearts beating so many times per second that, once the tachycardia unexpectedly started, they died in minutes. (The Epoch Times)
And still the Democrats are pushing this poison – on our children.
Tolerance is a good thing in most aspects of life. But when it comes to the immune system, artificially juicing up the body to create antibodies with long-term tolerance to a pathogen is a recipe for disaster. Amid thousands of papers on COVID and the vaccines, a new German paper published in Science Immunology should be the headline story this week. Although the subject matter is very dense, the implication of it is that the Pfizer shots (and possibly other mRNA spike protein shots) caused the immune system to misfire, thereby creating an endless feedback loop of viral immune escape, perpetuating the pandemic in the macro, and creating immune suppression for the individuals who received them.
The vexing question of 2022 is why the virus is even still with us to this day. Why is it that so many countries in the Pacific Rim that did so well in 2020 and 2021 now have a bigger problem in 2022 with less virulent strains of COVID? Why does it appear the pandemic will never end and so many people continue to get the virus multiple times? None of this is normal.
Wherever you turn, the most vaccinated countries are not only experiencing rampant side effects from the shots, but worse outcomes from COVID itself following their endless booster campaigns.
During the last six months, 98% of all reported covid deaths have occurred in nations where more than 1 vaccine dose has been administered per person.
Portugal is the most vaccinated nation in all of Europe (95% vax’d, 70% boosted) and yet just as many people are dying now as in 2021 and significantly more people than in 2020 (when no one was vax’d and no one had immunity and covid was more virulent).
But even more telling than an epidemiological comparison of one nation to another is a comparison of outcomes within nations themselves between pre- and post-vaccination/booster campaign. Prior to the mass vaccination, two parts of the world largely escaped excess deaths from the virus: continental Africa and the Pacific Rim nations. Yet whereas Africa flatlined in terms of COVID deaths throughout 2021-2022, countries like Japan only experienced meaningful numbers of deaths after the mass vaccination program.
Here is a chart of the daily COVID deaths per million in Japan, a country that is super vaccinated (and mask-obsessed).
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-01-01 18:51:412023-01-01 18:51:41German Study Provides Direct Evidence Showing People Died From Covid mRNA Vaccination
Biden actually told voters during the 2020 presidential campaign “that the choice between him and Donald Trump was between the lawful and the lawless.” So here’s what’s happening now on the Southern border, where illegal, unvetted migrants are invading.
The Commander-in-Chief of the American Army and Navy and the leader of the free world (once upon a time) has abandoned all concern for national security and the American economy. And everyone knows what he did to Americans in Afghanistan.
by Bob Price and Randy Clark, Breitbart, December 28, 2022:
EAGLE PASS, Texas — Breitbart Texas posted along the Rio Grande south of town and observed a single group of nearly 300 migrants emerge from the riverbank and surrender to Texas National Guardsmen and Border Patrol agents Wednesday. Two large groups of nearly 600 crossed the Rio Grande in the early morning.
The first group of migrants consisted mainly of single adult male and female migrants from Colombia, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Scattered within the group were a few family units with small children and several elderly migrants. This was the first of two large migrant groups that would cross within three hours.
The large migrant groups have shifted their crossing points near Eagle Pass from just outside the north side of the city to a more remote crossing far south of the heart of the city.
The video shows the migrants emerging from the riverbank and being guided to a gap in a ranch fence on the edge of a nearby roadway. Once guided around the ranch fence, the migrants are interviewed by awaiting Border Patrol agents. The migrants are then sorted by nationality and gender and prioritized for transportation to a nearby processing center.
The group crossed shortly after 2:00 am as Breitbart Texas posted at several busy migrant crossing points. The large migrant group would not be the last for a weary shift of Border Patrol agents and Texas National Guard soldiers stationed in the area.
Another large group of 278 migrants crossed the Rio Grande at about 4:30 a.m. just north of the first group, according to a source operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The group crossed onto private property located about two miles from the Camino Real Port of Entry in Eagle Pass. The crossing point is near the south edge of a border wall built under orders of Governor Greg Abbott.
Within three hours, more than 600 migrants had crossed the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass.
Agents scrambled to that area about two miles away and repeated the process. The migrants crossing into the area are from countries not amenable to a speedy return to their home country under the CDC Title 42 emergency COVID-19 authority. According to a source within CBP, not authorized to speak to the media, the migrants crossing in Wednesday’s groups will be released into the United States to pursue asylum claims. The Supreme Court voted on Tuesday to leave Title 42 in place until it rules on the lawsuit filed by 19 states, Breitbart reported.
Once processed, the migrants will be taken to a charity shelter in the Eagle Pass and later transferred to a larger charity shelter in San Antonio, Texas. Many will depart San Antonio for other parts of the United States.
On Tuesday, nearly 1,100 migrants crossed the Rio Grande in just five hours in the same area south of the city…..
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-01-01 18:51:392023-01-01 18:51:39EXCLUSIVE TEXAS VIDEO: 600 illegal migrants cross the border into the U.S. in three hours
In recent years, prominent national security officials and media outlets have raised alarm about the unprecedented effects of foreign disinformation in democratic countries. In practice, what they mean is that democratic governments have fallen behind in their command of the methods of information warfare in the early 21st century. As outlined herein, while information warfare is a real and serious issue facing democratic governments in the 21st century, the war on disinformation, as currently practiced, has backfired spectacularly and done far more harm than good, as evidenced most clearly by the response to COVID-19.
We begin with the definitions and history of a few key terms: Censorship, free speech, misinformation, disinformation, and bots.
Censorship and Free Speech
Censorship is any deliberate suppression or prohibition of speech, whether for good or ill. In the United States and countries which have adopted its model, censorship induced by governments and their appendages is constitutionally prohibited except in the narrow category of “illegal speech”—e.g., obscenity, child exploitation, speech abetting criminal conduct, and speech that incites imminent violence.
Because censorship involves the exercise of power to silence another individual, censorship is inherently hierarchical. A person who lacks the power to silence another cannot censor them. For this reason, censorship inherently reinforces existing power structures, whether rightly or wrongly.
Though the United States may be the first country to have enshrined the right to free speech in its constitution, the right to free speech developed over centuries and predates the Western Enlightenment. For example, the right to speak freely was inherent to the democratic practices of the political classes in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, even if it was not enshrined in words. This is only logical; because these systems treated all members of the political class as equals, no member of the political class had the power to censor another except with the consent of the body politic.
The right to free speech developed and receded in fits and starts over the coming centuries for a number of reasons; but in accordance with George Orwell’s view of institutional evolution, free speech developed primarily because it afforded an evolutionary advantage to the societies in which it was practiced. For example, the political equality among Medieval British lords in their early parliamentary system necessitated free speech among them; by the 19th century, the cumulative benefits of this evolutionary advantage would help make Britain the world’s primary superpower. The United States arguably went a step further by enshrining free speech in its constitution and extending it to all adults, affording the United States a still greater evolutionary advantage.
By contrast, because censorship depends on and reinforces existing power structures, censors tend especially to target those who seek to hold power to account. And, because the advancement of human civilization is essentially one unending struggle to hold power to account, this censorship is inherently incompatible with human progress. Civilizations that engage in widespread censorship therefore tend to stagnate.
Misinformation
Misinformation is any information that is not completely true, regardless of the intent behind it. A flawed scientific study is one form of misinformation. An imperfect recollection of past events is another.
Technically, under the broadest definition of “misinformation,” all human thoughts and statements other than absolute mathematical axioms are misinformation, because all human thoughts and statements are generalizations based on subjective beliefs and experiences, none of which can be considered perfectly true. Moreover, no particular levels or “degrees” of misinformation can be readily defined; the relative truth or falsity of any information exists on a continuum with infinite degrees.
Accordingly, because virtually all human thoughts and statements can be defined as misinformation, a prerogative to identify and censor misinformation is extraordinarily broad, depending entirely on the breadth of the definition of “misinformation” employed by the censor in any given instance. Because no particular “degrees” of misinformation can be defined, an official with a license to censor misinformation could censor virtually any statement at any time and justify their action, correctly, as having censored misinformation. In practice, because no man is an angel, this discretion inherently comes down to the biases, beliefs, loyalties, and self-interests of the censor.
Disinformation
Disinformation is any information shared by a person who knows it to be false. Disinformation is synonymous with lying.
Disinformation goes back centuries and is far from limited to the Internet. For example, according to Virgil, toward the end of the Trojan War, the Greek warrior Sinon presented the Trojans with a wooden horse that the Greeks had supposedly left behind as they fled—without informing the hapless Trojans that the horse was, in fact, filled with the Greeks’ finest warriors. Sinon could rightly be considered one of history’s first accounts of a foreign disinformation agent.
In a more modern example of disinformation, Adolf Hitler convinced Western leaders to cede the Sudetenland by making the false promise, “We want no Czechs.” But just a few months later, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia without a fight. As it turned out, Hitler did want Czechs, and much more besides.
Technically, disinformation can come just as easily from a source either foreign or domestic, though how such disinformation should be treated—from a legal perspective—is very dependent on whether the disinformation had a foreign or domestic source. Because the greatest challenge in distinguishing simple misinformation from deliberate disinformation is the intent of the speaker or writer, identifying disinformation presents all the same challenges that people have faced, since time immemorial, in identifying lies.
Is a statement more likely to be a lie, or disinformation, if someone has been paid or otherwise incentivized or coerced to say it? What if they’ve wrongly convinced themselves that the statement is true? Is it enough that they merely should have known the statement is untrue, even if they didn’t have actual knowledge? If so, how far should an ordinary person be expected to go to find out the truth for themselves?
Just like lying, disinformation is generally considered negative. But in certain circumstances, disinformation can be heroic. For example, during the Second World War, some German citizens hid their Jewish friends for years while telling Nazi officials that they did not know of their whereabouts. Because of circumstances like these, the right to lie, except when under oath or in furtherance of a crime, is inherent to the right to free speech—at least for domestic purposes.
Defining “foreign disinformation” further complicates the analysis. Is a statement “foreign disinformation” if a foreign entity invented the lie, but it was shared by a domestic citizen who was paid to repeat it, or who knew it was a lie? What if the lie was invented by a foreign entity, but the domestic citizen who shared it did not know it was a lie? All these factors must be considered in correctly defining foreign and domestic disinformation and separating it from mere misinformation.
Bots
The traditional definition of an online bot is a software application that posts automatically. However, in common usage, “bot” is more often used to describe any anonymous online identity who is secretly incentivized to post according to specific narratives on behalf of an outside interest, such as a regime or organization.
This modern definition of “bot” can be difficult to pin down. For example, platforms like Twitter permit users to have several accounts, and these accounts are allowed to be anonymous. Are all of these anonymous accounts bots? Is an anonymous user a “bot” solely by virtue of the fact that they’re beholden to a regime? What if they’re merely beholden to a corporation or small business? What level of independence separates a “bot” from an ordinary anonymous user? What if they have two accounts? Four accounts?
The most sophisticated regimes, such as China’s, have vast social media armies consisting of hundreds of thousands of employees who post to social media on a daily basis using VPNs, allowing them to conduct vast disinformation campaigns involving hundreds of thousands of posts in a very short timespan without ever resorting to automated bots in the traditional sense. Thus, Chinese disinformation campaigns are impossible to stop algorithmically, and even difficult to identify with absolute certainty. Perhaps for this reason, whistleblowers have reported that social media companies like Twitter have effectively given up on trying to police foreign bots—even while they pretend to have the issue under control for purposes of public relations.
Information Warfare in the Present Day
Owing to the seriousness with which they’ve studied the methods of information warfare, and perhaps to their long mastery of propaganda and linguistics for purposes of exercising domestic control, authoritarian regimes such as China’s appear to have mastered disinformation in the early 21st century to a degree with which Western national security officials can’t compete—similar to how the Nazis mastered the methods of 20th century disinformation before their democratic rivals.
The magnitude and effects of these foreign disinformation campaigns in the present day are difficult to measure. On the one hand, some argue that foreign disinformation is so ubiquitous as to be largely responsible for the unprecedented political polarization that we see in the present day. Others approach these claims with skepticism, arguing that the specter of “foreign disinformation” is being used primarily as a pretext to justify Western officials’ suppression of free speech in their own countries. Both arguments are valid, and both are true to varying degrees and in various instances.
The best evidence that national security officials’ alarm about foreign disinformation is justified is, ironically, an example so egregious that they have yet to acknowledge it happened, seemingly out of embarrassment and fear of the political fallout: The lockdowns of spring 2020. These lockdowns weren’t part of any democratic country’s pandemic plan and had no precedent in the modern Western world; they appear to have been instigated by officials with strange connections to China based solely on China’s false claim that their lockdown was effective in controlling COVID in Wuhan, assisted in no small part by a vast propaganda campaign across legacy and social media platforms. It’s therefore essentially axiomatic that the lockdowns of spring 2020 were a form of foreign disinformation. The catastrophic harms that resulted from these lockdowns prove just how high the stakes in 21st century information warfare can be.
That said, the astonishing failure of Western officials to acknowledge the catastrophe of lockdowns seems to speak to their unseriousness in actually winning the 21st century information war, justifying skeptics’ arguments that these officials are merely using foreign disinformation as a pretext to suppress free speech at home.
For example, after the catastrophic lockdowns of spring 2020, not only did national security officials never acknowledge foreign influence on lockdowns, but on the contrary we saw a small army of national security officials actually engaging in domestic censorship of well-credentialed citizens who were skeptical of the response to COVID—effectively exacerbating the effects of the lockdown disinformation campaign and, conspicuously, making their own countries even more like China.
