Today is October 5th, 2021 and Joe Biden’s ‘Build Back Better Agenda’ is the worst in U.S. History

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

“Biden and his minions are bound and determined to Build Back Bigger Government.” – Dr. Rich Swier

So what does Build Back Better (BBB) mean? Didn’t the last President Make America Great Again? So is Biden’s intent to make America greater than his predecessor?

According to the White House website the intent of Build Back Better is to:

The Build Back Better Agenda is an ambitious plan to create jobs, cut taxes, and lower costs for working families – all paid for by making the tax code fairer and making the wealthiest and large corporations pay their fair share.

Since Biden’s inauguration has he created more jobs? Cut taxes? Lowered costs for working families?

Just look at the economy and you will see higher unemployment, lower wages, workers being fired for not taking the Covid vaccine, higher gasoline prices, shortages of goods and services (particularly in those states that have full or partial lockdowns) and more people looking for a job.

What we are seeing is the false notion that taxing corporations is good for us. Why? Because when any corporation is taxed more they either pass on that cost to their consumers or go out of business.

AOC’s dress with the statement in red to “tax the rich” is a false flag. History tells us that the rich find ways to avoid taxes and the working class gets a greater tax burden or worse workers are laid off because corporations cut staff when faced with more regulation and higher taxes.

Is Build Back Better Really Better, so far?

Biden laid out the following goals for his “Build Back Better” agenda:

  1. “Build a Modern Infrastructure” [More government spending]
  2. “Position the U.S. Auto Industry to Win the 21st Century with technology invented in America” [Mandate the auto industry comply or else]
  3. “Achieve a Carbon Pollution-Free Power Sector by 2035” [Green New Deal]
  4. “Make Dramatic Investments in Energy Efficiency in Buildings, including Completing 4 Million Retrofits and Building 1.5 Million New Affordable Homes” [More Green New Deal mandates]
  5. “Pursue a Historic Investment in Clean Energy Innovation” [Green New Deal on asteroids]
  6. “Advance Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation” [Famers required to be green or else]
  7. “Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economy Opportunity” [Equal people are not free and free people are not equal]

The Biden administrations agenda has become very clear.

If the intent of Biden is to make the lives of every American better then as of October 5th, 2021 he is a complete failure.

According to Wikipedia Build Back Better:

The Build Back Better Agenda is a projected $7 trillion COVID-19 relief, future economic, and infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden. It will include investments in infrastructure, and is projected to create 10 million clean-energy jobs. Expenditures would also include government funds on housing, education, economic fairness and health care.[1]

The plan is divided into three parts: the American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 relief package, which passed in March 2021;[2] the American Jobs Plan, a proposal to rebuild America’s infrastructure and create jobs;[3] and the American Families Plan, a proposal to invest in areas related to childcare and education.[4] As of October 1, 2021, the American Rescue Plan is the only plan that has been signed into law, though proposals featured in the American Jobs Plan have been passed in the Senate through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. [Emphasis added]

So Build Back Better is actually a massive government growth coupled with social a massive government spending spree. Not surprisingly it is inextricably tied to Covid.

To pass the Democrat/Biden Build Back Better agenda requires the American people’s cooperation. However, we are seeing more and more Americans taking up arms against this plan via civil disobedience.

Since Biden’s election his poll numbers have dropped dramatically as he and his handlers try to implement his BBB agenda.

Conclusion

Build Back Better is missing one word in its title “government.” Biden and his minions are bound and determined to Build Back Bigger Government.

There’s no better in Biden’s Agenda only worse

Using the office of the president Biden has not waited for Congress to implement his BBB agenda. Rather he and his administration are using federal agencies like the CDC, OSHA, IRS, Justice Department and FBI to suppress any and all opposition to the BBB agenda.

If you are in the medical profession and work in a hospital and you choose not to get the Covid vaccine you can be fired.

If you are in a company with more than 100 workers and you fail to get the Covid vaccine you will be fired.

If you are in the U.S. military and your choose to not take the Covid vaccine you could be dishonorably discharged.

If you don’t have a “vaccine passport” your ability to travel within the United States and overseas can be restricted or even denied.

The backbone of Build Back Better is comply or else.

Freedom of choice. My body, my choice only applies to killing the unborn, not to you if you don’t get jabbed.

We predict as the Build Back Better agenda moves forward more and more American workers and their families will move backwards.

Biden seems to be building backwards, not forward. He wants to empower government not the individual, and many Democrats are fine with this. This goes beyond socialism, this is Communism writ large.

Gird your loins. We have three years and two more months of Biden, unless something dramatic happens.

Can you survive? Can your family survive? Can America’s Constitutional Republic survive.

The midterm elections in 2022 will be a bell weather election. If conservatives, note I did not write Republicans, don’t take control of one or both houses of Congress we are doomed

Get out and vote. Insure your state implements laws that enhance election integrity.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Can The Government Mint a $1TRILLION Coin to Pay Its Bills?

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

Here’s why the fantastical notion of a trillion-dollar coin appearing out of thin air to pay the bills is so appealing—and perilous.

Gridlock in Washington, DC continues amid a fight over raising the debt ceiling, the legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow. Right now, the federal government will be unable to pay its bills on October 18 if the limit isn’t raised, which would prompt a default with disastrous economic ramifications. The most likely outcome is that Congress, in one way or another, comes together to raise the limit. But the deadlock is leading some progressives to push for an extreme and unusual solution.

What if the Treasury Department simply minted a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposited it, and used it to pay its bills without taking out new debt? Yes, seriously. The idea sounds fantastical, but is gaining traction.

“[President] Biden does have an ace in the hole if Congress doesn’t suspend the debt limit,” left-leaning economist Dean Baker wrote for CNN.com. “Due to a technicality in the law, the Treasury Department can print a platinum coin and assign a huge value to it—say, $1 trillion—and sell it to the Federal Reserve Board. This would get around the need to borrow.”

Others share Baker’s view. Writing for the Washington Post, Zachary D. Carter described the solution as “perfectly painless” and “economically meaningless.” New York Times columnist and left-wing economist Paul Krugman has endorsed the idea, as have members of Congress including Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Jerry Nadler.

But if this admittedly novel solution sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

In fact, there’s an intense debate over whether the federal government actually has the legal authority to pursue such a scheme. Florida Atlantic University economist and monetary policy specialist William J. Luther told FEE in an interview that he believes minting a $1 trillion “token” coin would be unlawful. (For wonky legal reasons explained in this thread.)

More importantly, it’s a bad idea on the policy front. For one, it undermines citizen accountability for the federal government’s spending policies.

“We don’t want bureaucrats at the Treasury circumventing the rules established by Congress,” Luther says. “If Congress wants to spend more without raising taxes, it needs to raise the debt ceiling. If it does that, voters can hold these elected officials accountable. But if you don’t have that vote, it’s hard to hold people accountable.”

Moreover, the economic ramifications of minting a $1 trillion coin are grave.

One of the most glaring concerns people raise with the idea is that minting a $1 trillion coin would lead to inflation by increasing the money supply while the economy otherwise is unchanged. But Luther explains that the Federal Reserve would likely counteract this effect.

“The Fed would neutralize the monetary effects of this coin by selling some of its treasury holdings back to the public and destroying the money it received,” the economist said. “On the one hand you have the Treasury creating a $1 trillion coin, on the other hand you have the Fed contracting the money supply by $1 trillion… so there’s no net monetary effect.”

This means inflation isn’t necessarily a worry—but also reveals why the $1 trillion coin is not actually “painless” or “economically meaningless.”

“Yes, it’s a way around the debt ceiling,” Luther explained. “[But] a trillion dollars that used to be in the private sector is now in the public sector.”

“There is a real resource constraint,” he continued. “Typically, if the government does more, the private sector does less… with some exceptions. [Generally], markets do the best they can with the resources they have. So, if the government bids more of those resources into its own projects, it is necessarily bidding those resources away from the alternative projects they would have been used to pursue. It doesn’t matter how they’re funded… those real resources are in the economy, the question is whether they’re going to be used by the public sector or the private sector.”

“We’re going to spend that $1 trillion on something,” Luther said. “If you spend a portion building a road, you’re going to have to hire employees, which means you’re bidding them away from other pursuits. You’re going to have to acquire machinery, which means you’re bidding away machinery from other projects. Those real resources are not going to be available for other purposes. Whenever the government is using real resources, that necessarily means someone else in the economy—the private sector—is not using those resources.”

Odds are, the bureaucratic and inefficient federal government will make worse investments with these resources than the private sector would have. After all, the free market allocates resources where they’re needed most in accordance with price signals. The government allocates resources based on lobbying and politics. So, it’s not even just a 1-1 trade-off facing us in the coin-minters’ fantasy, but likely even more lost in economic fallout.

Why does this matter? Well, progressives pushing this scheme are desperate to find a way they can fund their endless government spending ambitions and expansions of the welfare state without having to pay the price or deal with any consequences. That’s why the fantastical notion of a trillion-dollar coin appearing out of thin air to pay the bills is so appealing.

But there’s simply no getting around the basic economic reality of trade-offs and scarce resources, no matter how clever the scheme. Ultimately, government spending has costs that cannot be avoided—no matter how many trillion-dollar coins the Treasury mints.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

WATCH: New Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

FBI REPORT: Twice as Many Killed with Knives than Rifles & Shotguns Combined

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

What next? Fist control? Knife control? No. It’s all about Democrat tyrants disarming the American people.

FBI: More People Killed with Fists, Feet, Than Rifles

By AWR Hawkins,, Breitbart News, 27 Sep 2021:

The FBI released its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Monday showing that more people were killed in 2020 with fists and feet than were killed with rifles of all kinds.

The UCR shows that 454 people were killed with rifles in 2020 while 657 were killed with “personnel weapons,” which are defined as “hands, fists, feet, etc.”

