Jewish Assertiveness

Judaism has to be authentic, with values my father held dear, innately and organically Jewish, not progressive attempts to ‘pass’.


There’s a crisis in American Jewish leadership and it involves the misuse of communal authority to sanction dogmatic politics.

As reported in the Jewish media in December, a scheduled speaking engagement by Professor Alan Dershowitz was cancelled at New York’s Temple Emanu-El, a prominent American Reform congregation. The temple rescinded an invitation to the staunchly pro-Israel Dershowitz but welcomed Peter Beinart, whose hostile views on Israel are perhaps more consistent with the progressive intellectual elite.

Capricious rationalizations aside, progressive anti-Israel antipathy is not justified by revisionist Palestinian Arab history or as a response to Israeli social policies, which often tend to comport with liberal sensibilities. Nor is it emblematic of traditional Jewish introspection. The rejection of Jewish nationhood and tradition arises from political bias and the discarding of values that historically shaped Jewish moral and social conduct.

It is also fueled by the urge “to pass” that has afflicted culturally ambivalent Jews since Napoleon tore down the ghetto walls.

Though once thought of as the desire to blend in quietly, trying “to pass” today often demands the public embrace of political ideologies that defy Jewish tradition. There is nothing quiet about such conduct. Too often, the liberal establishment disparages traditional Judaism as ethnocentric and trivializes Jewish history by reducing it to partisan allegory, while failing to demand adherence to traditional beliefs as a guide for daily living.

That this state of affairs would become the norm would have disturbed my father, who was a child of the early-twentieth-century immigrant experience. Both his parents were born in Europe and came to the US to escape persecution; and while traditional observance may have dissipated among many of his generational peers, certain beliefs were immutably ingrained. Most of his secular age contemporaries would have been hard-pressed to explain why they could not bring themselves to eat cheeseburgers, for example, but such prohibitions remained cultural touchstones.

I took for granted the singular focus of my father’s worldview because of his clarity of vision. He would ask what we learned in cheder every week, he’d be absent from the dinner table when attending synagogue meetings or communal events, and he’d regale us with stories about itinerant fundraisers who regularly visited his office (and never left empty-handed). Learning by observing how he lived life was easy, but I only realized the depth of his convictions by the way he died.

My father became ill when he was fifty-six years old and passed away less than a year later, but he continued to operate his law office until a month before succumbing to his illness. He had an active practice and needed help to keep things running as his energy and stamina diminished. I had recently graduated college and had no job, so I became his assistant, driving him around, learning how to search land titles, and performing general office tasks. We spent a lot of time together, and during this period I witnessed his soul shine brightly.

He was in and out of the hospital for months during that year; and as the frequency and duration of his hospitalizations increased, he realized his time was growing short. I was with him when the doctor said there was nothing more that could be done. My father, however, did not outwardly bemoan his fate. Rather, he shook his doctor’s hand and thanked him for doing the best he could. I’d never before seen a doctor reduced to tears.

Similarly, my father didn’t ask “why me,” or curse his situation. Instead, he told me there is a reason for everything, though we might not always understand; and by these words he demonstrated his faith in Hashgacha Pratis – that the world functions under G-d’s constant supervision. Absorbing such principles from rabbis and teachers was one thing, but seeing my father embrace them under desperate circumstances was something else entirely.

What happened next made a greater impact still. After the doctor gave him the devastating news, my father called me and my three brothers to his bedside and blessed us the same the way that Yaacov (Jacob) blessed his sons from his deathbed near the end of Sefer Bereishit (Genesis). I don’t think he was consciously following the Torah’s narrative as a script, but its model for conduct was so ingrained in him that he could not have done otherwise. Or maybe it was because he shared his name, Yisrael, with this particular patriarch. Whatever the reason, it evidenced his place in the unbroken chain of transmission going back to the forefathers.