The Orwellian pretext for this vast domestic censorship apparatus is that, because there is no way to properly identify or control foreign social media bots, foreign disinformation has become so ubiquitous within Western discourse that federal officials can only combat it by surreptitiously censoring citizens for what the officials deem to be “misinformation,” regardless of the citizens’ motivations. These officials have thus deemed well-qualified citizens who oppose the response to COVID-19 to be spreading “misinformation,” a term which can encompass virtually any human thought or statement. Depending on their underlying motivations and loyalties, the actions of these officials in surreptitiously censoring “misinformation” may have even been an intentional part of the lockdown disinformation campaign; if so, this speaks to the multi-level complexity and sophistication of information warfare in the 21st century.
There are signs that some of the primary actors in this vast censorship apparatus were not, in fact, acting in good faith. For example, Vijaya Gadde, who previously oversaw censorship operations at Twitter and worked closely with federal officials to censor legal and factual speech, was being paid over $10 million per year to act in this role. While the dynamics and definitions of misinformation and disinformation are philosophically complex, and Gadde may have legitimately not understood them, it’s also possible that $10 million per year was sufficient to buy her “ignorance.”
These problems are exacerbated by the fact that honest institutional leaders in Western countries, typically of an older generation, often don’t fully appreciate or understand the dynamics of information warfare in the present day, seeing it as primarily a “Millennial” problem and delegating the task of monitoring social media disinformation to younger people. This has opened up a promising path for young career opportunists, many of whom have no particular legal or philosophical expertise on the nuances of misinformation, disinformation, and free speech, but who make lucrative careers out of simply telling institutional leaders what they want to hear. As a result, throughout the response to COVID-19, we saw the horrifying effects of disinformation effectively being laundered into our most venerated institutions as policy.
Winning the 21st Century Information War
While the dynamics of information warfare in the early 21st century are complex, the solutions need not be. The idea that online platforms have to be open to users of all countries largely harkens back to a kind of “kumbaya” early-Internet ideal that engagement between peoples of all nations would render their differences irrelevant—similar to late-19th century arguments that the Industrial Revolution had made war a thing of the past. Regardless of how widespread foreign disinformation may actually be, the fact that national security officials have secretly constructed a vast apparatus to censor Western citizens for legal speech, supposedly due to the ubiquity of foreign disinformation, lays bare the farcical notion that online engagement would resolve differences between nations.
It’s morally, legally, and intellectually repugnant that federal officials in the United States have constructed a vast apparatus for censoring legal speech, bypassing the First Amendment—without informing the public—on the pretext that the activities of foreign regimes which have been deliberately permitted on our online platforms have gotten so out of control. If foreign disinformation is anywhere near that ubiquitous in our online discourse, then the only solution is to ban access to online platforms from China, Russia, and other hostile countries that are known to engage in organized disinformation operations.
Because the effects of foreign disinformation can’t be accurately measured, the actual impact of banning access to our online platforms from hostile countries isn’t clear. If disinformation alarmists are correct, then banning access from hostile countries could have a significant ameliorative effect on political discourse in democratic nations. If skeptics are correct, then banning access from hostile countries might not have much effect at all. Regardless, if federal officials really don’t think there’s any way to allow users in hostile countries to access our online platforms without circumscribing the United States Constitution, then the choice is clear. Any marginal benefit that’s gained from interactions between Western citizens and users in hostile countries is vastly outweighed by the need to uphold the Constitution and the principles of the Enlightenment.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2023-01-01 01:28:002023-01-01 01:28:00Disinformation, Censorship, and Information Warfare in the 21st Century
By North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement
For the past 15 years, we have brought you these monthly reports of crimes being committed by illegal aliens in NC. For the past 9 years, we have focused specifically on monthly child rape/child sexual assault crimes.
You need no further proof that illegal aliens are a burden upon our legal system, our health system, our educational system and most importantly; a burden upon the mental and emotional state of the children of North Carolina. We have certainly laid to rest any possible claim that “illegal aliens do not increase criminal activity”, at least in NC.
Seeing as how, in the previous 15 years, no substantial actions have been taken by our Legislators to contain this insidious crime and there’s nothing to indicate they will act in the next 15 years, sadly, this will be the last monthly report from NCFIRE. Our website, www.NCFIRE.info will remain active and accessible to everyone who would like to use the information we have published. All that is required is to acknowledge where you obtained the information, should you choose to use it.
During the month of December 2022, NCFIRE was able to document 15 illegal aliens who committed 41 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault.
That brings the yearly total for 2022 to:
268 illegal aliens charged with:
954 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault
The grand totals, since 2013 are:
2,980 illegal aliens charged with:
12,663 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault
Numbers that are quite frankly, hard to wrap your mind around. And keep in mind, these represent only about 2/3rds of the100 NC county Sheriff’s arrest records, because the rest of them made it exceedingly difficult to obtain their daily arrest records. So our monthly and grand total numbers are most assuredly on the low side, unbelievably.
So, for the final time:
For the December 2022 monthly report, click here: December 2022
And for the previous 9 years of monthly reports (as well as other useful information pertaining to NC), visit our website here: NCFIRE
I’d like to personally thank each and everyone of you for the support you have given NCFIRE over the years. Specifically our donors and also numerous NC House members (former and current) who have done everything in their power to pass meaningful legislation to halt this scourge but; have run up against senior members who are beholden to the NC Chamber of Commerce and the NC Farmers Associations for cheap illegal alien labor. Those organizations contribute HEAVILY to members’ reelection campaigns and I guess they decided that money was more important than the safety and well being of NC citizens and our children.
It’s been a duty and a honor to have brought you these reports. We can only hope that someday, it helps.
AmericaFest was an event hosted by Turning Point USA in Phoenix, Arizona on December 17-20, 2022. Attendees of AmericaFest totaled 10,800 people, making this event the largest multi-day conservative event in history. Live conservative media productions were presented outside the main exhibit hall in which the speeches occurred. Shows and platforms such as ‘The Charlie Kirk Show’ and ‘The War Room’ were a few of the many to produce episodes at AmericaFest.
Speakers included prominent voices in the conservative movement, such as Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Kari Lake, Dennis Prager, Kaleigh McEnany, Owens, Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Mike Lindell, Harmeet Dhillon, Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Jack Posobiec. On some nights, concerts also occurred with performances from RaeLynn, Chase Rice and other performers.
One of the themes of AmericaFest was the much-needed American takedown and blocking of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) activities and influence at many levels of American life, society, and the economy. The CCP has been interfering in our government and the private sector for many years. Recently, they have been buying farmland in midwest America. A foreign nation which seeks to destroy America and everything we hold dear now owns food producing agricultural land in our country. Some of these Chinese owned properties are located strategically close to military bases and infrastructure. This was recognized as a clear threat to the nation at AmericaFest, though many American politicians have chosen to turn a blind eye to these developments.
Another vital theme presented and discussed at AmericaFest was marriage. Americans are increasingly opting to marry later in life, or not at all. In 2022, the average marriage age of women was 28.2 years, and for men, it was 30.1 years. Thirty years earlier, in 1992, the average marriage age of women was 24.4 years and for men was 26.5 years. In 2020 the marriage rate per 1,000 population was 6.5, while in 1992 the marriage rate per 1,000 population was 9.3. Marriage rates in America have been steadily decreasing while marriage ages have been increasing.
Conservative values are based on the nuclear family and finding value and purpose within that unit. An overwhelming majority of speakers were passionate about the issue of marriage in America and encouraged America’s youth to get married and, if they meet the correct person, to do it young.
Speakers also stressed that, although marriage is not easy, nothing worth doing ever is, and marriage will add to your happiness immensely. As Dennis Prager pointed out, “wanting to be a spouse, husband or wife, is better than being a CEO”. He stressed that although success in the workplace is important, nothing will compare to the joy of having a family of your own.
Lastly, speakers and attendees alike recognized that we are amid a spiritual battle in this country. Good and evil are at war right now and we must take a side, ultimately fighting for God and country. Our national motto, “In God we trust”, must be an individual commitment and carried forward by conservative youth.
Being Christian does not mean rolling over, it means doing good in the Lord’s name and for His purpose. John 15:5 states “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing”. We must win back the soul of this nation and the only way to accomplish that is with God. Bible study, prayer, and action must come together in the coming years in this spiritual war to win back our nation.
AmericaFest was encouraging and invigorating. Seeing other proud patriots, unafraid to stand up for themselves and their rights, was inspiring. We must fight today so our children and grandchildren will have the chance to grow up in a better America. They are depending upon us. Conservatives, especially young conservatives, must now fight for the soul of our beloved nation.
One thing is certain: the full extent of the ties between Ukraine and the posturing, self-righteous, desperately corrupt, hypocritical and self-serving U.S. Democrat establishment is not publicly known, and may never be known. But what we do know should have brought that entire establishment crashing down years ago. First, there was Hunter Biden’s $50,000-a-month job with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma despite his having no experience whatsoever in the industry. This was an obvious instance of influence-peddling despite all the ongoing attempts to explain it away. Then there are the allegations that the U.S. government sent taxpayer money to Ukraine, which then invested in the discredited cryptocurrency firm FTX, which then donated millions to Democrats. The heated denials of any wrongdoing in the latter case recall the denials of the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop. And there is much more, including the fact that yesterday’s Ukrainian Nazi terrorists are now U.S. taxpayer-funded heroes of freedom.
The facts have gotten little attention, but the independent journalism site Kanekoa News reported as long ago as last June that “on October 16, 2019, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee’s counterterrorism subpanel, Rep. Max Rose (NY), led a letter signed by forty Democrats asking the State Department why they had not placed Ukraine’s Azov Battalion on the U.S. list of ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs).” The irony couldn’t be richer, for now the New York Times, that reliable organ of far-Left opinion, refers to “Ukraine’s celebrated Azov Battalion,” and claims that “the group’s defense of the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol — the southern port city decimated by Russian forces in the first months of the war — has become a powerful symbol of the suffering inflicted by Russia and the resistance mounted by Ukraine.”
Every last Democrat who condemned the Azov Battalion likely reads and respects the Times, and every last one of them also would likely prefer us all to forget that they once likened the Azov Battalion to the Islamic State (ISIS) and noted that it “openly welcomes neo-Nazis into its ranks.” The Democrats’ 2019 letter added that “the 115th Congress of the United States stated in its 2018 omnibus spending bill that ‘none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.’” But that was when Volodymyr Zelensky was widely regarded as some kind of ally or tool of the Left’s Emanuel Goldstein of the day, Donald Trump; after all, the first Stalinist show trial impeaching the America-First president took place over a phone call to Zelensky. So it was in the Democrats’ interest to play up the Nazi element in Ukraine, just as it is in their interests now to pretend that element doesn’t exist.
The Democrats’ letter even declared “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Yet now it seems as if there is no limit to the taxpayer billions that must be funneled to these gallant Ukrainian defenders of freedom. Is anyone exercising any kind of oversight at all? Is Azov still “recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens”? Is our taxpayer money now being used to fund such activities?
Among the stalwart Democrat solons and defenders of the people signing the letter were Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Eliot Engel and Gregory Meeks of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green of Texas, Ro Khanna of California, and Rep. Al Green. None of them have any curiosity about any of this at all? Now they’re all just certain that Ukraine is 100% on the side of the angels and that there are no Nazis, zero, zip, nada, who are benefiting from American largesse to Zelensky and company? Back in 2018, Ro Khanna, in high moral dudgeon, declared: “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.” How about now? Kanekoa News reports that on March 10, 2022, Khanna “deleted a tweet saying, ‘the U.S. has been complicit in the rehabilitation and spread of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Enough is enough! Our government must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups.’”
So apparently our government no longer must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups. Instead, you and I have to pay for them. Is all this so that Democrats can line their pockets via money-laundering schemes akin to the alleged FTX arrangement? We may never know, since the officials who are supposed to be looking out for our interests are all corrupted themselves. The scammers and money launderers, whatever specifically they are doing or not doing, have a free hand.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-30 17:51:152022-12-30 17:51:15In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions
AA:Your father was a noted historian who taught at Cornell. What did you learn from him? How has your understanding of history, and growing up in the United States, shaped your understanding of Israel and of the region?
BN: Well, I think my time in the United States obviously made me appreciate the important role of the United States in protecting the peace and stability of the world. And I view that alliance with the United States as particularly important. I can also say that I think one of my main goals would be to speak with my friend of 40 years, President Biden. And I’m going to tell him that I think that there is a need for a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to its traditional allies in the Middle East. Israel, of course, is there and we’ve had a solid, unbreakable relationship. But I think that the alliance, the traditional alliance with Saudi Arabia and other countries, has to be reaffirmed. There should not be periodic swings, or even wild swings in this relationship, because I think that the alliance between America’s allies and with America is the anchor of stability in our region. I think it requires periodic reaffirmation and I’m to speak to President Biden about it.
AA:About the cabinet formation that stirred a lot of controversy. In light of the commitments you have made to your allies on the extreme right, including handing them broad powers in the West Bank, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz says that he expects a collapse of the security situation in the West Bank that would extend to the Gaza Strip. What’s your take on that?
BN: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise of your questions. I didn’t hand over great powers in Judea-Samaria, the West Bank, not at all. In fact, all the decisions will be made by me and the defense minister, and that’s actually in the coalition agreement. So there’s a lot of misinformation about that.
I think my record speaks for itself; the last decade in which I led Israel was the safest decade in Israel’s history. But not only safe and secure for Israelis, also safe and secure for the Palestinians. Because there’s been the least loss of life on both sides and that’s not accidental. It’s because of a policy of security that I’ve led, which has actually resulted in more peace and economic possibilities. And by the way, in the year that I left government and the outgoing government was in power, things changed immediately. We had an eruption of violence like we had not seen since 2008, a year before I returned to office.
My policy is one of stability, peace, prosperity and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I think that [this] record not only speaks for itself, it also speaks for the future. I will govern and I will lead, and I will navigate this government. The other parties are joining me, I’m not joining them.