The UCR figures show a similar situation was occurred in 2019, when 375 people were killed with rifles but 639 were killed with “hands, fists, feet, etc.”

In 2018 the number of people killed with “hands, fists, feet, etc.,” was more than twice the number killed with rifles of all kinds.

Breitbart News notes that the UCR also shows more than 3.5 times more people were stabbed to death in 2020 than were killed with rifles. The UCR shows that 454 people were shot and killed with rifles in 2020 while 1,732 were stabbed or hacked to death with “knives or cutting instruments.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Betrayal in The Jewish Community by The Leaders of The Jewish Community

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

It is obvious from the articles posted below that California’s ethnic studies requirement bill, AB-101, is an atrocious example of state sponsored racism against the Jewish community. This is an absolute statement that admits to no moral relativism and cannot be applied on a sliding scale.

One of the most disheartening and disgusting aspects of this vexed issue is how the L.A. Jewish Federation, the ADL and the AJC have failed to rally to the defense of their own community with anything resembling a moral argument let alone a vigorous protest.

This dismal reality is not surprising.

For several years now due to the left-wing leadership of Jonathan Greenblatt, one of Barack Obama’s choir boys, it is no longer possible to take the ADL seriously as a Jewish advocacy organization.

The AJC barely moves the needle on any issue but is always ready to demonstrate its impartiality when Jews are attacked. In his epic poem, “Inferno”, Dante reserved the most scorching parts of Hell for those who tried to remain neutral when faced with a moral dilemma. The AJC did not exist in the 14th. century otherwise we would know exactly where to find its leadership.

After the Pico Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue pogrom in May 2020 the L.A. Jewish Federation relinquished what was left of its depleted moral authority when it called for the police to be held accountable instead of demanding the members of BLM and Antifa be held directly responsible for looting and destroying Jewish businesses, vandalizing synagogues, committing acts of brutal violence, destroying 52 police cars and on video can be seen and heard screaming, “Kill the police, Fuck the Jews!.” Jay Sanderson, CEO of the L.A. Jewish Federation, sets very low standards for himself and always fails to meet them.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/06/la-jewish-federation-boss-worries-attacks-daniel-greenfield/

By now anyone who has been following the star of these organizations must have concluded that it is made of tinsel. They are gimcrack structures whose main value has been to give us a glimpse into the past and demonstrate how so many Jewish elders betrayed their own people on the way to the Holocaust.

As for all the Jewish organizations that shamefully failed to sign the letter to Governor Newsom urging him to veto the “revised” ethnic studies program, they have shown the level of Jew-hatred they are prepared to tolerate so that they can go on being tolerated.

This link directly above has a letter to Governor Newsom and one can see who signed it- and who did not.

74 Jewish and Education Groups Join Thousands of Petitioners in Demanding Newsom Veto Ethnic Studies Requirement Bill

Letter with list of the 74 organizations.

Thousands call on California Gov. Newsom to veto ethnic-studies bill ahead of deadline

RELATED ARTICLES:

It Will Encourage Hatred of Jews and Israel, Which Graduating High School Students Might Bring to College Campuses and Beyond

It’s wrong to be anti-Semitic – I mean, unless you are woke

TRUMP PEACE: Egyptair flies To Israel For First Time, Commencing New Flight Route

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘A Giant Can of Worms’: Afghans Are Walking Off U.S. Bases, No One Knows Where They Are

/in , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

“It’s a giant can of worms,” said a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official who asked not to be named, and in these days of rapidly increasing Biden administration authoritarianism, it’s easy to see why. Grateful Afghan refugees are, according to Reuters, upsetting the establishment narrative in large numbers by engaging in “independent departures” from the U.S. military bases where the evacuees are being housed. That is, they’re getting up and walking away, and no one knows where they are. At least 700 Afghans have now left various military bases and are somewhere in the United States. Over 300 have vanished from Fort Bliss alone. No one knows where. What could possibly go wrong?

Remember: Biden’s handlers have no idea who most of these people are. Back on September 1, according to Politico, “a State Department official said in a private briefing to reporters that ‘the majority’ of special immigrant visa applicants were left in Afghanistan due in part to the complications of the evacuation, and that he and his team are ‘haunted’ by the evacuees the U.S. could not get out by the Aug. 31 deadline.” That is, the vast majority: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted on September 21, according to The Hill, that “of the 60,000 Afghans who have entered the U.S., nearly 8,000 are either U.S. citizens or residents, while about 1,800 are SIV holders, having obtained visas after assisting the U.S. military.”

That leaves around 50,200 Afghan refugees for whom we have no certain identification and no assurance whatsoever that they aren’t jihad terrorists. Nor is that all: The Hill states without a trace of irony that Biden’s handlers have “boasted” about having brought “more than 124,000 people from Afghanistan.” Who is among the other 74,000 who are apparently on their way here? No one knows.

Daniel Greenfield notes that there are three possibilities as to why these evacuees have disappeared from the military bases and left no forwarding address: “They’re not legally who they say they are and are worried that the authorities will find out”; or “they’re committing a crime such as trafficking young girls as had already been reported at Fort McCoy”; or “they’re terrorists here to infiltrate America.”

That third possibility becomes more likely in light of the unpleasant fact that Business Insider reported on August 15:

Thousands of inmates, including former Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters, were released from a prison on the outskirts of Kabul as the Taliban called for a “peaceful transition” of power. Afghan government troops surrendered Bagram airbase to the Taliban early on Sunday. The base houses Pul-e-Charki prison, which has around 5,000 prisoners. It is the largest in Afghanistan and notorious for its poor conditions. A maximum-security cellblock held members of al Qaeda and Taliban, said reports. Footage published by an independent Afghan news agency, which supports the Taliban, appears to show militants letting the inmates out.

Did any of these al-Qaeda and Islamic State jihadis get on planes bound for America? No one knows.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘It was a slap in the face’: Top brass forced Marines to erase taunts of ISIS and the Taliban before leaving Afghanistan

Canada: Muslim information technology specialist became narrator of Islamic State jihad recruitment videos

France: Muslim plotted attack on synagogue with Kalashnikov

Canada: Jihadi Muslima denied parole, would ‘likely kill or injure if released,’ insists she doesn’t need medication

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

Lapid On Gaza – Stupid Is As Stupid Does

/in , , , , /by

Lapid’s recent Gaza policy proposal is just one more display in an appalling catalogue of his imbecility-cum-ignorance, which, in light of his electoral success, is—in itself—a grave indictment of the Israeli voter

Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe—attributed to Albert Einstein.

I used to have so many opinions before I learned the facts—Yair Lapid, New York Times, May 19, 2013.

When it comes to Gaza, don’t dream about demilitarization or economic miracles—Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace & veteran State Dept. Mid-East negotiator, in Foreign Policy, July 22, 2014.

Almost eight years ago, much to his chagrin, I wrote an Op-Ed on the then-Finance Minister, Yair Lapid.

It began:

“Yair Lapid is the most dangerous man in Israeli politics today, a good-looking, charismatic, overconfident fool, an affable ignoramus with no intellectual gravitas, devoid of moral principle, but with the gift of a silver tongue and the unmistakable – and largely undisguised – penchant for demagoguery and dictatorship.”

Sadly, this caveat is no less relevant today than it was then—arguably, more so.

Confounding “cause” & “effect”

Thus, earlier this month, at an international conference on counter-terrorism, Yair Lapid, now Foreign Minister, floated a policy proposal for dealing with the perennial problem of Gaza.

Although there was scarcely anything new about the idea, appearing to be little more than “old goods in an equally old wrapping”, it garnered considerable media attention.

Depending on one’s perspective of Israel’s mainstream media, this is either somewhat surprising…or preeminently predictable.

Unsurprisingly, the parameters of the Lapid proposal were entirely within the guidelines of accepted wisdom on Gaza, prescribing that, somehow, the enduring violence in, and from, the luckless enclave is due to the poor economic conditions with which it is afflicted. Of course, little reflection is required to grasp that precisely the opposite is true. After all, in Gaza, it is not penury that begets the violence, but the violence that begets the penury.

But then, sadly,  reflection does not appear to be Lapid’s core expertise. After all, his public appearances have been afflicted by some of the most embarrassing faux pas, mortifying gaffes, and bumbling blunders—which, for some reason, have left his public image largely unscathed. But more on that mystifying enigma—and its disconcerting implications—a little later.

Stating the painfully obvious

But for the moment, let’s focus on the substance—for want of a better word—of the Lapid initiative for quelling the violence emanating from, and fermented in, Gaza.

In mid-September, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a 2000 word statement, setting out the parameters of Lapid’s alleged “vision”. In it, Lapid states the painfully obvious: “The policy Israel has pursued up until now hasn’t substantially changed the situation… We need to change direction.”

Accordingly, he asks: “What should we do?”—and answers: “… we need to start a large, multi-year process of economy for security.”

In Lapid’s view, his initiative is a “more realistic version of what in the past was called rehabilitation for demilitarization.”

In an attempt to forestall any criticism, which he apparently foresaw, he preemptively parried:

“There will be experts who tell you that this plan has no chance. The answer is – we never tried. For too long the only two options on the table have been conquering Gaza, or never-ending rounds of violence…[A] serious proposal of “economy for security” in Gaza has never before been put on the table”.

Lapid is wrong—on both counts!!

Unoriginal and unrealistic

Firstly, his proposal is hardly original—i.e. “we have never tried [it].”

On the contrary, it has been raised repeatedly in the past—at least as far back as 2014–chiefly by failed and forgotten politicians. It was in  2014, that former Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, suggested a financial package of $50 billion, together with independent seaport access. Likewise, several other ministers, including former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and former senior security officials such as ex-Shin Bet director, Yuval Diskin, have incorporated this notion in their political declarations and speeches.