After his final diagnosis, my father asked me to come to his hospital room with a dictating machine and notepad because he still felt responsibility to his clients and wanted to assure their needs would be served appropriately. We worked until late at night when he finally said, “that’s enough.” So, I asked, “do you want to go to sleep?” And he said, “no, I’ll soon be asleep for a long time, and I’m going to miss you guys when I am. Let’s just talk.” And so we did through the night – discussing things important and mundane, confidential and exoteric – until we both nodded off.

The things he told us during those days conveyed his unwavering Jewish perspective – his belief in G-d’s hashgacha, the immortality of the soul, and the relevance of Torah values for daily living. The words he spoke demonstrated how deeply these beliefs were embedded in him, but they were not surprising given his upbringing.

He and his brothers were raised by old-world parents who did not want their children to be constrained by old-world limitations. Unlike contemporaries who tried to pass in America, they never attempted to redefine Jewishness or diminish its historical uniqueness. Thus, my father’s outlook was shaped by heritage, custom, and tradition rather than the urge to blend into the woodwork.

Unfortunately, not all Jews felt this way; and the desire to emulate common culture influenced the development of the nontraditional and secular communal establishments. As early as 1837, the first Reform rabbinical conference in Wiesbaden, Germany rejected the primacy of Halakha (Jewish law), ritual observance, and belief in messianic redemption. In renouncing normative tradition, the early Reformers proclaimed Berlin as their Jerusalem and the synagogue as their Temple; and their attempt to redefine Judaism as a deracinated religious persuasion purged of its ethnic and national roots was a significant step towards assimilation.

The Reform movement in the US followed suit before the end of that century. At its 1869 Philadelphia Conference, the American reformers likewise rejected ritual law and messianic belief, stating: “The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David…” They went further at their 1885 Pittsburgh conference, where they dispensed with Jewish national identity altogether and issued the “Pittsburgh Platform,” which attempted to redefine Jewishness thus: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to [the homeland], nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state.”

Though the Reform movement reembraced Jewish nationhood in its 1937 Columbus Platform, perhaps as a reaction to what was happening in Nazi Germany, the secular and non-Orthodox establishments continued to conflate Jewish identity with political ideals that often contradicted traditional Jewish law and historical claims.

The difference between my father’s values and those of the ritually liberal movements is that his were authentic links in a chain of tradition not shaped by the desire to accommodate outside sensibilities. In contrast, the ideals embraced by the non-Orthodox and secular movements were often responses to external stimuli, e.g., European enlightenment, sudden freedom from the ghetto, or a yearning for acceptance by the non-Jewish world. The early reformers wanted to create something that seemed less alien and more acceptable to gentile society by redefining Judaism according to ideologies that were not inherently Jewish. They thus sought to sacralize the temporal.

The values my father held dear, however, were innately and organically Jewish – they were not sophistic constructs resulting from strained rationalization, intellectual artifice, or existential angst in a post-enlightenment world.

Before he died, my father told me to always act like a Jew and never try to pass. He needn’t have verbalized these admonitions because they were clear from the way he lived life and approached death. Nevertheless, parents need to exhort, and children need to listen – particularly when the message seeks to preserve continuity of belief, heritage, and culture. When the message draws on extraneous value systems or partisan hackery, however, it will preserve nothing.

Communal leaders, take note.

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

Where in the hell are Black Lives Mater, the NAACP and the Democratic Party? A Cultural Clue from Elvis Presley!

According to HeyJackass.com, 794 people were shot and killed in Chicago in 2021. 794! In one U.S. city! The overwhelming percentage of those murdered in Chicago are young black males killed by other young black males. The same kind of black-on-black murder merry-go-round is common to every Democrat-run city in America: Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, New York, Newark, Miami, Dallas, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, ad nauseam.

Here’s a question that begs an answer: Where in the hell are Black Lives Mater, the NAACP, and the Democratic Party?