Remember Likud is one-half of this coalition. The other parties are, some of them are 1/4, 1/5 the size of the Likud. They’re joining us; they will follow my policy.
AA:Your partnership with the far-right parties has stirred concerns at home and abroad. How do you expect our countries to deal with a government whose leading members portray Arabs as enemies, sometimes in terms that are overtly racist?
BN: Well, first of all, a lot of them have also changed and moderated their views, principally because with the assumption of power comes responsibility. And as you approach power, you become more responsible.
But again, here’s my record: I have led successive governments, some of them with parties to my right. And during those years, I actually invested in the Arab communities in Israel more than any of the previous governments combined. Investments where investments should go — in education and infrastructure, in transportation, and the quality of life, in governance.
Because a lot of them are complaining about the eruption of crime that makes their life hell. So I’ve invested in that too. I opened 11 police stations in Arab communities in Israel in the decade between 2010 and 2020 at the request of the community. [Do] you know, how many we had before? One. So I increased it by tenfold, both for security, for the ability for youngsters.
I want every young Arab boy or Arab girl in Israel to have the same opportunities to partake in the remarkable success story that is Israel. And therefore I’ve encouraged that, and will continue to encourage that.
AA:But what about the settlement, the new settlement about to [be established] in the West Bank that will further undermine the two-state solution. Mahmoud Abbas told al-Arabiya two days ago that this could lead to armed resistance, and he can’t stop it anymore.
BN: Well, I think he [Mahmoud Abbas] keeps on saying that. But in fact, the reason we’ve not had an Israeli-Palestinian peace is because the Palestinians have refused to do, and I think tragically their leadership for the last century has refused to do, what is finally happening in the rest of the Arab world. And that is to recognize that the State of Israel is here to stay.
I think coming to a solution with the Palestinians will require out-of-the-box thinking, will require new thinking. The reason we got the historic Abraham accords is that we got out of this mode that Mahmoud Abbas wants to stay in, and that is to, you know, to mount the same lines, to go through the same rabbit holes, not to seek new ways. In fact, it’s when we started thinking about things in a new way that we broke the cycle of paralysis that paralyzed [attempts at] peace for a quarter of a century.
Now, I think paradoxically – I don’t think it’s paradoxical, but other people do – that as we expand the number of countries that make peace with us, it actually helps bring about at the end a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Everybody said “No, first you have to solve the Palestinian problem, otherwise, you won’t get peace with the Arab world.” I said it may be the other way around. It may be that as you expand the peace with the Arab states, you’ll be able to actually get to the peace with the Palestinians and I firmly believe that.
But I will say this, I think we face a possibility of not merely an expansion of the peace; I think we can have a new peace initiative that will form a quantum leap for the achievement for the resolution of both the Arab-Israeli conflict and ultimately, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And of course, I’m referring to what could be a truly remarkable historic peace with Saudi Arabia.
Mind you, I’m committed to deepening and strengthening the remarkable Abraham Accords that we’ve had with our neighbors, but I think the peace with Saudi Arabia will serve two purposes. It will be a quantum leap for an overall peace between Israel and the Arab world. It will change our region in ways that are unimaginable. And I think it will facilitate, ultimately, a Palestinian-Israeli peace. I believe in that. I intend to pursue it.
Of course, it’s up to the to the leadership of Saudi Arabia if they want to partake in this effort. I certainly hope they would.
AA:Speaking in Abu Dhabi, the Saudi foreign minister recently reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to seeing a Palestinian state as a precondition to normalization. And Saudi officials have been saying time and again, they have predicted a fruitful and collectively beneficial relationship with Israel that would come after a two-state solution, after the Palestinian achievement of statehood.
What do you anticipate for Israeli-Saudi relations, given those constraints? Is normalization on the horizon? Would you meaningfully compromise on the Palestinian issue? Is there a plan after you become prime minister?
BN: There have been many ideas. I think the last initiative of President Trump actually put forth very innovative ideas that could help achieve or end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I think we can end the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieve peace with the Palestinians. We just have to be creative about it. And we have to not dig in our heels because if you dig in your heels, you get stuck in the old groove.
I think part of the remarkable thing that has happened in the last few years, with the Abraham Accords, showed that if we get out of this groove, then amazing things can happen. And I think that amazing things can happen not only for Israelis and Arabs, but for Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs as well. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this with the Arab leaders and with the Palestinians themselves.
AA:Are you willing to accept the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for negotiations? What concrete steps are you willing to take, or are you willing to take any concrete steps, in resolving the Palestinian issue in order to create this larger peace in the Arab world that you mentioned?
BN: Well, first of all, I have taken concrete steps under my administration, contrary to the public image. For example, it was under my government, not the previous left-led government, that we reduced dramatically the number of security checkpoints, we increased the number of passages that enabled 150,000 Palestinians from the territories to come and work every day. And you know I never shut that down even during periods of tension and terror. I said “no, they have to be able to earn a living, be able to care for their families, be able to move around.” I’ve encouraged investments, joint ventures, in high-tech between Israeli entrepreneurs and Palestinian entrepreneurs, the building of a Palestinian city, Rawabi, and other things. These are practical things that I say.
But I’m not here to tell you that an economic peace is a substitute for political peace. I believe that the reason we’ve not had a political peace, we couldn’t move forward, is because the Palestinian leadership still refuses to accept the right of the State of Israel to exist. That remains the problem. If you keep looking at other places, you’re not going to find a solution. I hope that [this] will change.
I think that the growing circle of peace between Israel and Arab states and the quantum leaps that we can have in a peace with Saudi Arabia will also convince the Palestinians, the Palestinian leadership, because I think quite a few of the Palestinian people already are there to adopt a different attitude towards accepting the State of Israel. And once that happens, then many things can happen. I think we should move forward creatively. We should have talks about it.
Look, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 was an indication that there is a willingness, in those days, to think about how to get out of the straitjacket and to get to a comprehensive peace. I think things have changed, things have moved. But the need to have this kind of new thinking is important. And again, if we stick to the old grooves, we’ll be stuck in the old groove. If we think about new ways, then I think the sky’s the limit. And I mean that; it’s limitless actually.
AA:Do you consider the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for negotiations, just as a starting point?
BN: I think it’s an indication of a desire to end the conflict in all its terms. But I think 20 years later, you know, we need to have a fresh view. And I’m not going say what it is. I think we need to talk about it. Maybe talk discreetly.
You know, I’m sort of a champion of a slight twist in what Woodrow Wilson said in the Versailles Peace Conference. He said he believed in open covenants, openly arrived at. I believe in open covenants, secretly arrived at or discreetly arrived at. There we will have to have discussions about all the questions that you asked today and see how we can advance this. If you try to sort it out in advance you get stuck. That’s what happens.
In Israel, we say “climb the tree.” Everybody climbs on their own tree and says, “I’m here, and I’m not climbing down and no matter how many ladders you give me.” I’m stuck in my tree, the other guy is stuck in his tree, and we just shout at each other across tree trunks and we never get to a meeting of the minds or an actual meeting on the ground. I think we have to take a different position. All these things need to be discussed discreetly, responsibly and, within the confines of closed meetings, openly. And once we get an agreement, then we can come out.
I don’t need the public fanfare, I don’t need it. You know, if you come to an agreement, it will be publicized. If you don’t come to an agreement, nothing happens. I think we can come to amazing agreements.
AA: Israel recently signed a US-Iranian-backed maritime deal with Lebanon, which you said was illegal. What exactly is wrong with the agreement? Why do you oppose it? And as prime minister will you repudiate that agreement, or do you intend to challenge it in court? There have been many statements saying that it’s unconstitutional.
BN: Yeah. I think it contravened a longstanding tradition of bringing agreements that change Israel’s territorial claims or territorial possessions or even economic claims. You bring it to the Knesset. I brought the Abraham Accords to the Knesset. By the way, I didn’t have to, but I thought it was right on such an important matter to have our parliament decide on it. And I think they should have done it here too. I said that I’ll look into it, [and] that I’ll find ways, if there are bad things in it or incorrect things in it, or harmful things in it, to correct it in a responsible way.
I don’t necessarily go tearing documents up, and I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I’ll do what I can to protect Israeli economic and security interests within the policy that I talk about. And I think I’ve shown that I know how to do that responsibly, without adventurism and without wild statements. I’m too experienced for that.
AA:Does Israel intend to sign any more US-sponsored agreements with Iran-backed neighbors and Iran-backed agreements in Syria, for example? And do such rumors reflect the wishes of the current US administration, which pushed Israel extremely hard to sign the Lebanon Maritime Agreement?
BN: Well, it’s been signed. I mean, it hasn’t been approved, but it’s been signed. You mean other agreements? I don’t know. I’ll look into it.
Look, my concern is that the revenues that come out of the sea that I think heavily favored Lebanon, do not favor Lebanon. They favor Hezbollah. And Hezbollah has not been a force for peace. So you may just be funding Hezbollah’s military arsenal that could be used not only against Israel, but against many others in the Middle East. You have to think about that very carefully. But that is already done. As I said, I’ll see what I can do to moderate any damage or to secure Israel’s economic and security interests.
But as far as new agreements, well, this time we’ll be negotiating it. And, you know, I’m a fair but tough negotiator, and we’ll see what is brought before us. I don’t rule out things, but I always negotiate based on what I believe is Israel’s interest. I don’t only look at Israel’s interest because any negotiation always involves the other side. But the first thing that I look at: Is Israel’s security going to be hurt? Are Israel’s national interests going to be impeded? And within these parameters, we can proceed. We’ll see. I don’t want to commit before I know what they’re suggesting.
AA:Mr. Prime Minister, are you willing to extend that or look at an agreement on the land border between Israel and Lebanon?
BN: Continual negotiations are there, and there have been border adjustments, by the way, on both sides, over the years. They have been tactical, and I don’t think there is a major claim for a major shift, not a serious one.
The instability under the Lebanese-Israeli border was not based on this or that claim that the border has to move a kilometer here or a kilometer there. The instability was that this border was taken over on the Lebanese side by Hezbollah that calls for the eradication of Israel, [and that has] flooded south Lebanon with tens of thousands of rockets, 10,000 of which were fired into Israel. That’s what’s causing the instability.
And Hezbollah doesn’t say, well, we’re doing all this because we think we should have 500 more meters on and this or that part of the border. They say: ‘We’re doing all this because Israel shouldn’t exist.’ That’s the problem.
I don’t know what is being told in the Arab world, but that’s the reality. Hezbollah is a force against peace, a force against stability, a force against the existence of my country and in my opinion, a force backed by Iran against the security and stability of many countries. And that’s what we’ve had to deal with on the Lebanese border.
I wish we had a real border dispute between us and Lebanon. If there are any such disputes, they’re trivial and minor compared to the real problem, which I’ve just discussed.
AA:If we take a step back geopolitically, do you see these US-backed agreements with countries that are backed by Iran, like Lebanon and Syria, or other countries where Iranian militias proliferate, as part of the framework of “regional balance” or regional “integration,” to use the language of the US administration.
In other words, is there a different purpose between US-sponsored agreements with countries that are backed by Iran on one hand, and the agreements between Israel and Gulf states also known as the Abraham Accords, are they all just part of making peace? Or are there in fact two different kinds of agreements that support two very different potential regional security architectures: one centered around the US relationship with Iran, and the second centered around Israel’s relationships in the Gulf?
BN: I think the agreements that we make with like-minded states, traditional allies of the United States, and now, I think sharing common interests to block Iranian aggression, are powerful agreements and they actually have substance to them and they have weight. You can see immediately the flourishing in economic relations. Right now, after the Abraham Accords, we have billions of dollars, billions of dollars shaping up every year in joint ventures. We have people-to-people meetings, hundreds of thousands of Israelis visiting the Gulf states, Gulf states’ citizens visiting Israel. It’s amazing. These are solid.
Why is that? Because there is a meeting of the minds. We both recognize each other’s existence, each other’s right to exist. The benefits that accrue to our population from cooperation and the desire to have our peoples move into the future with progress, with prosperity, and with security. It really is miraculous. That’s what we can do with countries that share our vision of a truly new Middle East.
The problem with Iran and its proxies is that they have a completely different vision. They want to stop this progress. They want to dominate the Middle East, if not conquer it outright. They openly say they want to annihilate Israel. So, you know, obviously you may have a tactical agreement on the agenda on the Lebanese maritime question, but you can’t really make it.
What kind of an agreement would I make with Iran? The method of our decapitation? How we commit suicide? How we allow them to have a nuclear arsenal that will threaten all of us? That’s not an agreement.
So yes, I think there is a quantum, an enormous difference between the solid agreements between like-minded states and the so-called agreements with Iran and its proxies that are usually violated even before they’re signed.
AA:Yeah, but surely the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel, essentially between Hezbollah and Israel, is an Iranian endorsed agreement? Now, whether it’s in Israel’s interest is besides the point of whether it is an Iranian-backed agreement.
BN: Look, there are ceasefire agreements between rivals and enemies, and they hold as long as the common interest to hold them keeps on. But that’s different from peace.
I draw a distinction between tactical agreements or ceasefire agreements, or agreements that temporarily, or in a limited fashion, serve otherwise warring parties and the establishment of a broad peace agreement. That’s so different.
Can we have a peace agreement with Iran? No, because Iran says there shouldn’t be an Israel. They also say maybe not as forcefully, publicly, but they also say you shouldn’t have many of the other countries in the Middle East, they should be subjugated as Iran’s, basically as Iran’s minions. They use their proxies in Syria, they use their proxies in Yemen, they use their proxies in Lebanon to affect such a policy, not merely against Israel, but against other Arab countries.