Indeed, in August 2014, Lapid himself touted the idea, calling for ensuring that the economic “rehabilitation [of Gaza]takes place alongside [its]demilitarization.”

Although I have many points of disagreement with senior Carnegie fellow, David Aaron Miller, he has written a particularly incisive critique, entitled The Endgame in Gaza. In it, he derisively dismisses the attempts to resolve the Gaza question by promises of economic development in exchange for Hamas laying down its weapons. Wistfully, he muses: “I wish I had a dollar for every time some well-intentioned soul approached me with some new Marshall Plan for Gaza or the Middle East.”

“Meanwhile back on Planet Earth…”

Secondly, Lapid’s proposal is not even remotely “realistic”.

Indeed, Miller, somewhat acerbically, prefaces his review of the inherent deficiencies of Lapid’s “more-goodies-for-less-guns” school of thought with a sardonic barb: “Meanwhile back on Planet Earth..”, thus relegating them to the realms of ridicule.

Detailing the reasons why none of these schemes seem even “remotely possible”, Miller points out that they call on Hamas to repudiate its very raison d’etre. He writes: “Hamas would have to abandon its 35-year reason for being, give up armed struggle, accept Palestinian Authority rule, and become a political party without achieving the end of Israel’s occupation, let alone statehood.”

But not only ideological obstacles render the idea of “rehabilitation for demilitarization” unworkable. Thus, as Miller explains:

“Someone would also have to supervise the area close to the Israel-Gaza border inside the Strip in order to ensure that Hamas didn’t continue to tunnel…”

But, he cautions, to ensure that,

“An acceptable international force would have to be organized to identify, collect, and destroy Hamas’s weapons. All other smaller resistance groups, including Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, would need to be defanged…[and] the international community — in an uncharacteristic display of focus and commitment — would need to step up with tons of money and technical assistance.”

In assessing the feasibility of such an outcome, Miller is unequivocally caustic and blunt: “In other words, forget it.”

Plumbing the depths of absurdity

But the absurdity of Lapid’s proposal goes beyond that outlined by Miller.

Indeed, he suggests that Israel initiate the undertaking of major infrastructure projects within the Gaza Strip, not only without engaging Hamas, but to undermine its stature in Gaza!!!

Thus, he underscores:

“I’ll say it clearly – this isn’t a proposal to negotiate with Hamas. Israel doesn’t speak to terror organizations who want to destroy us.” 

However, beyond vague references to the “international community,” he offers no clue as to who would comprise the stout-hearted entity that is to challenge the brutal Islamist terror group, indeed goad it, by overtly trying to erode its public support.

Accordingly, he asserts:

“The electricity system will be repaired, gas will be connected, a water desalination plan[t] will be built, significant improvements to the health care system and…rebuilding of housing and transport infrastructure will take place…

Then, oblivious of prevailing realities on the ground, he blithely prescribes:

“The international community will use its influence over Hamas [Yeah, right! – MS] to assist in the efforts to stop Hamas arming itself. It will work to strengthen efforts to prevent smuggling and an economic oversight mechanism will be put into place to prevent resources going to Hamas.”

And then, with unbounded—and equally unfounded—optimism, he determines: “In exchange, Hamas will commit to long term quiet”.

Lapid in la-la land?

Lapid disclosed:

“The purpose of the process is to create stability on both sides of the border”…the people of Gaza need to know that Hamas terrorism is what’s standing between them and a normal life.”

According to him:

“Advancing a formula of economy for security will force Hamas to explain to the residents of Gaza why they live in conditions of poverty, scarcity, violence, and high unemployment, without hope.”

He insisted,

“We need to tell Gazans [that] Hamas is leading you to ruin. No one will come and invest real money… in a place from which Hamas fires and which Israel strikes on a regular basis.”

Accordingly, he urged:

“It’s time to put the pressure on Hamas. It’s time to cause the residents of Gaza to pressure Hamas because they understand what they are missing out on as a result of terrorism and understand how much they stand to gain if that terrorism stops.”

So there you have it, the purported “rationale” of Lapid’s template for a masterly stroke of statesmanship for dealing with Gaza in a nutshell: Assemble an unspecified force to disarm Hamas—or at least curtail is armaments and their use against Israel, thereby effectively annulling its very raison d’etre—while initiating large economic projects, whose specific purpose is to denude the influence of the Islamist organization.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong ??

Two terribly tenuous tenets?

Lapid’s regurgitated formula rests on two terribly tenuous tenets.

The first is that, as a collective, the Palestinians can be lured into some kind of peace arrangement with Israel—or at least, into durable non-belligerence—by the promise of enhanced economic well-being.

The second is that Hamas rule is maintained only—or at least chiefly—by force of arms and lacks significant public support—and thus, could be displaced by wide public dissent if seen/portrayed as an impediment to the achievement of enhanced living standards.

Neither premise is valid.

As for public support for Hamas, a recent Palestinian poll is starkly unequivocal! “It states: “If new presidential and parliamentary elections were to take place today, Hamas would do relatively well compared to Fatah…”

According to the poll’s findings:

“This is particularly true for a presidential election…Most importantly for Fatah, findings show a significant increase in the demand for Abbas’[s] resignation, with almost 80% making the demand, an unprecedent[ed]… finding…”

But if there is little sign of eroding public support for Hamas in favor of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA), there is similarly scant evidence that the prospect of improved economic conditions is likely to generate such erosion.

Terribly tenuous (cont.)

Indeed, further findings of the same poll reflect realities no less discordant with Lapid’s pivotal notion of the prospective allure of higher living standards becoming a lever to promote anti-Hamas sentiments.

Thus, when asked to designate what they considered the most vital Palestinian goals and the main problems confronting Palestinians today, respondents gave the following answers:

“44% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 12% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 10% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians”.

Significantly, there is nary a mention of a desire for a better economy, the very lynchpin of the Lapid plan, and which purportedly would induce public opposition to Hamas, paving the way to the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and the cessation of terror attacks from within it.

Hmmmm!

Lapid mimicking Liberman

Given all of the above, it is hardly surprising that the Lapid plan was roundly rejected by Hamas. Thus, Hamas spokesperson Hazim Qasim stated bluntly:

“The enemy has resorted to various proposals…to weaken the resistance, and they did not succeed. Its resort to such a plan indicates its inability to deal with the resistance and our Palestinian people.”

However, it was also the intended beneficiary of the scheme, the Fatah-dominated PA, that condemned it as gravely misguided. Thus, PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh castigated it as essentially irrelevant: “Gaza’s problem is political [i.e. not economic-MS]. It is the same problem that all of Palestine faces, including Jerusalem. There must be a serious political process based [o]n international law, to end the occupation and lift the blockade… this would make the reconstruction of Gaza possible and sustainable.”

In other words—as a collective—economics is subordinate to, and contingent on, politics.

But, of course, had Lapid not been afflicted with such ignorance and arrogance; had he not been imbibed with such narcissistic desire to appear original/innovative/creative, he might have realized that four years previously, his coalition partner, one Avigdor “Yvette” Liberman, had raised an almost identical proposal—based on precisely the same elements as stipulated by Lapid. Indeed, if anything, it was even more explicit!

In it, Liberman proposed turning Gaza “into the Singapore of the Middle East” by building a seaport and an airport and by creating industrial zones that would help create 40,000 jobs, if Hamas agreed to demilitarisation and to dismantling the tunnel and rocket systems it has built up. Sound familiar??..

The Hamas response was swift. Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official, dismissed it derisively, sneering, “If we wanted to turn Gaza into Singapore, we would have done it ourselves. We do not need favors from anyone.”

Demilitarization: A futile fetish

The fetish with the demilitarization of Gaza is both timeworn and futile.

Indeed, it has ostensibly been part and parcel of the Oslowian “peace-process” since its inception.

Thus, those who suggest demilitarization of Gaza today, are apparently oblivious of the fact that Gaza is already supposed to be demilitarized under the Oslo Accords, and they give little clue as to why future demilitarization is likely to be any more effective than in the past—or by whom it will be enforced and how such enforcement is to be effected.

Moreover, demilitarization advocates give scant hint as to how a demilitarized regime (Hamas or otherwise) could contend with radicalized and extreme adversaries (domestic—such as Iranian-backed groups like the PIJ—or foreign—such as ISIS-affiliated jihadis in Sinai). Could the unspoken intention be that the IDF will be called on to provide security to the demilitarized rulers of Gaza? Surely not!

Israel’s chief diplomat: A snapshot?

Israel must now come to terms with the perturbing fact that the man charged with the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy is someone with a long and documented history of poor judgment and appalling ignorance, coupled with commensurate arrogance.

After all, Lapid is on record as referring to the 16th-century Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) as a great classical Greek scholar, several centuries BCE, and to Swiss sculptor, Alberto Giacometti, who was born and died in the 20th century (1901-1966) as a Renaissance period artist.

He was apparently unaware of the differences between “forefathers” (i.e. ancestors) and “four fathers” (i.e. one more than three), or of the fact that the US constitution was not written exclusively by one man, John Adams. Likewise, he claimed that Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement—generally considered the holiest day in the Jewish calendar—only dated from the Spanish Inquisition, rather than from the time of Moses and the Israelites exodus from Egypt.

More recently, towards the end of 2020, he sneered at Netanyahu’s promise to provide a large-scale supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even accusing him of blatantly lying to the public. According to Lapid, Israel would be last in line for vaccines, behind dozens of Western countries.

Of course, within weeks, Lapid was proven utterly wrong on every count…

With Israeli diplomacy in such “capable hands”, what is there to worry about?

After all, what you vote for is what get!

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

Ingoglia on Biden Border Crisis: ‘Florida will not help with your lawlessness’ [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

One Florida House Representative is praising Governor Ron DeSantis’ new executive order preventing Florida agencies from aiding the federal government with relocating illegal immigrants into Florida. One America’s Stefan Kleinhenz has more.