Black Lives Mater, the NAACP, and the Democratic Party all of which howl for weeks on end over the extremely rare instances when an innocent black life is taken by the police, but utter barely a peep as thousands of innocent black lives are needlessly snuffed out each year in America’s big blue cities. As documented in the article below, the political party that sanctimoniously professes infinite compassion for black people is unilaterally responsible for the senseless slaughter in urban America, all occurring on the negligent watch of progressive politicians who knowingly abdicate their foremost duty: ensuring public safety.

An Unexpected Cultural Clue About America Today, from …. Elvis

Elvis Presley’s 1969 hit, “In the Ghetto” provides a prescient glimpse of what would later happen to generations of young black men who lived out their short lives on the mean streets of America’s urban ghettos.

As his first big hit in more than eight years, “In the Ghetto” played a key role in resurrecting his singing career, which floundered in the 1960s when he transitioned away from live performances to pursue an acting career in Hollywood.

Written by singer/songwriter Mac Davis, the song was originally titled “The Vicious Cycle,” an apt description of the endless trail of tragedies that would befall millions of young men fated to be born in the ghettos of America’s biggest cities.  Before reading the lyrics and commentary below, please click here to see Elvis perform one of his most touching songs.

In the Ghetto

As the snow flies
On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

And his mama cries
‘Cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need
It’s another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

In attempting to level the playing field for black Americans after nearly two centuries of economic oppression resulting from slavery and segregation, a noble war was launched in 1964: the War on Poverty.  Over the next five decades, trillions of dollars were pumped into America’s largest cities, most of which have been under the continuous control of Democrats ever since.

By nearly every measure, Democrat administration of anti-poverty funding has been catastrophic for urban Americans, with the disintegration of the black family as Exhibit A. The year after the war on poverty was enacted, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among black Americans was 25%.  A half-century later, that rate had skyrocketed to 77%, clear evidence that the war on poverty backfired in an unimaginably tragic way that would leave untold numbers of young black males saddled with functional illiteracy and arrested psychological development.

According to Bob Woodson, a former executive of the National Urban League, 70% of the $22 trillion in anti-poverty funding never reached the desperately poor people it was intended to help. Instead, the lion’s share was siphoned off by Democrat governors, mayors, country managers and school boards to further entrench their political power.  Once in office, they created bloated, wasteful and ever-expanding bureaucracies that devoured massive sums of anti-poverty funding in ways that did virtually nothing to improve the plight of chronically impoverished people in the inner city.

Dating to the time the war on poverty began, urban Americans have lived in squalor, with each election bringing a new round of empty promises from the party of government dependency.  When chronically disadvantaged urban voters grumble, they’re told to be patient, that better days are just around the corner, the same line they’ve been fed for nearly 60 years.

While the black underclass faces a daily struggle just to get by, the Democrats they helped elect live in new homes, drive new cars, dine at fine restaurants and vacation at luxury resorts.  Chicago has not had a Republican mayor since years before the war on poverty was enacted

People, don’t you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me
Are we too blind to see?
Do we simply turn our heads, and look the other way?

America did not turn its head and look the other way.  As millions of out-of-wedlock babies were born in ghetto neighborhoods marked by urban blight, rampant crime, sorry schools, generational poverty and chronic despair, America continued stratospheric spending on new and existing social welfare programs, nearly all of which were administered by blue state and blue city Democrats, with disastrous consequences, especially for young black males.

Having been robbed of a realistic chance for a decent education by the inexcusably substandard schools in America’s inner cities, generations of young black men unable to read or write defaulted to a life of crime, with many destined to end up dead or in prison, the fate that often awaits young men of all races who, for whatever reason, fail to get even a minimally acceptable education.  While urban kids who want to learn have no choice but to attend the sorry and unsafe public schools in the inner city, many of America’s most prominent Democrats send their own children to top-performing private academies.