So, you know, who cares what they say? Look at what they do. Who cares what they sign? It doesn’t mean anything. They sign and they violate, they cheat as fast as they sign. And you certainly shouldn’t make agreements with them that are bad if they keep the agreement, which is what I think the JCPOA was. It was a horrible agreement because it allowed Iran basically with international approval, to develop a nuclear and basically an atomic arsenal paved with gold, with hundreds of billions of dollars of sanction relief. Where does the sanction relief go? Does it go to building hospitals in Tehran and Iran’s cities? Does it go to solving the water problem there? It goes for the expansion of terrorism and aggression throughout the Middle East. So I’m very clear-eyed about that.
By the way, I think I have to tell you, I think that beyond public statements, I think the leaders of most of the Arab countries, and certainly the leading Arab countries are absolutely clear-eyed about this threat of Iranian aggression. And I, for one, do not fall into the trap of saying that if I sign an agreement with the ayatollahs, they’re going to keep it. They’re going to violate it if they can. They’ll keep it only if it allows them to advance towards a capability of much greater aggression in a very short time.
AA:Speaking of the JCPOA, Washington is clearly still keen to strike a deal with Iran despite Iran’s clear weakness and despite Israeli warnings of Iran’s determination to pursue its nuclear ambitions independent of any international restriction. You have always been a vocal critic of the JCPOA, obviously. What is your plan…?
BN: Well, you’re quite right. You’re quite right. I have been a vocal critic of it. First of all, look at what is happening in Iran itself. The Iranian people are asking themselves are they better off today than they were 40 years ago when the revolution took place? You know, just look at their GDP per capita. It’s basically, you know, a few thousand dollars. It hasn’t moved. In Saudi Arabia, it more than doubled. In Israel, [it] more than doubled. Okay. Because we invest in our people. We invest in our citizens. But the ayatollah’s regime is just investing in radicalism and terrorism and aggression.
So, number one, the Iranian people are not well off, and the JCPOA would give hundreds of billions of dollars to this aggressive regime, which they will use, again, not for the Iranian people, but for their aggressive plans to take over the Middle East and beyond that. So I think that’s one criticism that I’ve had.
The second [is] it doesn’t stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear arsenal because under the JCPOA, if it’s resumed today, within 3 to 4 years, Iran would have unlimited enrichment, uranium enrichment capacity under an international approval, under a P5+1 and the great powers that would approve it, thereby basically saying to Iran: ‘All you have to do is postpone the manufacture of these bombs, these nuclear bombs for two years, and you can be a nuclear threshold state with our approval. That’s crazy. That’s folly.
But today, I sense a change – not only in Israel, obviously, and in our region, but I sense a change in Washington. And I think given what has happened in Iran, given the extraordinary courage of the Iranian men and these extraordinary Iranian women, I think there’s been a change and a lot of people now across the board in many lands say: ‘You really cannot go back to the JCPOA and we have to do everything in our power to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal.’
So the answer to your question in one sentence: I’m committed to do whatever I can do to prevent Iran from having a nuclear arsenal. I naturally won’t itemize that here, but that’s a firm commitment that I’ve made to myself and to the people of Israel.
AA:Even without the consent of Washington?
BN: Sorry?
AA: Even without the consent of Washington to pursue more aggression towards Iran?
BN: Not aggression. I want to protect ourselves against Iran’s aggression, and against a regime that openly calls for the annihilation of my country. That’s obvious, but the answer to your question is yes. With or without an agreement.
AA:Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Would you mind if I just stick with the Iran situation right now? You just lightly touched on the protests that were happening there. Do you think the Iranian regime in the present moment is strong enough to withstand the current unrest, or do you believe that it’s weak enough to fall? What comes after? And in that situation, how would Israel react?
BN: I don’t think anyone has an answer to that question. It’s a very important question. But I think that if you look at what is happening now, since 1979, nothing like this has happened. I mean, initially people thought well, it’s you know, it’s like the green revolution, but it’s not. It’s stronger. Initially, they said it was only limited to the universities. No, it’s not. It’s stronger. They said it’s only limited to, you know, a few urban areas. No, it’s stronger.
Something very significant is happening in Iran. And it reflects the weakness of the regime that unlike, for example, Israel or unlike Saudi Arabia or other countries or the Gulf, the other Gulf states, they have not done anything for their people.
I mean, why are the people protesting? They’re protesting because they want basic life, you know. You know, Iran suffers from this unbelievable shortage of water. What have they done for it? Nothing. Well, you have to drink to live, to buy food at a reasonable price to live. You have to have basic income to live. You have to have basic infrastructure to live. And Iran has done nothing on that.
So I think that, you know, ultimately these pressures accumulate. And rather than adopt a policy of creative reform, which I think is happening, for example, in Saudi Arabia, they haven’t done that, haven’t moved an inch. They haven’t moved a nanometer. You know, they’re just stuck and they don’t care for their people. They don’t work for their people. They work for a radical ideology that is bad for Iranians, bad for Arabs, bad for Israelis, bad for Americans and everyone else in between. So I think that [this] realization [which] has now crystallized across so many sectors of Iranian society creates a new situation.
How far does it go? Does it bring about the collapse or fundamental change in the regime or the replacement of this regime? I think it’s too early to say, but I think we have to recognize that something very important is happening.
AA:Mr. Prime Minister, in the beginning of this interview, you mentioned that you’d like to see reaffirmation from Washington to its allies in the Middle East, to its traditional allies in the Middle East. In your recent autobiography, you portrayed Barack Obama as an optimist. That’s what you called him.
What strategic vision do you think Obama had for the Middle East? Also, what place does Israel and Saudi Arabia have in that vision, Obama’s vision, which is still being followed by Obama’s staffers, who staff the Biden Administration as well? And how would you describe the results of that vision so far, whether it be in Israel and Lebanon and Syria and Yemen or elsewhere.
BN: Well, I think President Obama, whom I respected but disagreed with, believed that Iran was the key to stabilizing the Middle East. And he thought that if he would make a deal with the ayatollahs, it would pacify the entire Middle East. He believed that the JCPOA, which he signed, would change Iran’s behavior in the Middle East. It would make Iran join the family of nations.
I think it disregarded the ideological thrust of this radical, radical regime, its plans, its raison d’etre, which is to dominate the Middle East and frankly, dominate good portions of the world with awesome power. I think he didn’t see that.
So when the JCPOA was signed, I argued this in Congress in 2015, I said, “well, you know, It won’t bring Iran into the family of nations. It will let Iran out of the tiger’s cage to devour one nation after the other.” And that’s what happened.
Did they pursue peace in Yemen? Did they pursue peace in Iraq? Did they pursue peace in Lebanon or in Gaza where they have their proxies and so many other places? And the answer is, of course not. They did the exact opposite. So I think on this, we had a difference of view with President Obama. And I think everybody can judge who was right and who was wrong.
I think that on this, many Arab leaders, including Gulf leaders and certainly the leadership of Saudi Arabia, see very clearly what the true nature of Iran’s policies are, the true nature of its regime. Now, you know, I can also tell you that from day one, Iran also cheated on the nuclear accord. But I think it goes well beyond that. I think it’s a question of how do you see the Middle East?
I saw it was not the right policy for the United States to seek an accommodation with such an aggressive regime in Tehran. Instead, it should bolster the traditional allies of America, beginning with Israel and Saudi Arabia, against Iranian aggression, and to develop our own societies, our own countries in every way, in security and in technology and in civilian life and so on. That was my vision.
Now you ask, where is America’s policy? Are they going to go back to the JCPOA and give Iran this free course paved with gold to a nuclear arsenal?
Well, a year and a half ago before the protests in Iran, I would say they were certainly trying to do that. But I think there is a re-thinking in Washington. I don’t think I’m quite convinced. I haven’t had obviously talks yet with the administration, but I will soon. From the initial contacts that we have, I think there’s a rethinking of that. And I’m glad there is.
I’d like that rethinking to go back to the reaffirmation of the traditional alliances in the Middle East. I think that’s good. I think it’s good for our countries. Those are good for America and good for peace.
AA: Everybody’s saying now that Iran is a threshold nuclear power. In other words, it is just a few months away from being a nuclear power. You have been talking about it for 20 years, but Israel never took action, direct military kinetic action against it. And now people are saying it’s too late.
Do you agree with that? I mean, is it too late to be able to stop a threshold nuclear power from becoming a nuclear power?
BN: No, it’s not. And also, we did take a lot of actions which I don’t itemize in my recently published autobiography, except one: The raid that our people did on the Iran’s Secret Atomic Archive. And we brought back a lot of valuable information out of this archive. But I can tell you this, I think, and our former chief of staff, who’s now a political opponent of mine, said during the recent elections, he said that because of the actions that the Israeli government under me took, we set back the Iranian program 7 to 10 years.
Did we stop it? No. But can we stop it militarily and in other ways? The answer is, I believe yes. And we’re certainly not going to let them just plunge ahead.
Now, if you ask how can you stop such a problem, I won’t go into the operational or technical details. But I will say that unless you’re able to have a credible military option against rogue states that are trying to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, you won’t stop them.
We stopped Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons with a credible military action. We stopped Syria from developing nuclear weapons with a credible military action. The United States stopped Gadhafi’s Libya from developing nuclear weapons with a credible threat of military action.
North Korea had signed all the agreements, including the NPT Non-proliferation Treaty. There were signatories to it for 17 years. That didn’t mean anything. There was no credible military threat. And therefore, they’re now a nuclear power. And half of Asia is quaking with fear.
Iran has been stopped or delayed by actions that again, I won’t detail. But if you’re not committed to taking the necessary action against Iran, then they will have a nuclear arsenal with deadly consequences for all of us and horrible consequences for their own people.
I think the answer – I don’t think, I know – the answer to your question is, we have the means and we have the will. And if necessary, we’ll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal
AA:Even without the United States?
BN: Absolutely the actions that we took so far, and I’m not saying which ones we did, we did without the US. We didn’t do it with US approval because the US probably would disapprove. I mean, they were for many years going on with the assumption that they have to broker or reach a deal with Iran. And if we told them what it is, every operation, what we were about to take, you know, they would say “we oppose it,” in which case would be a direct conflict. Why do that? Just make you make your move. And secondly, it might leak. And if it leaks in The Washington Post, in The New York Times, then the Iranians would have forewarning, and our action would be nullified in advance.
So we’ve taken a lot of steps. We made a lot of operations that have rolled back Iran. But did we stop it? No. Are we committed to stopping it from achieving their goals? Yes. We’ll do everything in my power to achieve that goal.
AA:Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. We have a question on Ukraine right now. Regarding the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, President Zelenskyy recently said that there’ll be no peace with Russia before Ukraine reclaims Crimea and Donbas. What side are you on in the Ukraine war, specifically as it pertains to Iran’s involvement? Will your government show intelligence for example with the Ukrainian governments about Iranian drones or the weapons? And do you plan to supply the defensive weapons to Ukraine that President Zelenskyy has asked for?
BN: Well, the recent supply of Iranian killer drones to Russia that are being used in the war with Ukraine is disturbing for two reasons. One, the human costs involved and two, this partnership [which] is troubling. I can tell you that our relationship with Russia obviously involved Iran, but paradoxically in a different way, because Iran was trying to use Syria, our northern border, as a staging ground for another Hezbollah-like front to open against Israel.
And they wanted to bring in a proxy army of about 80,000 people commanded by Iranian generals, stock it with missiles and other deadly weapons to be used against Israel. My policy was to prevent that, and we prevented it by, frankly, by taking air action. Bombing these installations and these forces from the air. And, of course, we were able to prevent that.
But that requires continual effort. And that effort involves Israeli pilots flying in the skies of Lebanon – sorry, the skies of Syria – and they’re in spitting distance from Russian pilots. Now, I remember when I was a young soldier almost half a century ago on the banks of the Suez Canal, we were shooting down Russian planes from the sky and with their anti-ground [and] anti-air batteries, they shot down our planes from the sky.
The last thing we want to do is have a military conflict between Russia and Israel. We don’t want it. I’m sure the Russians didn’t want it. So we actually, under my policy of actively preventing Iran from basing itself militarily in Syria, we reached an understanding with Russia that preserved Israel’s freedom of action on this important front. I’d like to continue to have that, but I’m also aware of the fact that we are being asked to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine.
I was asked about that and I said, look, I’ll look into this question as soon as I get into office. I’m still not there. I’m still involved in the least pleasant activity of politics, which is coalition forming. I don’t wish it on anyone. I’m actually taking a break right now and talking to you while this is happening.
Once I form the government, God willing, I hope it’ll happen in a few days. Then I’ll sit down with our people, learn from our intelligence people what’s happening, make a reasoned assessment, and then come back with an answer to your question.
AA:Mr. Prime Minister, there have been these strange rumors sporadically popping up in Washington and elsewhere that there’s a possibility of normalization between Israel and Syria and President Assad, there was pressure that was coming from one direction to the other. My question is, is there any credence to these rumors? Are they at least a reflection of some conversations going on? And is that a change to Israel’s policy vis a vis Syria?
BN: Not that I know of.
AA: Fair enough. In June, Tom Friedman of The New York Times said that President Joe Biden might be the last pro-Israel Democratic president because the base of the Democratic Party is moving against it. Would you agree with that? [Does] the high degree of aggressive partisanship in Washington these days mean that, in practice, regional states are dealing as much with the US political parties as they are with the American state itself?
BN: You know, I disagree with that, because I’ve heard these prognostications time and time again. First of all, about me when I took office — I would be the warmonger. And of course, the opposite has happened, my ten years in the prime minister’s office, more than any other prime minister in Israel have bought the safest decades for Arabs and Israelis alike.