Watch:

©OANN. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: GOP Voters to ‘Overtake Democrats’ in Florida

/in , , , , /by

I joined Matt Boyle from Breitbart News to discuss the Florida GOP’s efforts on the ground to turn Florida into a Republican state (in terms of voter registration) for the first time in our state’s history.

Registered Republican voters are poised to overtake registered Democrats in the Sunshine State, Vice Chairman of the Florida GOP Christian Ziegler told Breitbart News Saturday.

By: Katherine Hamilton

According to Ziegler, who has played a pivotal role on the ground getting Republicans registered in the state, there were 700,000 more Democrats than Republicans in 2008. By 2016, when former President Donald Trump took office, Democrats only maintained a 320,000 voter lead.

“And then today, we’re at about 20,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans,” he said, noting the narrowing gap between parties in the state. “So you’re seeing that gap go from 700,000, 320,000, to today about 20,000. So we’re going to overtake the Democrats. This is something that we’ve been working hard on as a state party.”

“We get a lot of people that flip,” he noted, crediting Florida’s shift, in part to the Democrat Party. He said the party’s insistence on becoming more extreme and socialistic, especially during the pandemic, is pushing people from blue states to red states — such as Florida — in search of freedom. He also sees more independent voters stepping out and choosing to vote red, as Democrats continue to push their luck with their leftist agenda.

“The socialism that they push does not play well in South Florida. The “Defund the Police” message that they pushed, and the anti-military, anti-law enforcement, you know positions that they’ve taken, does not play well in the I-4 corridor,” he said. “And then the full attack on parental rights, and families, and culture, and religion doesn’t play well on the panhandle.”

Another factor bringing people south, according to Ziegler, is the state’s leadership.

“It’s interesting. When people moved to Florida for decades, all we’ve heard is ‘I’m moving because of the sunshine and the weather,’” he said. “And now the top thing that I’m hearing is ‘I’m moving because number 1: the freedom, and number 2: because of who your governor is.’”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has risen among the ranks of Republican leadership in the country and often sets himself up as a foil to President Joe Biden and Democrat governor’s in other states. During the height of the pandemic, DeSantis took a more individualistic approach compared to some Democrat governors, many of whom locked down their states for months and kept children home from school — something Ziegler described as “frankly tyrannical.”

“They’re coming down to Florida, and they are realizing they do not need to put up with big government,” he said. “It’s like a perfect storm for us in terms of flipping the state.”

The influx of new residents actually caused Florida to gain a congressional seat, which will boost the state’s sway even more in national politics. Simultaneously, California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia lost seats — and in California’s case, for the first time in state history.

“The latest stats from snntv.com indicate that nearly 1000 people move here every day and many are coming from northern states like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. According to move.org, Florida was the most moved to state in 2020,” Florida television station Fox4 reported in August.

Ziegler called DeSantis the “greatest attraction to the state,” which is opposite to what Democrats largely say of his leadership. Ziegler said the smears are an effort to slow DeSantis down before he has the chance to run for president of the United States one day, a political move heavily speculated in conservative circles.

“He has a spine, and that spine is strong. He’s standing up real tall, and he’s leading the fight — and he’s not afraid to take on fights,” he said.

Overall, Ziegler said he believes Democrats, “both locally and nationally” are fearful of what a “ruby red” Florida — the “swing states of the swing states”  — could mean for their agenda going forward.

“It’s going to be historic. For the first time ever in the State of Florida, we’re going to have more registered Republicans than Democrats, and that’s terrifying the Democrat Party both locally and nationally. I love watching them terrified, so it’s a lot of fun to be on the ground doing that,” he said.

©Christian Ziegler. All rights reserved.

Poll: Majority of Trump Voters Want Red States to Secede from Blue States

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Count me among them. It would avert a. bloody civil war.

It’s free states versus slave states ….. again.

Poll: Majority of Trump Voters Want Red States to Secede from Blue States

By: Breitbart News, October 3, 2021:

When the survey asked voters who supported then-candidate Joe Biden in 2020, 41 percent agreed with the same statement, and 18 percent strongly agreed with the statement.

“The divide between Trump and Biden voters is deep, wide, and dangerous. The scope is unprecedented, and it will not be easily fixed,” UVA Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato said.

The majority of both sets of voters agreed that someone voting for a candidate from the opposing party is disloyal to the people they care about: 54 percent for Trump voters and 52 percent for Biden voters.

The poll also revealed that over 40 percent of voters in both parties favor abolishing the checks and balances built into the federal government and giving the president greater control: 44 percent for Trump voters and 46 percent for Biden voters.

However, over 75 percent of both parties also agreed with the statement that Americans who support the opposite party present a “clear and present danger to the American way of life.”

“In order to figure out ways to bridge these divides, we need to understand not just the divides themselves, but also understand the ways in which we can, together, move forward to reach common ground. This project helps us do both,” Larry Schack of Project Home Fire said.

The poll was taken from July 22 to August 4 with the help of InnovateMR — an industry-leading marketing research data collection firm — to collect data from a series of questions.

There were 2,002 2020 voters who were asked questions. They were divided equally between 1,001 Trump voters from 2020 and 1,001 Biden voters from 2020. There is a margin of error from this survey of +/- 2.2 percent.

RELATED VIDEO: Sen. Johnson – You can’t believe anything this administration tells you!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Parades Huge Tax Hikes After Dodging Paying His ‘Fair Share’ For Years

41% of Biden Voters Think It’s Time for Red and Blue States to Secede

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Fauci: ‘Too Soon to Tell’ if Families Can Gather for Christmas [Video]

/in , , , , , , , /by

But it’s not too soon to indict and incarcerate this war criminal.

Fauci: ‘Too Soon to Tell’ if Families Can Gather for Christmas

By: Todd Starnes, October 3, 2021:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, told “Face the Nation” Sunday it’s “just too soon to tell” if families can gather for Christmas.

WATCH THE CLIP BELOW:

Many online have criticized Fauci for flip-flopping on masks, vaccines, and other issues from the very beginning of the pandemic. He told the American people there wouldn’t be mask or vaccine mandates, which he now supports.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Fauci Email Proves He Funded Lab Training for Wuhan’s Most Deadly Lab.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Biden’s ‘Evacuation’ Was a Taliban Human Trafficking Scheme

/in , , , , , , /by

The Biden administration is covering up its final crime in Afghanistan.

After Biden evacuated tens of thousands of Afghan “translators”, refugee resettlement groups are desperately looking for translators to translate to the translators.

Why do Afghan translators, who were supposed to be able to translate from English to their native language, need help from translators?

It’s because they’re not translators.

In the last two years, Front Page Magazine ran multiple articles like How the ‘Interpreter’ Scam Brought 75,000 Iraqis and Afghans to America and ‘Saving Afghan Interpreters’ is a Scam That Would Bring 100,000 Afghans to U.S. exposing the “translator” scam. Now tens of thousands of Afghans are arriving in this country and they need translators because they don’t speak English.

As I previously pointed out, there were more Afghan “translators” applying for visas than there were American soldiers for them to translate for. But the vast majority of SIV visa applicants were never translators. The number of actual translators, Afghans embedded with U.S. forces who risked their lives by working in the field, was miniscule and was its own special category.

But by the end, almost any Afghan who worked for any U.S. organization could apply for a visa.

Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan retreat made that existing scam so much worse because he didn’t evacuate the approved SIV visa holders who might have actually worked for the U.S.

State Department sources have said that the majority of SIVs were actually left behind.

The Biden administration claims to have evacuated 124,000 people, of them only 5,500 Americans, from Afghanistan. 60,000 have been brought into the United States. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted that only 1,800 are SIV holders, another 8,000 are citizens or have green cards.

That leaves over 50,000 Afghans who were just brought here with no legal basis.

And there are tens of thousands of “evacuated” Afghans who might still be brought here.

According to Mayorkas, the “balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the United States government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable Afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, etc.”

Mayorkas describes bringing a whole lot of people who “might” qualify as SIVs, if they were to apply for them, who “would” qualify for P-1 and P-2 visas: categories that took the existing translator scam and turned it into a free-for-all and allowed virtually anyone to qualify.

The Biden administration evacuated all these planeloads of “journalists” and “human rights advocates” who immediately began sexually assaulting some of the girls they were trafficking.

Two Afghan refugees at Fort McCoy have already been charged, one for sexually assaulting two minors, and another for beating his wife who alleged that he “beat me many times in Afghanistan to the point I lost vision in both eyes.”

The wife also told a translator “that nine women have been killed since getting to Fort McCoy and that she would be the tenth.” There’s been no confirmation of this, but even well before these two criminal cases, anonymous officials at Fort McCoy were warning that “older men were admitted together with young girls they claimed as ‘brides’ or otherwise sexually abused.”

That’s strange behavior for “human rights activists”.

The human rights activists that the United States funded in Kabul were largely middle-aged women who didn’t wear burkas. We’ve seen and heard almost nothing from any of them at Fort McCoy or anywhere else in the resettlement system. Some have remained in Afghanistan and are risking their lives by courageously organizing protests against the Taliban.

They’re not raping children in Wisconsin.

The Afghan evacuees lean heavily toward “military age males” and older men with young girls. The women in those families that have come through tend to wear burkas and appear fearful.

Whoever the hell these people are, they’re not “human rights activists” and “journalists”.

Nor are they translators since most of them need translators and few have SIV visas.

The question no one asked Mayorkas is why the vast majority of SIV visa holders never got on board those planes, but people who he thinks “might” qualify did.

What process could have possibly resulted in such a strange outcome?

The answer comes in two damning parts.

Kabul embassy personnel had tainted the pool of applicants by sending out “electronic credentials”. State Department officials claimed that the passes were widely distributed by the applicants and that soon everyone had them and was demanding access to the airport.