Second, they said there’ll never be any more peace treaties, and that happened as well. Then they said that when I challenged President Obama in Congress and the JCPOA, it had caused an irreparable rupture of support among Democrats for Israel. Well, Gallup has a tracking poll, and they measured the support among Republicans and Democrats, the American people, as a whole.
Each year they ask the same question, you know, where does your sympathy lie? With Israel? And lo and behold, before the speech and after the speech, the differences, it went up by about 10 percent. It went up. Didn’t go down among Democrats. Okay.
What you see over time is this that support for Israel among Democrats is fairly high, but it’s stable. You know, it’s about 50 percent, something like that. Support among the Republicans has skyrocketed. It’s very high. So there’s a myopia because you think the Democrats are abandoning Israel. They’re not. It’s just that the Republicans have moved to a very strong Israeli position across the American political spectrum. Democrats, independents and Republicans. There is very strong and consistent support of the state of Israel.
This is not true of a part of the Democratic Party that has moved sharply to the left, you know, and it’s moved in some cases to a radical position and often against the wishes of a broad, broad constituency in the public. And I think that adjusts itself because, you know, I think people want to seize the center and every political movement, no matter how polarized it is, ultimately, you know, you govern by seeking to get the bulk of the people behind you.
So I don’t think that that basic attitude towards Israel is going to change. It’s changing among the chattering classes. It’s changing on the campuses. I don’t deny that. But I think that in many ways it’s a lot firmer and a lot more stable across the American public, both Democrats, independents and Republicans and independents alike. It’s more stable. But this is not the first time that op-eds in The New York Times have been wrong.
AA: Prime Minister. Getting back to the Palestine question now, beyond the Abraham Accords and beyond political tactics, because Palestinian leaders have really recognized Israel every which way possible —
BN: I disagree.
AA:Yeah, well, beyond that, shall we say, you are still stuck with 7 million Palestinians between the river and the sea. Given the dramatic power imbalance in Israel’s favor, you are not a reluctant bride that will be brought to the wedding. You are going to have to be the initiator. I mean, a final settlement is going to have to be driven by Israel, really.
Do you see yourself as a General de Gaulle? You use the words “out of the box” and “creative,” which seems to be what is needed now. Do you see yourself as a potential historical leader like General de Gaulle, who could come out with that out of the box and creative approach? For example, do you see the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with its respected monarchy and mature government infrastructure, as able to play a role in in a final settlement of this perennial issue?
BN: Well, first of all, our relations with Jordan are critically important. And I think the stability, prosperity and security of Jordan as it is, is an Israeli interest. We may have our disagreements periodically [and] that happens and even in the best of families. But I think the importance, the integrity of Jordan is important. And, for example, Hezbollah and Iran try to topple that regime periodically and bring in hostile forces.
As far as General de Gaulle, General de Gaulle had a relatively easy problem. You know why? Because Algeria was not five miles from Paris.
AA:I mean, in the metaphorical sense, as a historic leader.
BN: But this leads to my answer to you, I think [that] to have a solution, you have to be realistic about its nature. And I think people have not been realistic about its nature. And here’s the principle that would guide me. I would say that the Palestinians should have in a final settlement all the powers to govern themselves, but none of the powers to threaten the survival and existence of the state of Israel.
And this requires a balance. It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s not zero-one. There is a balance in there. So far, we’ve not been able to get beyond first base because the Palestinians, as we all think, you know, I don’t think they said publicly to you maybe, but I’ve seen it, you know, I’ve seen it public[ly] and I’ve seen it privately, they really have to shake off the fantasy that Israel will disappear, that somehow, you know, we’ll make a tactical agreement with Israel, get the high ground over Tel Aviv, and eventually drive the Israelis out.
AA:Assume that they’ve given that up —
BN: That’s a big assumption.
AA:Is there a road map you would envision, that would be enthusiastically adopted by you.
BN: Yes, there are a few. Well, take a look, for example, at the at the peace initiative of President Trump. It’s not that I didn’t have reservations. I did. It’s not that I didn’t expect the Palestinians to have reservations about it as well. But I think it offers interesting solutions to how do you have this coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians in such a tiny area between the river and the sea?
It actually has some interesting new ideas, like looking at transportational continuity instead of territorial continuity, things of that nature. You can look at it. I don’t think people have actually read it. But are there possibilities for ending this conflict? I think there are.
But realistically, I think that the Palestinians will come around to genuinely making their peace with the existence of an Israeli state as we add other countries, and the most important country in the Arab world, we make a quantum leap that will, I think, solidify peace and sort of convince people, hey, it’s over. Israel’s here to stay. Now, let’s make our peace with it.
AA:Mr. Prime Minister, we have another quick question [about] Lebanon: After the Israeli leaks that Iran is smuggling weapons through the Beirut airport to Hezbollah, to what extent is the airport now subject to Israeli strikes?
BN: I really couldn’t say. I mean, you know, there was a rule in Israel that follows the rule of the United States over there. They say one president at a time. And in Israel, it’s one prime minister at a time. So I’ll be briefed on this question. But in general, I’d say that without the scaffolding of Iranian support militarily, political, financial, the whole structure of Hezbollah collapses, [and] there is no Hezbollah rule in Lebanon. And that’s who is ruling in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Let’s be open about that. But without Iranian support, they’d collapse overnight. And the same is true of other Iran’s other proxies. They need Iran’s support.
How do we prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah or for that matter, to Hamas? Well, there are many ways to do it. There are many ways in which my governments did it. But I can’t tell you what is happening in recent months. I’ll be able to at least know that within a few weeks, I hope, once I form the government.
AA: Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for all the time you’ve given us. Have an excellent day.
BN: Thank you and good luck to you, and good luck to Saudi Arabia.
T. Belman.I first connected with Howard when he started Mantua Books. Since then I have promoted his books and he has generously donated money in support of Israpundit. I too was born in Canada but in my case to two immigrants from Poland who came to Canada in the twenties. You will recall that the US shut the door to Jewish Immigration in the early twenties, ergo Canada. My father’s family were attracted to Communism and my mother’s family were attracted to Zionism.
I am a Canadian author who has written often for Israel National News, New English Review and Frontpage Magazine, with some of my essays carried also in Israpundit. I grew up in a small city about 15 miles from another small city where Ted Belman grew up.
I attained a degree in History from University of Toronto where I first became interested in cultural history and the history of ideologies and values. I later graduated from that university in Law and practiced for 20 years, before founding a company providing affordable rental housing in converted heritage buildings such as old churches and warehouses. I also founded Mantua Books, Canada’s sole pro-Israel and conservative and Torah values publishing house.
My writing is based on a traditional conservative or classically liberal understanding of ideologies and values and political culture. I am particularly interested in Islamism and left wing ideologies. The greatest influence on my writing is the Holocaust as my father was slave labor in Auschwitz and my father’s parents and then eight year old sister were murdered in the gas chambers. My mother was born in Canada to parents who fled Uman near Kiev in the Ukraine, in 1910. Since my mother grew up in peaceful Canada, I could distinguish a very different culture between my father’s family and my mother’s family.
I have written much criticism on Holocaust literature and commemorations.
My novel, The Second Catastrophe:, is very much in the genre of “Second Generation” literature as the protagonist is the son of a Holocaust survivor who is writing a book about Israel and becomes obsessed with what he sees as “Second Holocaust” this time directed at the Jews of Israel with explicit threats by the leadership of Iran that they will get nuclear weapons and use them against Israel. There is a sad parallel between the world in general and Diaspora Jews in particular, concerning the lack of action to stop explicit threats to our people.
Professor Norman Rosenfeld, my fictional cultural historian at a small Canadian university, has almost finished his new and controversial book about Israel and the Jewish people. He learns that his daughter, on a one-year study program at an Israeli university, has been injured in a terrorist attack. Rosenfeld, a widower, rushes to Israel, along with his father, an elderly Holocaust survivor, named “Lucky”. While in Israel visiting his injured daughter, at the height of the “Second Intifada”, Rosenfeld, an Orthodox Jew, meets and falls in love with a secular Israeli woman. This leads to discussion of the gulf between religions and secular Israelis. Chapters of the Professor’s book on Israel and the Jewish people are interspersed amongst the events of the novel. The dramatic events and difficulties of Rosenfeld’s life mirror catastrophic events in the life of the Jewish people. His journey to overcome these catastrophes is at the core of The Second Catastrophe.
By placing chapters of his book on Israel among the fictional events of his life, the reader can see how his life influences his writing and how his writing, (attacked by the usual anti-Israel crowd), then influences his life. The book is set in Israel during the Second Intifada and nine-eleven, and was written in Jerusalem during the height of the suicide bombings.
In my first non-fiction book, Tolerism, I argue that we in the West have entered an ideology of “Tolerism” – an unhealthy degree of tolerance without limits, and an excessive leniency towards those who represent the most intolerant and illiberal societies. Too many educated people think that tolerance is an important value when it is Justice that is stressed in the Torah, not tolerance. I observe how cultural and moral relativism, moral equivalency, and political correctness have all contributed to a modern political culture whose elites and cultural symbols evidence, not only an undue tolerance of the illiberals, but a disturbing element of self-hatred, cultural masochism, and delusions about the difference between social tolerance and political tolerance – and an elevation of tolerance over the principle of Justice.
In the follow-up to Tolerism, which I titled The Ideological Path to Submission … and what we can do about it, I trace the ideological pathway resulting from tolerance and explore certain ideologies that have emanated from tolerism and pose a danger of possible submission to the anti-liberal values of the Islamists. I look at such ideologies as Inclusive Diversity, Empathy, Denialism, Masochism, Islamophilia, Trumpophobia, Cultural Relativism, Postmodernism, Multiculturalism and the psychological factors that conduce to a flight from the anxieties of freedom to a submission to the enemy. I argue that Muslims who wish to share Western freedoms, need to support reformers and participate in their essential duty to reject the Islamists who seek Sharia Law and a world-wide Caliphate in lands where they immigrate to. The sooner we understand the ideologies that lead us from tolerism to submission to the enemy, and that we can have a moral replacement to postmodernism, and the sooner we follow the Israeli example of resistance, patriotism and social cohesion as a way to build social resilience, the sooner we in the West can reverse our losses and start winning this war.
During the years subsequent to the publishing of these books (available through Amazon) the problems I deal with in my three books have only become more serious and more dangerous. My prescience gives me no joy whatsoever; instead it motivates me to do whatever I can.
“One thing that I learned was the need to publish other pro-Israel authors, and that I could do it.” In talking to other authors and some professors, I realized as early as 2002 that mainstream publishing houses and media did not want anything to do with pro-Israel material. Even some bookstores were becoming loath to carry these books. I had taken early retirement from my law practice in order to concentrate on real estate development, but that new type of work did not occupy as much time as my law practice. So, without any contacts and in the face of illiberal political correctness and cancel culture, I decided that somebody had to take on the project of publishing books that also constituted weapons in our war to stop radical Islamism and its Western enablers.
I knew that there was no money in it – the refusal of media to carry book reviews meant that we had somehow to get publicity for our books from social media, which at the time was not as developed as it is now. I also realized that left wing university students and Islamists might well attack any authors for which we secured lectures or book signings. And I became the first victim of Islamist threats at a book lecture for my novel. See: http://scragged.com/articles/how-i-became-a-banned-author-in-canada
The irony was that my novel was about, in part, a pro-Israel university professor who gets in trouble at a lecture.
We also learned that organizations that were founded to speak out for authors and their freedom of expression, such as PenCanada and the Writers’ Union and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association refused to speak out in favour of Zionist Jews, our authors and books.
Since my real estate work was remunerative yet did not take up all of my time, I was able to do all the work needed for Mantua Books with one part-time secretary. I have had some health problems recently, so have had to pause some new releases.
Perhaps with my age (71) it is time to pass the torch, but people are not lined up to buy a publishing house that barely breaks even and which gets no governmental or media support. Here is a list of pro-Israel books (in addition to mine shown above) that we have published, with all of them available from Amazon:
David Solway – Hear O Israel
Stephen Schecter – Grasshoppers in Zion; Israel and the Paradox of Modernity
Giulio Meotti – The Vatican Against Israel
Paul Merkley – Those That Bless You I Will Bless: Christian Zionism in Historical Perspective
Pamela Peled – For the Love of God and Virgins
Salim Mansur – Delectable Lie; a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism
Dianne Weber Bederman – Back to the Ethic; Reclaiming Western Values
Dianne Weber Bederman – The Serpent and the Red Thread; The Definitive Biography of Evil
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-29 16:52:012022-12-29 16:52:01The Son of a Holocaust Survivor Weaponizes Books to Stop Another Shoah
Emails released on Saturday as part of the latest dump of the “Twitter Files” reveal that the week before the 2020 presidential election, the FBI field office investigating Hunter Biden sent multiple censorship requests to Twitter — so many in fact, a top attorney for the tech giant found it “odd.” This blockbuster detail from the weekend came mere days after the FBI issued a statement framing coverage of the “Twitter Files” as “misinformation” being peddled by “conspiracy theorists.”
The FBI has “some folks in the Baltimore field office and at HQ that are just doing keyword searches for violations,” then-Twitter legal executive Stacia Cardille stressed in a Nov. 3, 2020, email to Jim Baker, the then-deputy general counsel for Twitter. “This is probably the 10th request I have dealt with in the last 5 days,” Cardille continued, before telling Baker to let her know if he had any other questions.”
Less than an hour later, Baker responded to Cardille, noting it was “odd” that the FBI is “searching for violations of our policies.”
Independent journalist Matt Taibbi published these emails as part of a 50-something Christmas Eve “Twitter Files” thread that he remarked showed “the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”
The entire thread is newsworthy, but that FBI agents in both the Baltimore field office and at FBI headquarters were running keyword searches for supposed Twitter violations proves hugely significant because both offices were involved in the Hunter Biden investigation.
While the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office is — and was at the time of the 2020 election — handling the investigation into Hunter Biden, reportedly for potential money laundering and tax crimes, there is no separate Delaware FBI field office. Rather, the Baltimore FBI field office covers all of Delaware for the bureau and thus supported (and continues to support) the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office in its investigation of Hunter Biden.
We also know from multiple FBI whistleblowers that FBI headquarters entangled itself in the Hunter Biden probe: In July 2022, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, announced that “multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions,” had claimed that “in August of 2020, FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment, which was used by a team of agents at FBI headquarters to improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Biden’s activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down.”
“The FBI headquarters team allegedly placed their assessment findings in a restricted access subfolder, effectively flagging sources and derogatory evidence related to Hunter Biden as disinformation while shielding the justification for such findings from scrutiny,” according to Grassley.
Given the involvement of both Baltimore FBI and FBI headquarters in the investigation of Hunter Biden — and the latter’s attempt to shut down the probe — the revelation that “some folks in the Baltimore field office and at HQ” were “doing keyword searches for violations,” suggests the FBI undertook a full-court press to interfere in the 2020 election.
Previously released “Twitter Files” and statements from Twitter and Facebook established the FBI lied to the tech giants, representing the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation and prompting the censorship of the Biden-family scandal mere weeks before the 2020 election. Internal Twitter communications also revealed that the night before the New York Post published emails from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop that implicated Joe Biden in a pay-to-play scandal, “the FBI used a private communications channel to send 10 documents to a top Twitter executive.”
The “Twitter Files” also exposed “Twitter’s contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary of the FBI,” as Taibbi explained in an earlier thread. The “Twitter Files” Taibbi previously reported showed that from “January 2020 to November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety Chief Yoel Roth.” Those communications indicated “agencies like the FBI and DHS regularly sending social media content to Twitter through multiple entry points, pre-flagged for moderation.”
These earlier threads, however, all focused on either communications coming from the San Francisco FBI field office or discussed the monthly and then weekly meetings between Twitter and the federal government’s Foreign Influence Task Force, or FITF. As Taibbi noted, the FBI greatly expanded the number of agents assigned to the FITF following the 2016 election, with the task force swelling to 80 agents.”
With FBI San Francisco and the FITF already liaisoning with Twitter, why then would the Baltimore field office and FBI headquarters have any involvement in communicating with Twitter? And as Saturday’s emails reveal, those officers were not merely passing on information they received, they were, according to a Twitter legal executive, running “keyword” searches — something even Baker, who was previously general counsel for the FBI, found “odd.”
And the Baltimore field office and FBI headquarters conducted these “keyword” searches and shared the results with Twitter for one reason only: to prompt Twitter to censor the speech the week before the 2020 presidential election.
“Odd” doesn’t even begin to capture the situation — which, given the connection between those two FBI offices and the Hunter Biden investigation, suggests a new wing to the Big Tech scandal: one in which FBI agents proactively sought out people and speech to censor for the benefit their politician of choice.
Ironically, the Wednesday before Taibbi broke this latest news, the FBI issued a statement claiming that “the correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. … It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
When the bureau’s own former general counsel calls the FBI’s conduct “odd,” it’s pretty clear who is discrediting the agency: It isn’t conspiracy theorists — it’s the FBI.
***** This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-12-29 01:32:002022-12-29 01:32:00FBI Office Investigating Hunter Biden Sent Twitter Numerous Censorship Requests Right Before 2020 Election
Last Monday in Great Britain the entire steel industry shut down because the wind stopped and wholesale prices reached £2,586 a megawatt-hour. As winter cranks up, British factories are getting ready to shutdown, as the threat of small, medium and blockbuster blackouts loom. In the fifth largest economy in the world, thousands of people are using communal warm spaces because they can’t afford electricity any longer, and the largest North Sea gas producer has decided not to drill for more gas just when the country needs it. The government has slapped a new tax on it, thus achieving the exact opposite of what the government aimed for.
Meanwhile over in Germany one eighth of the entire national economy is now consumed with paying for the energy crisis of 2022. They tried to hold back the seas in 2100 but forgot to secure their own electricity a year in advance.
These are very expensive experiments. They aren’t telling you this but UK is close to nationwide blackouts.
***** This article was published by CFACT and is reproduced with permission.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-12-29 01:27:002022-12-29 01:27:00UK Close to Blackout, While 12% of Germany GDP Pays for Energy Crisis
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of Republican states asking to keep Title 42, a Trump-era policy used to expel certain illegal immigrants to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in place.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court forced the Biden administration to keep Title 42 amid record surges of illegal immigration at the southern border. Federal authorities encountered more than 2.3 million migrants in fiscal year 2022.
The Biden administration believed that ending the policy would bring roughly 14,000 illegal immigrants a day, according to Axios.
A federal judge previously ruled that the policy must end Dec. 21. Republican states asked the Supreme Court to intervene a day before the policy would expire, arguing that the recent decision would lead to a harmful surge in illegal immigration.
BREAKING: SCOTUS halts Biden administration termination of Title 42, a Trump-era border policy. A 5–4 decision with Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson and Gorsuch dissenting. Court agrees to fully consider case in February argument session. pic.twitter.com/LMaqITuExG
The Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in February to consider whether to fully scrap the policy beyond the pause. Until then, the Biden administration must continue to expel a number of illegal immigrants based on their country of origin.
Venezuelans coming to the U.S. illegally were the latest group of migrants to be expelled under the policy, which has resulted in the expulsion of over 2 million illegal immigrants, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
DHS statement: “The border is not open, and we will continue to fully enforce our immigration laws.”
This comes as October and November just saw the highest migrant encounters ever recorded for an Oct/Nov & November saw at least 73,000 known gotaways in a single month. @FoxNewshttps://t.co/hVIblvm8ce
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-28 16:51:132022-12-28 16:51:13SCOTUS Rules Biden Admin Must Keep Trump-Era Border Policy In Place
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) that it has “no records” of 377,980 illegal immigrants enrolled in its “Alternatives to Detention” program.
TRAC sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for data on the program, which used to electronically monitor illegal immigrants into the country.
“ICE’s response that they could no longer find records on immigrants in Alternatives to Detention (ATD) that they had previously released came as a shock, particularly after they informed us recently that they had been misleading the public for several months by releasing extremely inaccurate ATD data. The agency really needs to come clean. The American public deserves to have accurate data about the ATD program,” TRAC assistant Professor Austin Kocher told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted it has “no records” of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants released into the country with electronic tracking devices, the agency said in a Dec. 22 letter to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
“ICE’s response that they could no longer find records on immigrants in Alternatives to Detention (ATD) that they had previously released came as a shock, particularly after they informed us recently that they had been misleading the public for several months by releasing extremely inaccurate ATD data. The agency really needs to come clean. The American public deserves to have accurate data about the ATD program,” TRAC assistant Professor Austin Kocher told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
ICE started the ATD program in 2004 to monitor illegal migrants released into the country using ankle monitors, GPS tracking and cellphones. With limited detention space, ICE relies on the program to hold those awaiting the years-long backlogs in immigration courts.
The agency has previously provided TRAC with data on individuals enrolled in ATD, disclosing which technology was used, dates of entry into the program among other key details.
Just days after announcing that the agency had been misleading to the public for months about how many immigrants were on gps ankle monitors, @icegov claims it can’t find records on over 350,000 immigrants in alternatives to detention program.https://t.co/UVzYiyklLGpic.twitter.com/mAJKz9UfPw
TRAC’s latest issue with ICE isn’t the first time the data on the ATD program has faced scrutiny.
The DCNF recently reported on errors and miscalculations in the ATD data on illegal immigrants not tracked with any technology and others tracked using GPS monitoring. At the time, ICE had privately disclosed different data to participants of a private event that showed an over 18,000% discrepancy in public data on those not tracked with any technology and another roughly 600% difference in publicly disclosed GPS tracking data.
ICE later apologized for the issue and updated the data.
“Upon further inspection of what participants were provided against what was publicly available online, it became clear there was a data miscalculation. Teams worked quickly to address and reconcile the issue, now updated on ICE.gov. We regret ICE provided erroneous ATD enrollment data and worked to resolve the miscalculation going forward,” an ICE spokesperson told the DCNF at the time.
TRAC is concerned over ICE’s consistent errors.
“When Congress ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to publish data on immigrant detention, perhaps it should have been clearer that it expected ICE to produce accurate data—not inconsistent, error-ridden, and misleading data that the agency currently provides to the public on a regular basis. These sloppy, uncorrected errors—more of the norm rather than the exception—demand immediate attention from both the public and from Congress,” TRAC wrote on Sept. 20 after ICE incorrectly released data from May 2021 instead of September 2022.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-28 15:51:562022-12-28 15:51:56ICE Admits It Has ‘No Records’ For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Illegal Immigrants Released With Electronic Monitors
(Exclusive) “A prolonged and expanded Russia-Ukraine conflict will…increase the risk of a runaway control and nuclear crisis.” That’s a direct quote from a December 17 article (“US prolongs Russia-Ukraine conflict for three aims, aggravates nuclear war risk: experts at GT annual forum”) by Global Times, a state propaganda outlet of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This is the second time the CCP has warned the US of nuclear war. To be fair, to a certain extent, the CCP is merely blustering, especially since it is dealing with (or rather violently crushing) mass protests in its own country.
But the US had better beware of pushing China and Russia too far with its idiocy surrounding the Ukraine conflict. It is better not to antagonize an enemy (China) that told its people in 2019 it was at war with you, particularly when that enemy is the greatest mass murderer of all time.
I must admit that the US is in fact essentially fighting a “proxy war” in Ukraine, as Global Times said. The reasons Global Times listed may not be correct, but the reality is that, regardless of the reasons, Ukrainians are still dying while the US and Russia use the war for their own political ends. It is the Ukrainian people who suffer the most from their own corrupt government, and for America’s and Russia’s mistakes. China is entirely wrong to support Russia’s unjust and destructive invasion of Ukraine, however. Neither Russia nor the U.S. has any right to be in Ukraine.
“A prolonged and expanded Russia-Ukraine conflict will have a far-reaching impact and damage the future of the globe, and increase the risk of a runaway control and nuclear crisis, Chinese foreign affairs experts and scholars warned at the 2023 Global Times Annual Conference on Saturday…
There are three major uncertainties in the future development of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO members, nuclear contamination in Ukraine, and Russia being forced to use nuclear weapons, Zhu said [emphasis added]…
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, great power relations have eased and the world has entered an era of globalization.”
I find it interesting that China advertises the wonders of globalization in this piece. The CCP’s goal, of course, is to rule the world, but it sure knows how to use the CCP-enamored West’s pablum against the West.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-12-28 01:26:002022-12-28 01:26:00Exc: CCP State Outlet Warns US of Impending Nuclear War – AGAIN
Congressional leaders have dropped 6,825 pages of text for their “omnibus” spending bill, plus explanatory materials that include a list of at least 4,000 earmarks, on the doorstep of every American family.
When announcing the gargantuan spending bill, itsauthorsput “the federal government” before “American families,” and that is exactly what this bill is intended to do.
However, it’s only the beginning of the list of absurdities in this spending bill.
In a stunningbetrayalof the American electorate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., worked with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrat leaders to author this example of congressional corruption. (House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Calif., expected to succeed fellow Californian Nancy Pelosi as House speaker Jan. 3, leads GOP opposition to the spending package in that chamber.)
Far from the guise of keeping government’s light on, the foundation of this omnibus spending bill is a vast collection of special-interest handouts and fuel for the fires of inflation and the woke, leftistestablishment.
The burdens of this bill, tragically, will stifle our economy and accelerate the dissolution of the fabric of our civil society for many years to come.
Here are 18 of the absurdities of the omnibus, compiled by myself and fellow Heritage Foundation policy experts Doug Badger, Preston Brashers, Lindsey Burke, Matthew Dickerson, David Ditch, Leslie Ford, Rachel Greszler, Edmund Haislmaier, Melanie Israel, Robert Moffit, Lora Ries, Thomas Spoehr, and Katie Tubb. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
1. An Egregious Oversight
In under two weeks, the new GOP majority in the House finally will have the chance to use the power of the purse to rein in the reckless administration of President Joe Biden.
Instead, Republicans seem poised to give up this oversight power without firing even a single shot. This omnibus bill would provide a full year’s worth of funding to the administration—locking in its regulatory regime and capacity to abusively wield the power of the executive branch.
Blocking this $1.85 trillion omnibus, and passing a short-term continuing resolution, would allow the new Congress to set funding levels for the federal government in an appropriate and transparent manner after convening Jan. 3.
This would allow Congress to work in the interest of the American people and stop Biden’s abuse of power.
2. Promoting a Culture of Death
The omnibus monstrosity retains longstanding pro-life and conscience protection riders such as the Hyde Aamendment, which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from spending tax dollars on elective abortions.
Including these consensus policies that have applied to federal spending bills for decades is a bare-minimum expectation for policymakers to meet. However, the spending bill includes provisions that are cause for concern for pro-life Americans.
In perhaps the clearest example of the frame of mind of the authors, the $575 million in a global health section allocated for “family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.” This section quite literally puts plants before people.
This provision portrays humanity as a parasite, as a threat to the plants and animals that the bill’s drafters clearly see as vastly more important than the Americans and their families who Congress is supposed to protect.
As Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., points out, this is a nod to the long-disproven notions of Thomas Malthus. In the 18th century, Malthus argued that population growth would overtake our ability to grow food and other resources, ending in mass starvation.
Of course, history proved Malthus wrong: Mankind’s penchant to innovate and adapt instead has led to vast expansions of our ability to provide resources for our world’s burgeoning population, making each new generation more prosperous than the last.