“Within an hour, everyone in the crowd had that pass,” a senior official claimed.

He noted that, “every credential we tried to provide electronically was immediately disseminated to the widest possible pool,”

And while that might explain why a lot of people showed up who weren’t qualified, but were waving credentials, it doesn’t explain why so few of those who were actually qualified made it into the airport and onto a plane. The only explanation is that they were deliberately kept out.

The Biden administration outsourced security to the Taliban, which passed it along to checkpoints manned by the Haqqani Network which is allied with Al Qaeda. Biden officials provided the Taliban and Haqqanis with lists of qualified people they were supposed to admit.

And yet the Taliban repeatedly prevented some Afghans from getting to the airport while allowing others to make it through. They did so regardless of the official credentials.

The media reported on this behavior but treated it as random sadism or malice. It’s not.

The Taliban were experts at cashing in on the American presence in Afghanistan. At one point the Jihadis were making more money from “taxing” contractors working for us than they did from opium. There was no chance that the Taliban would leave all the money to be made from providing access to the evacuation flights on the table. And there’s no reason to think they did.

An Australian Financial Review columnist reported that, “Taliban fighters are allowing people to pass through if they pay thousands of dollars in bribes.”

That was likely only the tip of the iceberg.

The distribution of electronic credentials was deliberately tainted in the pipeline and the Taliban controlled access to the Kabul airport to keep out legitimate SIV visa holders while allowing the tens of thousands of Afghans who were illegitimately evacuated to bribe their way in.

This wasn’t an evacuation: it was a massive Taliban human trafficking scheme.

The Taliban didn’t just cash in on all the reconstruction projects and the weapons left behind, they undoubtedly made a fortune from every seat in Biden’s Kabul airlift.

Now that tens of thousands of Afghans are here, they won’t be leaving. They can’t be deported and whether or not the “parolees” qualify for an SIV or P-2 visa is a mere technicality.

The truly explosive question is whether the Taliban just cashed in on the usual corruption in Afghanistan, or if they got any Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists into the evacuation pipeline?

Did any of the Taliban grab the chance to get their own family members into the airport?

Probably.

Sources have said that 0.5% of Afghan evacuees have been flagged for terror ties. That’s a high percentage for “translators” and “human rights activists”. Some of the flags were reportedly triggered by terrorist family ties. In a tribal and clan society, Taliban and Al Qaeda family members are extremely unlikely to be working as translators or human rights activists.

Beyond just getting family members into the evacuation pipeline, did the Taliban get actual terrorists into the United States. Probably. But it’ll take us years and bodies to find out.

Biden and his administration have treated the Kabul airlift as a massive triumph, when it was actually the final act of a disaster that has brought rapists and terrorists to America.

The “translators” need translators, children are being sexually assaulted and women are being beaten before the refugees have even left Fort McCoy. Afterward things will get much worse.

Untold billions in taxpayer money will be squandered on resettling the beneficiaries of the Taliban’s human trafficking scheme. The Afghans will be signed up for every possible welfare program and a fortune will be spent just on translating for the “translators” at resettlement agencies, government agencies, schools, hospitals, and the local police.

More money will be spent on dealing with their abuses through the criminal justice system.

The SIV holders and their families who were left behind in Afghanistan, but who manage to eventually make it over here, will also have to be resettled, doubling our refugee load.

And then the terrorist plots will begin.

The Kabul airlift wasn’t heroic: it was a bleak farce in which the Biden administration allowed the Taliban to select who got on the planes. And then it’s shocked that the Afghans whom the Taliban chose are not the SIV visa recipients that were on the list, but a whole other crowd.

It will take us decades to discover exactly who are the Afghans that Biden brought to America.

The Biden administration will cling to the myth of its heroic airlift by retroactively legitimizing the tens of thousands of Afghans to cover up the final installment of its humiliating disaster. And the Taliban, once again, will have the last laugh as their human trafficking scheme pays off.

Human trafficking isn’t only for Mexican cartels, the Taliban likely made a fortune trafficking rapists and terrorists, and anyone who could pay, to Kabul airport. The old men raping young girls, the military age men scowling at the camera, and all the best of Afghanistan is here now.

And the Biden administration will cover up its final crime in Afghanistan.

COLUMN BY:

DANIEL GREENFIELD

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

RELATED ARTICLE: 700 Afghan Evacuees Just ‘Walked Off’ U.S. Bases

RELATED TWEET:

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

Hunter Biden and the Muslim Brotherhood

/in , , , , , /by

Only a Biden could bring Communist China and the Brotherhood together.

While Vice President Joe Biden was in the White House, his son Hunter was allegedly trying to cut a huge deal with a $2 million payment and a possible 5% success fee as high as $750 million. All it would take was bringing together Communist China and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And who but a Biden could pull that off?

The UN Security Council sanctions that had been slapped on the Libyan Investment Authority during the civil war between Gaddafi and the Islamists were still in place years later because the Arab Spring had left the country in the throes of a permanent civil war with the Islamists.

The LIA’s wealth fund, now worth an estimated $68 billion, had been part of a deal cut between the Libyan dictator and the Bush administration. When Gaddafi abandoned his WMD program, and sanctions were dropped on Libya, the LIA quickly became one of Africa’s largest wealth funds, and bought big, investing in American companies, banks, and bonds.

Including billions in treasury bills.

When Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood stabbed Gaddafi in the back and went to war to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Libya, tens of billions in LIA assets were frozen. And as the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists have continued to battle the remnants of Libya’s military for power, the sanctions have remained in place costing the LIA some $4 billion.

When Sam Jauhari, a Democrat donor, sent the email, indicating that Hunter wanted $2 million to lobby on the deal, his father had long been seen as the gateway to all that wealth.

Jauhari, who had plowed $80,000 into the Obama campaign, and tens of thousands more into the Democrat machine, was allegedly an associate of Imaad Zuberi, a Pakistani who had been working on Libya with Biden’s body man and close friend. Earlier this year, Zuberi was sentenced to 12 years in prison for funneling foreign money into political campaigns in the United States. Among his alleged employers was the Qatari Islamic terror state and a prosecutor alleged that “U.S. policy was changed to align with Qatar’s interests.

Prosecutors say that Zuberi received $9.8 million from the Qatari state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had also allegedly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Saudi Muslim tycoon to the Obama inauguration. His WhatsApp messages have him mentioning, “I need to get the 5 to 6 Clinton donation done by tomorrow” and “You want billions unfrozen. This is nothing. Iranians spent $150 to get $25 billion released.”

His recipient complains, “I spent 2.6 million before. What did I get?”

The names of the Libyan officials have been censored, but the deal appeared to involve the Tripoli government. At the time the deals were being discussed, the Tripoli government was largely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Control over LIA had been a top Muslim Brotherhood priority and the LIA allegedly includes at least one Brotherhood board member.

The first email about retaining Hunter Biden was sent in January 2015. In 2012, a Muslim Brotherhood alliance had conspired to take power through fraudulent elections in Libya. In 2014, the Brotherhood alliance, after repeatedly using Islamist militias to terrorize its rivals in Tripoli, lost new elections and declared that it would continue to govern anyway.

When the Hunter Biden emails were being sent, Libya had two rival governments, the Muslim Brotherhood in Tripoli and a more moderate coalition in Tobruk. The rival governments also staked their own claims to Libya’s wealth whose crown jewel were the LIA’s investments.

While the released court documents of Zuberi’s WhatsApp chats were censored to remove the names and identities of any of the players, he asks at one point, “Does the Libyans want me to introduce them to Turkish president?” Turkey was a strong backer of the Tripoli regime. It’s highly unlikely that political figures in the Tobruk government would have been looking for an introduction to their worst enemy. The Muslim Brotherhood however was backed by Turkey.

The Biden email however provides an even bigger clue when it notes that Hunter “said he has access to highest level in PRC, he can help there.”

The Muslim Brotherhood had gotten Obama and Hillary Clinton to intervene in Libya. That illegal invasion enabled them to take power, but as part of the crisis, sanctions had been imposed by the United Nations. And Obama and Hillary were not able to unilaterally lift those sanctions.

The sanctions had been imposed by the UN Security Council. And could only be lifted by it.

The People’s Republic of China had been a major player in Libya. When the civil war arrived, it sided with Gaddafi and once he was overthrown, Chinese oil companies were frozen out. Getting China to support lifting some sanctions would require a quid pro quo arrangement that would let the PRC’s oil companies and other businesses back into Libya.

Hunter Biden’s ties to CEFC China Energy and the gift of an eighty thousand dollar diamond have already been widely reported. A CEFC executive would later be accused of plotting to provide weapons to Qatar and Libya. Qatar was a major backer of the Brotherhood.

Even without Hunter’s diplomatic talents, China and the Islamist government came to terms.

But the China factor explains why the Libyans considered Hunter Biden as an intermediary at all. The Biden family was a perfect halfway point between the Muslim Brotherhood and the People’s Republic. Both the Islamists and the Communists had invested in the Biden clan.

What was really at stake here was a quid pro quo oil deal in exchange for the LIA lockbox of billions that had to be negotiated through the White House and UN Security Council members. It was a thorny problem which the Libyans still don’t seem to have cracked, and it’s unlikely that Hunter Biden could have managed to appease all the different interests if he had gotten the job.

The Zuberi messages mention that, “the negotiation is towards 3.5 to 4% or it will not fly… they said that they have 190 billion outside and they will not give 5%.” It’s not clear whether Hunter would have seen any part of that 5%, or whether the WhatsApp messages refer to any deal involving him at the time, but either way there was a whole lot of money at stake.

The Libyan civil war was not just ideological, but economic. The Arab Spring had become a vehicle for not only Islamist theological ambitions, but the economic agendas of its backers.

“Hey read the book Clinton Cash,” Zuberi told an associate. “This is how America work. How Washington work.”