Dire Malthusian predictions were wrong in the 1700s, and they’re still wrong in the 21st century. In practice, authoritarian responses to “overpopulation” have caused significant human rights abuses. Take China’s devastating one-child (later two-child) policy, for example.
Incredibly, the omnibus gives a wink and a nod to curbing population growth not for the sake of people, but for the sake of plants and animals. Government spending decisions reflect not just priorities, but values. To say the bill’s crafters missed the mark is an understatement.”
Make sure you’re seated before you continue reading through the rest of the absurdities of this omnibus.
3. Costing at Least $1.85 Trillion, Then More Later
The press releases from the House and Senate Appropriations committees and congressional leadership describe the omnibus as costing $1.7 trillion. However, this is only a selective accounting, hiding the total costs to taxpayers.
In reality, the legislation would cost at least $1.85 trillion in fiscal year 2023, which began Oct. 1, once the additional provisions attached to the 12 regular appropriations bills are included.
Waiving enforcement of what is known as Statutory PAYGO would increase outlays by $132 billion in fiscal 2023 relative to what the underlying law prescribes. The supplemental appropriations for Ukraine would add $45 billion and those for natural disasters would cost another $41 billion.
Considering the PAYGO provision, “emergency” funding, increases in baseline budget authority, and expected increases in debt-servicing cost, this bill would increase the 10-year deficit by $2.65 trillion—$20,000 per household—adding to current inflationary pressures.
4. No Lawmaker Has Read This Package
No member of Congress is physically able to read all of this spending package before voting on it.
In addition to the 12 regular appropriations bills, the omnibus bill includes two supplemental spending acts and 21 other separate divisions spanning topics as complex and varied as the Electoral Count Act, public land management, and antitrust enforcement.
As mentioned, the package contains 6,825 pages: 4,155 pages of legislative text plus 2,670 pages of explanatory materials that instruct agencies how to carry out the provisions and include at least 4,000 earmarks to pay for the pet projects of representatives and senators.
All totaled, this material is roughly twice as long as the Bible, and lawmakers planned to vote on it in fewer than four days.
5. Offering an Unprecedented Pork-ibus of Earmarks
Incredibly, the 4,155 pages of the omnibus bill don’t cover everything Congress wants to spend your taxpayer dollars on. The other 2,670 pages of “explanatory statements” contain many key details.
Included in the extra documents are hundreds of pages that detail some 4,000 earmarks, aka pork projects, costing billions of dollars that the federal government doesn’t have—and that will come out of your wallets.
Earmarks were banned for 10 years, but lawmakers from both parties have brought them back. A small sampling of this year’s rancid pork includes:
$1.5 million to encourage people to eat outdoors in sunny Pasadena, California.
$1.1 million for a solar array in cloudy Kirkland, Washington.
$2 million for B360, a group that promotes dirt-bike culture in Baltimore.
$3 million for the tiny and remote island of St. George, Alaska, for water infrastructure and $2.5 million for harbor improvements, for a total cost of over $82,000 per resident.
$500,000 for a skate park in Rhode Island.
$4.8 million for an environmental impact report on the possible expansion of Chicago’s rail transit system. Bureaucracy at work.
$13 million to expand the airport in the tiny city of Abbeville, Alabama.
$4 million for “Soy-Enabled Rural Road Reconstruction” in Iowa.
$2.35 million for the Leahy Center in Vermont, named after Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. The member who requested the earmark? Sen. Patrick Leahy.
While hardworking families struggle under the weight of inflation caused by Washington’s reckless spending spree, Congress is going hog-wild with wasteful and inappropriate earmarks.
Calling this shameless would be an understatement.
In an extraordinary example of fiscal irresponsibility, the omnibus spending bill includes a provision that would waive enforcement of Statutory PAYGO this year and next, resulting in a $132 billion government spending increase in each of the next two years.
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, often called PAYGO, is a budget law put into place by President Barack Obama that requires Congress to pay for new deficit spending over time with cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Today, Biden’s irresponsible spending spree, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the misleadingly named Inflation Reduction Act, have egregiously violated these rules and would trigger $132 billion in spending cuts in January.
If Biden and Congress didn’t want the reductions specified in Obama’s Statutory PAYGO to take effect, they could have replaced them with other targeted reductions, such as repealing the doubling of the size of the IRS.
Unfortunately, by waiving the budget rules, deficit-financed government spending would be much higher in 2023 and 2024 if this package passes, increasing inflationary pressures.
7. Encouraging Borrowers to Take Advantage of Debt Amnesty
The omnibus includes $2.3 million for Biden’s secretary of education to contact student loan borrowers to let them know they may qualify for cancellation of student loan debt, and to “encourage borrowers to enroll in a qualifying repayment plan.”
8. Intensifying Biden’s Border Crisis
The Biden administration’s open border and NGO processing operations have quickly resulted in America’s worst-ever border crisis.
The omnibus spending bill would prolong this crisis and spend more good money on bad policies. Congress should reject the omnibus, defund these operations, and, at the beginning of the next Congress, pass a border security bill that would truly end the crisis.
The omnibus spending bill would give the Justice Department more money ($234 million) for state and local detention in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to collect information on aliens and provide it to federal law enforcement. This would occur even though the Biden administration implements a “sanctuary country,” prohibiting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration laws or cooperating with state and local law enforcement regarding criminal aliens.
The spending bill would give $20 million to the Secretary’s Office at the Department of Homeland Security to transfer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Federal Assistance for the Alternatives to Detention Case Management pilot program.
This program simultaneously allows the left to gut immigration detention while using the facade of (alternatives to) detention without tracking the aliens, while also giving money to their preferred nongovernment organizations, or NGOs, that manage the caseload.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection also would be required to transfer $800 million to FEMA-Federal Assistance. Of that, $785 million would go for emergency food and shelter to “families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security, CPB’s parent agency.
The omnibus spending bill would require Customs and Border Protection to transport more unaccompanied alien minors, whom the Biden administration continues to entice to cross the border illegally and unaccompanied.
The bill also would provide $4.2 billion to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, for enforcement, detention, and removal operations. These include more transportation of unaccompanied alien minors.
Another $11.2 million would be given to ICE to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for costs associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens unlawfully present in the U.S.
In addition to the DHS secretary’s office and Customs and Border Enforcement’s transfer of money to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to care for illegal aliens, FEMA would directly receive $130 million from Congress for their food and shelter.
The spending bill also would extend a prohibition last year on using funds to construct border fencing in certain areas.
The omnibus would provide the Department of Health and Human Services with $6.4 billion over three years to house, assist, and educate refugees and aliens, especially unaccompanied minors.
The bill would provide an additional $27 million for the next two years if the number of unaccompanied minors exceeds 13,000 in any month. It must be noted that the number of Border Patrol encounters with such minors exceeded 13,000 a month 12 times since Biden took office Jan. 20, 2021.
9. Even More Funding for Leftist Groups Involved in Immigration
The omnibus also would provide significant money to other departments for immigration grant programs. Several of the same NGOs receiving money in the programs outlined above also receive money from these grants.
An immigration industrial complex has developed in this country and abroad and Congress needs to cease feeding it more money, including the proposed:
$13 million to the Department of Health and Human Services for migrant and seasonal Head Start programs.
$29 million to the Justice Department for services and activities provided by the Legal Orientation Program for illegal aliens.
$97.4 million to the Labor Department for migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, including housing.
The bill also would give $25 million to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program. The NGOs that regularly receive this grant money are some of the same organizations that receive money in other grant programs cited above.
Congress has rapidly and significantly increased this grant amount. For years, it gave $10 million annually, but doubled it last year to $20 million. Now, Congress proposes to provide $25 million.
10. Rewarding CDC for Incompetence
Since March 2020, Congress repeatedly has increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, despite the agency’s poor response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bill would reward the CDC for refusing to modernize its data systems—despite a statutory requirement in effect since 2006—by lavishing the agency with more money for data modernization.
The additional money for the CDC would come without holding it accountable for recommendations that schools remain closed for extended periods, that 2-year-olds wear masks, and other policies that harmed children.
The agency also escaped scrutiny for its unlawful decision to impose a moratorium on evictions and a mandate to wear masks on public transportation. Nor has Congress held the CDC accountable for misinformation in several of its published studies.
The fiscal 2019 budget authority for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was $6.5 billion. The omnibus would allocate $9.2 billion for fiscal 2023, an increase of 42% over a period during which the agency’s dysfunction became evident.
These are appropriated amounts and don’t include additional mandatory allocations. Congress may believe that money buys competence, but in the case of the CDC, that faith is misplaced.
One part of the omnibus spending bill, Section 201 of Title I, illustrates yet again the incoherence of a too-big government. The bill would create a verification and registration framework managed by the Agriculture Department for voluntary environmental credit markets.
Farmers, ranchers, and owners of private forestland would be able to generate credits to be sold for projects that “prevent, reduce, or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”
Given Biden’s liberal use of executive power and his campaign focus on global warming as an existential crisis—requiring an “all of government” response—it is anyone’s guess how long these programs will actually remain voluntary.
Ironically, one activity that would qualify for a credit is “prevention of the conversion of forests, grasslands, and wetlands.” It’s ironic because other federal subsidies and programs—namely the Renewable Fuel Standard and exorbitant biofuel tax credits—incentivize and indeed have caused the conversion of millions of acres into corn and soybean fields. These measures actually may increase greenhouse gas emissions.
The other irony: Expanding these programs likely would increase costs for consumers while having a negligible impact on global temperatures, regardless of one’s opinion of global warming.
When the government is working at cross-purposes with itself, perhaps it’s a sign that government has grown too big.
12. Doubling Down on Distortion of Energy Supply
The Jones Act requires that products shipped between U.S. ports be carried only on the small number of vessels that comply with the law by being U.S.-made, flagged, and crewed.
Because of the Jones Act, it’s often cheaper for states to import petroleum from other countries rather than do business with oil refineries in the U.S. It’s why what little oil the U.S. used to import from Russia was going to Northeastern states and one reason why those same states face real supply insecurity this winter.
And yet, the authors of the omnibus spending bill seem not to care about this very real crisis; shockingly, page 692 would increase barriers to waiving Jones Act restrictions in times of emergency. The bill would prevent waivers to deliver oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on non-Jones Act ships without first going through yet more paperwork to approve such a waiver by the Homeland Security, Energy, and Transportation departments.
Theoretically, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant for situations of severe supply disruptions and emergencies. In such a situation, the last thing victims want to hear is that fuel couldn’t arrive in time because the paperwork wasn’t done yet.
13. Increasing Funding for IRS
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act included $80 billion in new supplemental and mandatory funding for the Internal Revenue Service.
Despite that, the omnibus spending bill would leave unchanged the prior year’s level of spending in the IRS budget for enforcement and other main categories.
This would lock in the looming threat of a doubled IRS army coming for every American family and small business.
14. Providing a Chauffeur for IRS Chief
A provision in the spending bill reads:
Notwithstanding section 1344 of title 31, 17 United States Code, funds appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service in this Act may be used to provide passenger carrier transportation and protection between the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s residence and place of employment.
15. Raiding Social Security to Fund Woke Union Agenda
The Congressional Budget Office just reported that Social Security will be insolvent by 2033.
Yet this massive spending package would allow money to be diverted from Social Security’s trust fund—and then reimbursed by taxpayers—to cover union expenses.
The trust fund also could be used to pay Social Security Administration employees to work for their union instead of performing the jobs they were hired to do for America’s seniors and retirees.
16. Using Defense Funding for Other Purposes
The defense funding levels of the omnibus generally follow the National Defense Authorization Act and would favorably affect our national defense capabilities, but they do come with the usual waste and inefficiency.
Of the additional $45 billion in aid slated for Ukraine, only 62% of it would go toward military activities. A total of $17 billion would go to economic assistance and efforts to support the Ukrainian government.
The omnibus also would direct $2 billion in defense dollars toward so-called clean energy investments. Billions more would go toward research and woke items unrelated to the military, such as implementation of recommendations from bureaucratic independent review boards.
At a time when rising autocratic powers threaten the interests of the American people, our allies, and the free world, our defense investments must be aimed at bolstering our military capabilities rather than empowering the woke, radical Left or entrenching civilian bureaucracies here and abroad.
17. Throwing Good Money After Bad at NIH, Biden Initiative
The omnibus spending bill would award the National Institutes of Health a 5.6% increase in funding, bringing the total to a whopping $47.5 billion.
And yet, NIH has been uncooperative with Congress on vital issues, including the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and the troubling revelations about agency leadership’s response to scientific dissent on the issue of comprehensive lockdowns.
The omnibus also would give $1.5 billion to something called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, or ARPA-H. This Biden administration initiative is supposed to “support the development of high-impact research to drive biomedical and health breakthroughs.”
The administration’s justification? “Whereas most NIH proposals are ‘curiosity-driven,’ ARPA-H ideas would be largely ‘use-driven’ research—that is, research directed at solving a practical problem.”
If the initiative does indeed offer a more effective and promising approach, then it would make sense to take some of NIH’s current $45 billion in annual funding and redirect it to the new project. Instead, the omnibus would give $2.5 billion more to NIH (bringing its budget to $47.5 billion) and then throw another $1.5 billion at ARPA-H.
Apparently, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats don’t believe their own press releases, since they would increase funding for NIH’s current activities (which they claim are suboptimal) by more than what they would spend on ARPA-H.
18. More Wasteful Food Stamp Funding
In the omnibus spending bill, Congress has punted on real accountability for the food stamp program. The lawmakers would fully fund food stamps, including the Thrifty Food Plan increase, for fiscal 2023.
This comes just after the General Accountability Office released its final report investigating the process by which the Agriculture Department updated the Thrifty Food Plan. As GAO detailed, this update was the first “increase beyond inflation for the first time in 45 years,” resulting in an unprecedented 21% increase in food stamp benefits.