It’s certainly how the Bidens work. In an already fetid swamp, the Bidens added a new layer of treasonous greed. Only the Bidens could have been up for potentially being hired by the Muslim Brotherhood to cut a deal with Communist China.

As long as the money from America’s enemies was right.

COLUMN BY

DANIEL GREENFIELD

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jewish Dems Stand By Kamala’s Affirmation of Antisemitism

700 Afghan Evacuees Just ‘Walked Off’ U.S. Bases

Biden’s ‘Evacuation’ Was a Taliban Human Trafficking Scheme

Pakistan: Prominent Sikh doctor shot dead; ISIS-K claims responsibility

Pakistan: Lahore school principal becomes latest victim of blasphemy laws, given death sentence

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

Texas Moves To Ban Social Media Banning

/in , , , , /by

On September 9, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 20, a law designed to keep social media companies with more than 50 million subscribers from blocking users whose viewpoints the company disapproves of. Scheduled to take effect in December, the law has already attracted controversy and threats of lawsuits to keep it from going into effect.

Currently, if a user is de-platformed from a large site such as Facebook, there are not a lot of alternatives. The overarching law in the US pertaining to such situations is Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which prevails if there is a conflict between it and a state law. However, there is wiggle room that Section 230 leaves, at least according to State Representative Briscoe Cain, who authored the Texas statute. Cain regards social media in the same light as telephone companies—that is, “common carriers” — whose business it is to take on any and all comers and not discriminate among them based on content.

Such discrimination happens all the time, as one unconfirmed incident I heard of recently attests. A man at the church I attend volunteers at a local pregnancy resource centre, which will be holding an online fundraising event in a few weeks. He told me that the centre has found that some of their emails sent to supporters have mysteriously disappeared, implying that the internet service providers’ spam filters had been adjusted to block emails from the centre.

Another example taken at random from a web search concerns Ryan Moore, a self-described writer and advertising broker, who tried to advertise a video he made in the spring of 2019 in which he was wearing a red “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) hat. While I have not viewed the video (I checked the link and it is now “unavailable”) his description of it sounds mild enough—criticism of the Christchurch, New Zealand terrorist bombing, good wishes for a nice St Patrick’s Day, and so on. Not only did Google refuse his ad to promote his video, but it also permanently banned him from ever having a Google ad account again, and confirmed this decision when Moore inquired, saying “Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated.”

I could multiply such instances that range everywhere from a single post being blocked to the wholesale destruction of an entire business when the Parler app and website were de-platformed by Google and Apple in 2019.

Not everyone who gets de-platformed is defensible, and even Rep. Cain probably does not want to allow hard-core child pornography to go unrestricted on the internet (although it probably does if you look hard enough). But HB 20 is an attempt to redress the huge power imbalance that happens when an individual or small organization has its access to social media blocked by a giant well-funded firm that exercises essentially monopoly powers.

Either the Texas attorney general or the wronged entity could sue under the new bill, and this may be a point of vulnerability, in that opponents of the bill claim it may interfere with the ability of social media companies to regulate their own content. Of course it will.

NetChoice, a trade association which counts Google, PayPal, and Facebook among its members, issued a statement condemning the passage of HB 20 and saying that it will probably be blocked by a federal court once it goes into effect. NetChoice’s position is that social media firms, as private entities, are entitled to carry only content that they choose, and by using their facilities, users put themselves at the mercy of the firm’s discretion.

This reminds me of a scene out of the 1940 Disney animated film “Fantasia,” which set to music cartoon characters both familiar and otherwise. In time with the famous ballet music “Dance of the Hours,” viewers are greeted by a company of baby hippopotamuses, each with a frilly pink lace tutu encircling her waist.

The analogy is clear—we have a troop of baby-hippo Big Tech giants stomping over the public stage, asking us to believe that their private-firm tutus, which might have been appropriate in the very early days when legacy media such as TV and newspapers overshadowed them, mean that whatever they decide about their content is their own business because it affects so few people.

The tutus no longer fit, if they ever did. Big Tech now operates a lot of 900-pound gorillas, to mix the animal metaphor, who do exactly as they please with regard to content that currently will not gain attention any other way than being filtered through the social-media monopoly. The Texas legislation is one state’s attempt to make dealing with social media a little less unfair.

I note a disturbing trend of which this controversy is only one example. A nation, to be a nation, must share a common pool of underlying principles or philosophies, in order to endure. By their behaviour in China, for example, Big Tech firms such as Apple, Google, and Facebook make it clear that nations mean little or nothing to them when it comes to the bottom line. Of course they need to stay within the law, but “the law” is a slippery and many-faceted thing, especially when you have deep enough pockets to hire enough lawyers to keep even states busy for years just trying to keep from being overwhelmed with lawsuits.

In past controversies involving freedom of speech in this country, opposing sides could at least agree on the statement, “Well, at least we’re all Americans.” But I have a hard time picturing the leaders of Big Tech freely admitting such a thing even in public, let alone in private. Great wealth confers great power, and as Lord Acton said, power corrupts. It is not yet time to despair that the systems of government that the founders deeded to us can overcome the exercise of raw power with the rule of law, which is all we have to guard ourselves against despotism.

But the upcoming battle over the implementation of HB 20 will be yet another skirmish in the war that is currently being fought over the right of free speech, which Big Tech increasingly wants to define for itself.

COLUMN BY

Karl D. Stephan

Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan.

RELATED TWEET:

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

What Sec. Def. Austin & His Generals Did Not Cover regarding Afghanistan Hearing

/in , , , /by

The  following is a good assessment of the failures of Obama’s clone SOD Austin and his incompetent, WOKE Generals’, Milley, the Chair Joint Chiefs and Central Command Commander Gen. McKenzie (whom the author doesn’t mention) regarding their planning process for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  It is obvious to me the flawed assumptions they made were influenced by the Obama 3 Admin and their surrogates the CIA and the entire intelligence community which totally failed in their threat assessments or; and this is entirely possible. purposely lied.

Why would they do so?  Could it have to do with creating a huge distraction away from the election fraud/stolen election investigations going on back home? (HT Gil Robinson)

WHAT SECRETARY AUSTIN AND GENERAL MILLEY DID NOT COVER
By Marvin L. Covault, Lt. Gen. US Army, retired,

September 28, 2021

On 28 September, Sec. Def. Austin and JCS Chairman Gen. Milley appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The subject was the retrograde from Afghanistan.

To be clear, I did not watch the entire proceeding; but I did hear them explain “The Plan.”  I paraphrase, The Plan, locked-in last spring, was to:

1) scale down combat operations,
2) recover excess military equipment and
3) withdraw U.S. military forces, in that order.

When asked about the part of The Plan that covered evacuation of U.S. noncombatants, they admitted it was not part of their plan.  The Plan, they said, was properly executed as written.

Here is where I begin to criticize The Plan:

When putting together a plan of this complexity planners never have a completely factual base of information with which to work. In the absence of facts, they are compelled to make some assumptions to have a complete picture of the proposed operation.  Assumptions are dangerous critters, and every military planner above the grade of 2nd Lieutenant knows that.

Time sequencing the planning process conducted by the Central Command (the Combatant Command encompassing the Middle East area of operations) should have looked about like this:

First is the list of facts (e.g., how much stuff to haul out of country, how many military personnel are there, what is the timeline, how many cargo aircraft required, how many air tankers will it take, where will everything and everyone go, you get the picture). Easy stuff.

While the first step is underway, in the back of every planner’s mind are the assumptions.  At this point they may not necessarily even be written down. But when the first draft of The Plan gets briefed up the chain of command, the assumptions will begin to get aired.  It goes like this: The Colonel taking the briefing says to the briefer, “As we begin to withdraw U.S. forces the Taliban will undoubtedly want to fill that void.  Will the Afghan National Army (ANA) be able to hold their ground?”  That is an example of a series of question that would be raised and must get answered before the briefing can go any further up the chain of command.

The planning staff goes back to the drawing board and now begins to put together, in writing, a set of assumptions that fill in the big picture in the absence of facts.

During that process, these three huge assumptions would undoubtedly have surfaced:

1) It is assumed that the ANA will be capable of holding the ground currently in their possession.
2) It is assumed that the current fully functioning Afghan Government will continue to exist following the withdrawal, and
3) the U.S. Embassy will remain in place for the foreseeable future, and, by extension, U.S. citizens spread about the country will continue with their work.

Continuing with the briefing process: The briefer, now addressing a more senior officer, will begin by saying, “In the absence of facts to the contrary, this plan is based on the following assumptions….”  There will be a lot of them, but let’s just focus on the big three: the ANA, Afghan Government, and the U.S. Embassy.

From the testimony today by Austin and Milley, it is now obvious that they believed the answer to the big-three assumptions was yes, the ANA will fight, yes, the Afghan government will continue to function and yes, the U.S. Embassy is there for the long-haul.

In retrospect that was an enormous mistake and failure of current intelligence or misread of current intelligence or simply not listening to experts on the ground. For example, on July 23 U.S. Embassy officials sent cables to Washington telling the Biden administration that the Taliban would likely re-take control if the U.S. military departed.  It now appears that the powers-that-be just rolled ahead with The Plan hoping it would all be OK.  But, as the saying goes, hope is not a process.

At this point in the months-long planning process, those three critical assumptions should have been discussed, investigated, and would have fallen into the category of Center-of-Gravity issues.  Definition:  A Center-of-Gravity can be a person, place, thing, or circumstance that, in and of itself, is central to success of the plan.  Or stated another way, can cause partial or complete failure of a plan.

Once planners understand the critical nature of an assumption, they should then move on to the next step in the planning process, development of contingency plans.  A contingency is simply the answer to the question, what if. What if the ANA folds under fire?  What if the Afghan President exits stage-left in the middle of the night and the government ceases to function? What if the total U.S. Embassy must be evacuated under duress?

At that point, the briefing is a complete product.  The key to success is that the contingency planning becomes an integral part of The Plan. When that happens, the contingency plans get resourced before the fact so that The Plan is prepared to deal with all known and imagined issues that unfold during the heat of battle.  For example, the contingency plan for evacuation of all U.S noncombatants would have included a tasker to the State Dept to determine and report, before the fact, the exact number to be evacuated, their exact locations and their ability or inability to get to Bagram Air Base in an emergency.

If these contingency plans had been in place during the withdrawal fiasco last month, the Center of Gravity for each contingency would have been for the U.S. to retain complete control of Bagram Air Base right up to the last flight out of country.

At this point, many of you may be thinking, OK Covault, this is all Monday-morning-quarterbacking, anyone could have come up with this critique a month after the withdrawal.   I disagree because what I have described above is what U.S. Army (I will speak only for my Service) officers are taught to do.  They spend an entire year at the Command and General Staff College as majors studying, learning, and doing this type of planning with every factor I have laid out above. More senior officers spend another year at the Army War College thinking through this exact type of planning problem involving Joint U.S. forces, other government agencies (CIA, State Dept, etc.), the United Nations and combined operations with other nations’ armed forces.  I didn’t just dream up the above planning scenario, this is what we do and how we are taught to think.

A word about the National Security Council.  Deputies and staff work full time in the NSC, but during critical issues the NSC “principals” meet (i.e., the President, VP, Department heads, CIA, Chairman JCS, etc.). If The Plan as I have outlined it above was presented to the NSC Principals by Sec Def Austin and Chairman JCS Milley and then disregarded by President Biden, my conclusion is that they did about all they could do.

But, in my opinion, if The Plan they briefed did not lay out the assumptions and contingencies, they failed the President and the country.  And when military leaders at that level fail, people needlessly die. And die they did.

The future ramifications of the Afghan withdrawal fiasco are yet to come to fruition, but it appears certain that Afghanistan could again become a focal point for intensified global terrorism with the United States as a specific target.

Additionally, it is becoming clearer every day that our allies have lost confidence in the U.S. and our enemies have lost respect for our capabilities. Summed up, that equals increased vulnerability and that means a less secure America.

©All rights reserved.

Please Consider Helping Former Marine Battalion Commander Stuart Scheller

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The same Pentagon high command that botched the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan—leaving 13 U.S. troops dead—is now attempting to crush and humiliate Marine Battalion Commander LTC Stuart Scheller, who knowingly broke the chain of command by posting a video demanding accountability of higher-ups for those needless deaths at the airport in Kabul.

In his video message, Scheller said, “People [service members] are upset because their senior leaders let them down, and none of them are raising their hands and accepting accountability or saying, ‘We messed this up.’” He went on to ask if Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin or Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley threw their rank on the table and said, “Hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic air base, before we evacuate everyone? Did anyone do that [throw their rank on the table]? And when you didn’t think to do that, did anyone raise their hand and say, ‘We completely messed this up.’”

For violating a gag order, Scheller was relieved of duty, arrested, handcuffed, stripped searched, forced to undergo a psychological exam (that’s what Stalin did to dissenters), and is now being held in pre-trial solitary confinement in a military prison, as if the married father of three is a flight risk. Two days ago, the Biden Pentagon sought to intimidate Scheller by presenting him with 640-pages of legal documents, all of which will have to be reviewed by his lawyer.

After limiting him to a 2-minute phone call to his parents when he was taken into custody, the Pentagon has refused to allow him any further contact with his parents, or with his wife and three young children. Now facing court-martial, the 17-year Marine officer stands to be dishonorably discharged and stripped of his retirement benefits, future VA benefits, and health insurance for his family.

Scheller knew breaking the chain of command would bring consequences, but I argue that what he did is infinitely less harmful to the military, and thus to America, than what the overfed Secretary of Defense and overfed Joint Chiefs Chairman have been doing: (1) politicizing the military for the first time in U.S. history by purging the ranks of “extremists,” i.e. straight white Christian supporters of President Trump; and (2) indoctrinating every branch of the military with critical race theory, a victim vs. oppressor (Marxist) political construct being used to brainwash service members to see America as an evil and systemically racist place where things can be made right only by upending its constitutional democracy in favor of single-party socialist rule. Scheller went outside the chain of command; what Austin and Milley have done is tantamount to treason.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP LT. COL. SCHELLER

1. The way Scheller is being treated is inexcusable. Please call your U.S. House representative and your U.S. senators to demand that he be released until his trial date. Capitol Hill switchboard: 202-225-3121. Find the name of your member of the U.S House of Representatives by clicking here. Find the name of your U.S. Senators by clicking on the map found on this webpage.

2. Please Donate NOW to help Scheller pay the substantial costs of his legal defense.

3. Please forward this article to everyone on your list.

4. Please watch Tucker Carlson’s interview with Scheller’s parents:

©John Eidson. All rights reserved.

TYRANNY: Biden To Create a Vaccine Mandate For Interstate Travel Within United States

/in , , , , , , , /by

To stop freedom of movement between free states (red) and slave states (blue).

Get Ready For Vaccine Mandates If You Want To Drive Across State Lines

By: Net Breaking, October 2, 2021:

The Biden administration is constantly re-inventing ways to force the unvaccinated to take the Covid jab.

First, it was free burgers, donuts, and money.

Then, just three weeks ago, Biden forced vaccine mandates on businesses with over 100 employees.

Now, instead of respecting Americans’ freedom of choice, Biden plans to create a vaccine mandate for interstate travel within the United States.

What happened to Biden’s promise to never require federal vaccine mandates?

I guess it was just another empty promise from the failing Biden administration.

RELATED VIDEO: Jen Psaki Admits Big Vaccine Push Is An Effort to Bring Biden’s Poll Numbers Up.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

National School Boards Association Asks President Biden to Label Its Critics ‘Domestic Terrorists’

/in , , , , , /by

Note that “a person yelling ‘a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements’ is not a Nazi, as the NSBA is trying to imply. He is calling the school board Nazis. Meanwhile, the fascist clowns of the NSBA would almost certainly object most strenuously to any honest exposition of the motivating ideology behind an actual form of terrorism, that is, Islamic jihad terrorism.

School boards group asks Biden to consider labeling opponents ‘domestic terrorists

by Dave Huber, College Fix, September 30, 2021 (thanks to Henry):

The National School Boards Association has asked President Biden to look into slapping a “domestic terrorist” label on “angry” parents and community members who speak their minds at board meetings.

“America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat,” the group says in its letter to the president. “[As] acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

The NSBA wants the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, and the Conspiracy Against Rights statute all invoked to help prevent alleged threats, Education Week reports.

The Departments of Education, Homeland Security, and Justice are requested to participate in a review, along with the FBI.

On Sept. 22, the NSBA, along with AASA, the School Superintendents Association, issued a joint statement condemning “online and in-person threats, abuse and harassment.” AASA President Daniel Domenech said that while his group respected the right of free speech, “We cannot—and will not—tolerate aggression, intimidation, threats and violence toward superintendents, board members and educators.”

But some of the instances cited by the NSBA in its letter appear to be free speech, to say nothing of “terrorism.” For example, the group cites a person yelling “a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements,” while another’s actions “prompted [a] board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hungarian PM Viktor Orban: Mass migration part of ‘global plan’ to create a ‘new proletariat’

UK: London’s Muslim mayor says he needs 24/7 protection because of ‘racists and Islamophobes’

UK: Illegal boat migrants who obtain legitimate visas and remain in UK estimated at 64,000 a year

Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s Three No’s To Joe Biden

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

COVID-19 Is the New Global Warming Hoax

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

Democrats have destroyed:

  • Science with climate crap and covid
  • Medicine with Obamacare and covid
  • Elections with election fraud
  • Academia with communism, CRT, Jew hatred
  • Government with corruption

What’s left?

COVID-19 Is the New Global Warming

By Steve Feinstein, September 30, 2021: American Thinker

The Disposable Children of the Pandemic

Despite their supposed apolitical nature, some issues develop along hyper-partisan fault lines and become a litmus test in identifying where someone rests along the ideological spectrum. One might never think topics like patriotism or merit-based admissions or respect for law enforcement or the recognition of human XX vs. XY chromosomes would be cause for political friction and strife, but in today’s America, they are.

Take anthropogenic global warming as a prominent example. This has been a central calling card for the Progressive cause. They claim it’s entirely the fault of conservatives — that heartless Republican businesspeople, in their relentless pursuit of immoral profits, willfully and callously disregard the environment and run their businesses in a deliberately “dirty” manner in order to maximize their earnings and keep their expenses, like best environmental practices and the purchase of costly pollution-reduction devices, to a minimum.

When the warming that was promised in the late ’80s and early ’90s failed to materialize by the early 2000s, Progressives changed the terms of the discussion from “global warming” to “climate change.” That way, they could blame any weather-related anomaly or damaging event on what they saw as conservatives’ willful disregard for the environment.

The intent here is not to re-fight the entire matter of global warming. It’s simply to point out that one’s position on the question defines in explicit terms the political ZIP code of the neighborhood in which that person resides.

Now there’s another — perhaps even better — ZIP code–revealer: COVID-19. This subject is imbued with so many points of contention that it’s hard to know where to start.

Everything about COVID is controversial. A person’s position on every one of these points marks his political leanings:

The name. Is it the China Virus? COVID-19? Coronavirus? We call them “West Nile” and “Ebola” and “Legionnaires Disease” to reflect where and how they originated. But “China Virus” is now all of a sudden racist to the wokeists.

Where/how it began. In a lab, as an experiment gone wrong, or perhaps a failed bio-weapon effort? At a so-called wet market? Progressives scoff at any suggestion of evil Chinese intent.