The report illustrates how a lack of documentation and transparency unilaterally increased spending for the food stamp program, also known as SNAP, by $256 billion.
The omnibus would require a report on the extent of skimming from electronic benefit transfers, in which criminals attach to point-of-sale or POS machines and PIN pads to steal from EBT cards. However, even before Congress knows the full extent of this problem, this bill would require states to provide at least two months of “replacement” benefits for recipients who simply report money “stolen” by way of EBT skimming.
Before Congress investigated the effectiveness of “Pandemic EBT,” where the Agriculture Department sent schoolchildren temporary emergency nutrition benefits loaded on EBT cards, lawmakers authorized a permanent program to send summer EBTs to families with children who qualify for free or reduced-price meals during the school year.
This massive omnibus spending bill would significantly increase the size and scope of the federal government and inflation-driving deficits, at a time when American families are suffering from a high inflation tax and the national debt is reaching record levels.
Passage of this package would advance a radical liberal policy agenda that has been rejected by voters across the country. With the next session of Congress beginning in less than two weeks, lawmakers instead should allow the House’s new Republican majority to write responsible funding bills that cut excessive spending and reflect the priorities and values of the American people.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-12-27 06:04:002022-12-27 06:04:0018 Absurdities of the McConnell-Schumer Omnibus Spending Bill
Matt Taibbi’s analysis of FBI-related internal Twitter documents and the Missouri Attorney General’s release of the deposition transcript of FBI censor Elvis Chan have revealed shocking interference by the bureau in the most sensitive political debates leading up to elections.
As many suspected, Taibbi just confirmedthe FBI meddled extensively in election-related speech on Twitter in 2020. Separately, Chan confirmed that the FBI’s election interference extended to Google and Facebook. Using a huge team of 80 agents, the joint task force of censors from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI flagged multiple posts for censorship. Taibbi offered few examples of the types of materials the FBI sought to censor. But some of the examples included obvious jokes, such as one about adding votes to the Democrats’ total in retaliation for posting negative comments on a thread.
Were these rogue agents operating in violation of the FBI’s long-standing policy against interfering in elections? It now appears that the FBI’s censorship of American citizens enjoyed the approval and ratification of FBI Director Christopher Wray himself as the FBI responded to the scandal withthis dismissive remark:
The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.
Stop for a moment to parse this bureaucratic-speak. Under what authority does the FBI censor non-U.S. citizens in our domestic forums? Censorship injures the rights of the listeners as much as the speakers. Can the FBI legally prevent citizens access to Britain’s Daily Mail or the Russian media outlet RT just because they originate from a foreign source? Legal precedent suggests that the First Amendment includes guarantees of citizen’s access to foreign-based speech. This has become increasingly important because accessing foreign press is sometimes the only way to find reporting on issues that the FBI-influenced domestic media would rather not cover. Don’t we need to know what foreigners are saying about America in order to make informed election decisions?
The permanent domestic security apparatus, led by the FBI, is not terribly concerned about whether information it sought to suppress might be true. Indeed, the call to prevent a repeat of 2016-style “hack and dump,” implicitly seeks the suppression of truthful information that hurts Democrats. The Wikileaks DNC emails accurately depicted Clinton campaign collusion with the press and a pay-for-influence operation run from the Clinton family charity. If it weren’t true, there would be no need for censorship.
The government call this, “malinformation,” or sometimes, “disinformation.” The former, includes “information that is based on fact but used out of context,” while disinformation includes “information that is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” Truth is not a defense. Mind you, left-wing sources can call conservatives racists and Nazis all day long. But if a dissident offers information that might “harm” Democrats or “manipulate” voters into not voting in the manner approved by the FBI, then the government needs to act to “protect” the election. This is exactly why the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored. It didn’t matter whether it came from the Russians or Santa Claus. The government acted to impose an election result on the American people. Everyone knows that.
Chan all but spelled out exactly that in his deposition.
I remember that the FBI warned—that I or someone from the FBI warned the social media companies about the potential for a 2016-style DNC hack-and-dump operation . . . .
Chan saw the FBI’s role as countering the influence of such information.
Q. And I think you—in your thesis you talk about how in 2016 they had high, high levels of success, right, because there were essentially no countermeasures taken by social media platforms?
That is correct.
The FBI’s “countermeasures”? Directly intervening to flag and encourage censorship to protect the Democratic candidate from a leak like 2016. They called it, “information sharing,” but the tech companies read the creepy euphemism exactly as intended—encouraging censorship. If the FBI “shared” the identity of objectionable speech on a social media platform, social media complied and censored.
Back to Chan’s deposition.
Q. So—so specifically your thesis focuses on information sharing between the FBI and basically Facebook, Google and Twitter, right?
That is correct.
Second, missing from the FBI’s statement is any acknowledgement that it bothered to consider the constitutional rights of Americans seeking to inform themselves before elections. We so often hear members of the Justice Department, which includes the FBI, tell us they have taken a sworn oath to protect the Constitution. It’s usually a response to legitimate oversight or questions about the FBI’s abuse of secrecy. But they never mean what they say or they would have a much better record on protecting free speech.
Third, the FBI did not limit its censorship efforts to foreigners (not that censoring speech originating from foreign sources is acceptable). As Taibbi notes, the censorship included posts which joked about election integrity. Are these crimes? The FBI is supposed to be a law enforcement agency, not a speech moderation (i.e. censorship) agency.
Overlooked by much of the reporting on the Chan deposition is this bombshell: The FBI appears to have also started a secret lobbying campaign to influence legislation.
Among the approximately 140 objections Justice Department attorney Indraneel Sur made during the deposition of FBI censor Elvis Chan was one that involved a particularly disturbing secret communication channel between the FBI and congressional staffers. When Chan was asked “what kind of legislation?” the FBI had made recommendations about to congressional staffers, Sur claimed the FBI had a legal right to keep secret the FBI’s legislative interference. “I am going to object,” Sur said. “The deliberative process privilege extends not just to the executive branch, but all sorts of executive communications within the government.”
Did the FBI’s legislative lobbying “relate to Section 230 of the Communications Act?” Sur refused to let Chan answer. “I stand by the same objection on the grounds of deliberative process privilege,” Sur said. “So I will continue to assert and ask that the witness not answer the question on the grounds of the deliberative process privilege.”
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that Congress just signed on to an omnibus spending bill without any attempt to rein in the FBI’s election meddling. Once again, Congress lavishes billions on the FBI with no effort to subordinate it to the constitution’s protections against intrusive law enforcement.
We also learned from Chan’s deposition that the FBI was aware that its censorship recommendations were applied to categorically similar users not identified by the FBI. How did the FBI ensure that its recommendations didn’t quash legitimate political speech? It didn’t, instead relying on Twitter to ensure the accuracy of its account takedowns.
Q. Right. OK. But it sounds like sometimes your reports lead to more takedowns than the accounts you have—you flagged, fair to say?
That is correct.
How confident are you that they are not, you know, kind of making mistakes in taking down real user accounts?
So this is just my personal opinion, obviously not based on being able to see any of their data. In my experience, they take account takedowns very seriously because this affects their bottom line. . . . in my opinion, they take it very seriously. And I would say that to the best of their ability, they are very careful before doing account takedowns.
In other words, the FBI would notify social media companies of content it found objectionable. The companies would occasionally apply the FBI’s recommendations to additional accounts that, while not flagged by the FBI, had the same characteristics that the FBI found objectionable. The only safeguard against social media overzealously applying the FBI’s censorship request is whatever miniscule loss of revenue the social media might experience from the overly broad censorship.
In many cases the FBI sought censorship of supposedly foreign-originating posts after significant engagement. In one example, highlighted in the deposition, users reacted 793 times before Twitter deleted the account that originated the post to which the FBI objected.
Q. And then those comments are people who presumably said something, whether they agree or disagree or just want to say something about this kind of political ad, fair to say?
Yeah. I don’t know what the nature of the comments are, but your characterization is probable.
The accounts—I suppose you have talked about account takedowns earlier. If this account that posted this ad is taken down, do all those comments get taken down with it?
I don’t know.
Oh, so you think that the comments may stay up with the account gone?
I—to be honest with you, I do not use any social media.
Incredibly, Chan failed to inform himself, or even care, whether censoring a supposedly foreign-originating post would also delete the many comments and reactions by legitimate Americans expressing protected political speech. This one remark reveals volumes about the FBI’s disregard for the First Amendment.
The FBI should not be involved in “moderating” political speech. But when the FBI does violate this principle, it should be seen for what it is: a deprivation of an essential constitutional right without due process. The FBI should be required to notify the target of the censorship and provide an opportunity to that individual to contest this state action before a neutral third party.
The FBI’s censorship “recommendations” should be reported to Congress and the public. If the target of the FBI’s censorship prevails, he or she should be entitled to damages and attorneys’ fees for the loss of civic participation rights that can never be restored. Without a substantial remedy for the injured, the FBI will continue to meddle in our public speech forums to manipulate elections.
We seem to have reached a point at which the Justice Department has seized so much power that it no longer feels the need to lie about its Chinese-style censorship regime. As I’ve previously noted, international election standards require equal access to a media independent of government censorship. Without that, you can’t have a fair election. No foreign adversary could have so effectively harmed the constitutionally protected interplay between free speech and elections.
The FBI has become what it says it’s trying to prevent. It is, above all rivals and adversaries, the greatest single threat to free and fair elections.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-12-27 06:02:002022-12-27 06:02:00Bombshells You Might Have Missed About the FBI’s Censorship and Election Meddling
“An inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”
Unsurprising.
While Republicans rolled back some of Biden’s military cuts and managed to end the vaccine mandate for the military, they failed to reinstate military personnel forced out due to the mandate, they did nothing about wokeness in the military, which at this point is so great a threat that spending hundreds of billions on weapons systems is practically surplus to requirements if there will be no one reliable to operate them.
And the military purge of “extremists” launched by Biden’s political operatives has not been checked.
The “big win” here is a non-binding statement criticizing the political purge of opponents.
The final bill largely eschews issues related to the Pentagon’s efforts to root out extremism, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report accompanying its version of the bill calls for those plans to be curtailed, though the language is nonbinding.
The report language was added by Republicans with the backing of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). It argues that the low instances of extremism in the ranks “does not warrant a Department-wide effort.” It further argues that the Pentagon anti-extremism effort “is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”
Which everyone is free to ignore.
This is a lawless administration whose Treasury and State Department are in violation of federal law by refusing to comply with SIGAR, the watchdog on Afghanistan. The Biden administration has responded to court setbacks on its student loan bailout or open borders by doubling down.
Senate Republicans get to claim that they did something by way of a non-binding statement in a report.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-25 11:51:232022-12-25 11:51:23NDAA Fails to Stop Biden’s Purge of Military
Iran’s back is against the wall. The Islamic Republic was reluctant to show its characteristic brutality toward protesters while it still hoped for world support in the form of a revived nuclear deal. The country has been under a microscope since protests began.
Last week, the UN removed Iran from women’s rights committee, of which it should never been part of in the first place. Biden also admitted that the Iran nuke deal is dead, but this still hasn’t been officially announced.
The nuclear deal with Iran “is dead,” Biden admitted, even as he was maintaining that he won’t announce the JCPOA has died. pic.twitter.com/cKnnz6UH2B
As Iran grapples with a revolution that it intensifying, including the formation of underground groups uniting to overthrow it, the Islamic regime warned of coming executions in early December. The regime’s desperation grows. Now it is once again using fear and terror to crush anti-government protests.
by Sanam Mahoozi and Alexander Smith, NBC News, December 19, 2022:
LONDON — Iran’s government has spent months violently cracking down on protests gripping the country. Now it has started hanging people in public — an approach some demonstrators and experts see as a desperate attempt to crush the dissent that has posed an unprecedented challenge to the clerical regime.
The first known executions of people arrested over the months of protests prompted an outcry from Western governments and human rights activists, but they came as little surprise to those involved in the demonstrations or carefully watching from afar.
“They want to create fear for the people who are involved,” Saeed, a business owner in his 30s from Tehran who is very active backing the protests on social media, said by voice note. As with all those interviewed for this story inside Iran, NBC News is identifying him only by his first name to avoid possible retaliation by the regime.
“They want to show the public that their actions will not go unpunished and that there are rules in the system,” he added, and so “families stop their children from going out to protest.”
Last Monday, officials publicly hanged a man from a construction crane in Mashhad, according to Mizan, a judiciary-run news agency. Majidreza Rahnavard was accused of “waging war on God” after he was accused of stabbing to death two members of the pro-government Basij militia in the northeast city. Human rights groups and Western governments say Iran’s judicial system is based on sham trials behind closed doors.
A week earlier, Iran executed another man, Mohsen Shekari, alleging he blocked a road in Tehran and stabbed a pro-government militia member who required stitches. Around a dozen other people have been sentenced to death, according to human rights groups.
“The regime knows it is fighting for its life,” said Abbas Milani, the director of an Iranian studies program at Stanford University. In the past, the regime has been “busy simply containing” demonstrators, he added. “Now they need to put the fear in people’s hearts again.”
Executions by hanging are far from rare in Iran, which Amnesty International says put 314 people to death last year, the most in the world after China.
But many activists and analysts alike believe the Islamic Republic is using the death penalty to terrify demonstrators into silence, after other attempts failed to quell the most significant wave of dissent since its founding revolution in 1979.
“This is very standard playbook by them; they have done this at previous protests” said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St. Andrews University in Scotland. But this time, “if anything, they are moving quicker now to execute protesters with sham trials that even their own side are criticizing.”……
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-12-24 10:51:212022-12-24 10:51:21Islamic Republic of Iran Using Fear and Terror to Quell Protestors, begins Public Hangings