President Trump’s early stages response. This varies from a hands-off failure, where he totally underestimated and intentionally downplayed the threat, to a sterling effort that involved such fast action (like the hospital ships to L.A. and NYC and the initiation of Operation Warp Speed) that he even received enthusiastic support from both Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom.

Dr. Anthony Fauci. He has transitioned from being seen by most of the public in the early days of the pandemic as sort of a neutral America’s Doctor figure to conservatives now thinking he’s nothing more than a flip-flopping, Progressive-pleasing, anti-Trump opportunist, willing to say anything — no matter how inconsistent or blatantly false — to enhance his own stature.

Mask mandates. This has two distinct sides. On one side are those who believe that wearing masks is essential to protect public health and anyone who opposes that viewpoint is ignorant and a danger to society. The other side is more skeptical of masks, pointing out inconvenient little facts like that the typical mask opening is four times larger than the COVID-19 particle (500 nanometers to 125 nanometers), so wearing a mask is like trying to stop a swarm of mosquitoes with a chain-link fence, as that cliché goes. Mask mandates in the public sphere and for kids in school divide the electorate sharply along ideological lines.

Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The acceptance or rejection of the vaccine mandate and passport is more a reflection of political loyalties and the degree of wokeism an individual exhibits than it is a desire to adhere to rigorous scientific evidence. Firstly, it’s not a vaccine, not in the traditional sense. Real vaccines, like the polio vaccine, prevent the disease. This doesn’t. The-drug makers don’t even claim that it will. Nor will it stop the transmission. All they claim is a meaningful reduction in the chances of getting COVID-19 and a reduction in the severity and duration of symptoms should a person become infected. A recent study showed that U.S. COVID cases in early September 2021 were up 300% compared to September 2020, even though 66% of the adult population is vaccinated in 2021 compared to 0% in September 2020. So much for “prevention.”

They’re treatments, therapeutics, not vaccines. There have more incidents by far of bad side-effects with these so-called vaccines than with other longer-standing vaccines that have been in use for decades. Cheaper, totally safe COVID therapeutics (like ivermectin, Regeneron, and hydroxychloroquine) exist that have proven extremely effective, even if the studies showing that have been suppressed by politically motivated parties and the liberal media and Big Tech.

Again, as with global warming, the intent here is not to re-fight this battle. Obviously, everyone is free to determine if getting the shot is right for himself. Everyone is free to decide whether or not he considers it a “vaccine” or not. There is no intent here to prove that the vaccines are bad or imply that a strong nexus exists among the pharmaceutical parent companies of the COVID vaccines, the advertising dollars they spend on the major news networks, and the political donations they make to various candidates of all stripes. That information is out there, and people can draw their own conclusions.

COVID-19 Is the New Global Warming

One’s position on the COVID-19 issue identifies one’s political loyalties, pure and simple. Question the efficacy of the vaccine or the commonsense need for vaccine passports and mask mandates, and in the eyes of Progressive thought leaders and the liberal media, you are just the typical ignorant conservative, displaying a selfish, callous disregard for the safety of society and an unintellectual refusal to acknowledge what Progressives insist are unimpeachable facts.

Yet astonishingly, it is those oh, so tolerant Progressives who favor the draconian government vaccine and mask mandates, while the supposedly anti–civil rights conservatives come down unequivocally on the side of individual freedom and “my body, my choice.” That’s a contradiction that no Progressive even tries to reconcile.

RELATED ARTICLE: 63% OF [Delta Variant] DEAD WERE FULLY VACCINATED.UK. US Senate Floor expose’.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Nurse refused to get jab, now without a job.

Holocaust Survivor on Covid Vaccine Mandates & Nazi Tactics.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

‘The Parents Are The Educators’: Virginia Rally Urges Voters To “Push Back” Against School’s Liberal Agendas

/in , , , , , /by

Advocacy groups hosted a “Virginia Families First” rally in Loudoun County on Saturday, calling for change and parental rights in the public school system.

Hosted by CatholicVote and Fight For Schools, the rally — held in front of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors building — urged Catholic and Christian Virginians to vote against “liberal politicians” and fix the public school system.

“America is watching Loudoun County. All of America, and [they] have been inspired by parents stepping forward to annoy [Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate] Terry McAuliffe by actually trying to have a say in their child’s education,” former Attorney General Ken Cucinelli said. “The nerve, the nerve of you parents, who of course, we Catholics, and all Christians believe that parents are the educators.”

At the Tuesday gubernatorial debate, McAuliffe argued that parents should not advise schools on the content taught to their children. During his term as governor in 2016, he vetoed the “Beloved” bill that would have allowed parents to be notified of their child’s potential exposure to “sexually explicit books” and to opt their children out of any lessons they deem as inappropriate.

Parents angrily responded to the Fairfax County High School allegedly presenting two books that contained “sexually explicit material” without their knowledge or consent. The school removed the books “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison for allegedly containing descriptions of masturbation and pedophilia.

A local parent, Joe Mobley, said that the school system has gotten rid of advanced curriculums and that the children will be “toast” because they will not be properly educated. He argued it is partially the parents’ fault along with the teachers and the “radical, progressive school boards.”

Patty Hidalgo Menders, a local mother and president of the Loudoun County Republican Women’s Club, argued that parents must “push back” against the public school system, and fight for the “hearts and souls” of the children.

“The Left wants to divide us. We need to protect the very freedoms of our children in the schools,” Hidalgo Menders said at the rally. “We need to push back against dividing our children by the color of their skin, we need to push back against there being victims and oppressors, we need to push back against allowing boys to use girlfriends, removing father-daughter dances, and fundamentally changing the culture of our children’s schools.”

“We must be courageous, courage begets courage. This is a battle for the hearts and souls of our children. And one important way you can fight back is at the ballot box,” Hidalgo Menders said at the rally.

The Loudoun County school system has come under fire for its teachings on race, sex and gender, leading several parents have rallied against the school system mainly for its teachings on Critical Race Theory.

The Loudoun County School Public Schools Minority Student Achievement Advisory Committee said in March that they will “silence” parents and guardians opposed to CRT, which holds that America is fundamentally racist, yet teaches every person to view every social interaction and person in terms of race.

The rally urged the participants to vote in the upcoming Nov. 2 Virginia election, where McAuliffe and his Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin hope to become the next governor.

COLUMN BY

Nicole Silverio

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Anti-Critical Race Theory Organization Launches $500,000 Ad Campaign Criticizing Loudoun County School Board

EDITORS NOTE: This The Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

THE TET OFFENSIVE 1968: Those Who Forgot History Have Repeated It 53 Years Later in Afghanistan

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

I served in the 101st Airborne Division during Tet of 1968.

In late January, 1968, during the lunar new year (or “Tet”) holiday, North Vietnamese and Communist Viet Cong forces launched a coordinated attack against a number of targets in South Vietnam.

The Tet Offensive played an important role in weakening U.S. public support for the war in Vietnam because Walter Cronkite and the legacy media began telling the public that the Vietnam War was lost.

WATCH: 53 years ago Walter Cronkite calls for the U.S. to get out of Vietnam.

The reality on the ground was that Tet 1968 was a total and complete military disaster for the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the Viet Cong (VC). Once the Tet Offensive began it became clear that U.S. and allied forces, using their military advantage in capabilities and their air supremacy, killed or captured tens of thousands of enemy Communist forces.

Those of us who were on the ground during Tet 1968 saw us winning and winning big.

Military.com said this about the Tet Offensive:

As far as traditional military thought goes, the North Vietnamese were soundly beaten. Almost overnight, the tide turned against the communists. American and ARVN forces pushed them out of most major cities and towns. Within two weeks, an estimated 32,000 NVA troops had been killed. No South Vietnamese uprising ever came, and the Americans and South Vietnam suffered only around 1,500 and 2,700 casualties, respectively.

I was at that time a Field Artillery Forward Observer (FO) with A Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne) 501st Infantry Regiment. When Tet began I and my band of brothers were near the city of Hue in Vietnam. My battalion was tasked with retaking the Western wall of the city of Hue.

Beginning on January  30th, 1968, Hue became the site of one of the longest, bloodiest battles the Americans would fight against the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, and its Viet Cong guerrillas living in South Vietnam.

My infantry company was part of that bloody battle to drive the NVA and VC out of Hue and eventually out of South Vietnam. We accomplished both missions with minimum casualties on our side but massive casualties on their side.

Cronkite was wrong. His assessment was fake news

53 Years Later Afghanistan Looks Like Vietnam

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his biography wrote that in 1975 President Gerald Ford had tried to convince a number of senators to help Vietnamese refugees fleeing persecution and claimed Biden, along with other Democrats, “dissented.”

Fast forward to Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

As I watched the disaster in Afghanistan I had a feeling of déjà vu. Biden abandoned the South Vietnamese and now has abandoned American citizens in Afghanistan.

Conclusion

Of course we left South Vietnam in March of 1973. We, the military, did our job. We won the war on the battlefield but lost the war in the streets of Washington, D.C. Because of the anti-war protests Congress in June of 1973 mandated the ended of all aid to South Vietnam.

Just two years later, in March of 1975 Communist units launched a massive invasion of South Vietnam against a weakened South Vietnamese army that literally ran out of ammunition because Congress defunded them.

Finally, in April of 1975 Saigon fell.

To this day I lament that fact that we abandoned those brave South Vietnamese we fought shoulder to shoulder with against the Communists and how the United States Congress totally abandoned the brave people of South Vietnam.

Just like we have now totally abandoned those who fought with us in Afghanistan.

I believe that the United States should always enter a war with one purpose in mind – win at all costs. We must demand the unconditional surrender of our enemies, just as we did in World War II.

Airborne, all the way.

©Lieutenant Colonel Richard M. Swier, U.S. Army (Retired)

STAY INFORMED

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

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.