Well, the world turns

And a hungry little boy with a runny nose

Plays in the street as the cold wind blows

In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

And his hunger burns

So he starts to roam the streets at night

And he learns how to steal and he learns how to fight

In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

Then one night in desperation

The young man breaks away

He buys a gun

He steals a car

He tries to run

But he don’t get far

And his mama cries

As a crowd gathers ‘round an angry young man

Face down on the street with a gun in his hand

In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

And as her young man dies

On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’

Another little baby is born

In the ghetto (in the ghetto)

And his mama cries

The majority of homicide victims in Chicago are young black men.  During a recent appearance on The Story with Martha McCallum, former Chicago police chief, Garry McCarthy, said 85 percent of homicide victims in the city are black, and that over Father’s Day weekend, Chicago had 104 shootings and 14 murders, one of which was a 3-year-old African American boy.

For the three-year period 2016-2018, Chicago had 1,893 homicides, followed by 530 more in 2019.  As reported by the Chicago Sun Times, the city has already chalked up 291 murders through the third week of June. That brings the total number of Chicago homicide victims over the last 4.5 years to 2,678, the overwhelming percentage of whom were young black men killed by other young black men.

Every election year, Democrats tell black voters that police killings of unarmed black men have reached epidemic proportions.  Epidemic?  According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Washington Post, in 2019 the U.S. recorded just nine police killings of unarmed black men.  That’s nine fatalities out of a U.S. population of 21 million black males.  Assuming a third of that total are children, there would be roughly 14 million black men in America.  Fourteen million divided by nine equals one fatal shooting by police per every 1.5 million black men in our society, a rate of 0.00006%.

One unarmed black man killed per every1.5 million black men in America is light years away from being anywhere even remotely close to an “epidemic.”  The rare instances of unarmed black men being killed by white police are invariably followed by politically orchestrated outrage spurred on by breathless news coverage.  When one young black man is killed by another, little notice is taken, except by the victim’s crying mama.

America did not turn its head and look away from six decades of carnage in the inner city.  Democrats did.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

How to Save America — The Way Out

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College reception in Overland Park, Kansas, on November 18, 2021.


Here are two questions pertinent to our times: (1) How would you reduce the greatest free republic in history to despotism in a short time? and (2) How would you stop that from happening? The answer to the first question has been provided in these last two disastrous years. The answer to the second has begun to emerge in recent months. Both are worthy of study.

Reducing a Great Republic to Despotism

To establish despotism in a nation like ours, you might begin, if you were smart, by building a bureaucracy of great complexity that commands a large percentage of the resources of the nation. You might give it rule-making powers, distributed across many agencies and centers inside the cabinet departments of government, as well as in 20 or more “independent” agencies—meaning independent of elected officials, and thus independent of the people.

This much has been done. It would require a doctoral thesis to list all the ways that rules are made in our federal government today, which would make for boring reading. The truth is that very few people not directly involved know how all this works. Although civics education is practically banned in America, most people still know what the Congress is and how its members are elected. But how many know how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came to be, under what authority it operates, and who is its head? Here is a clue: it is not Anthony Fauci.

Admittedly, this new kind of bureaucratic government would take—has taken—decades to erect, especially in the face of the resistance of the Constitution of the United States, which its very existence violates. But once it has been erected, things can happen very fast.

What, for example, if a new virus proliferates around the world? There have been procedures for dealing with such viruses for a long time. They begin with isolating the sick and protecting the vulnerable. But suddenly we have new procedures that attempt to isolate everybody. This is commanded by the CDC, an element of this bureaucratic structure, and by a maze of federal and state authorities, all of which see the benefit to themselves in getting involved. The result is that large sections of our economy were closed for months at a time, and citizens placed under the equivalent of house arrest. This has not happened before. The cost of it, and not just in monetary terms, is beyond calculation.

To set up a despotism capable of pulling this off you would need the media’s help. Those controlling the media today are trained in the same universities that invented the bureaucratic state, the same universities the senior bureaucrats attended. The media would need to be willing to suppress, for example, the fact that 50,000 doctors, scientists, and medical researchers signed the Great Barrington Declaration. That document reminds people that you cannot suppress a widely disseminated contagious virus through shutdowns and mass isolation, and that if you try, you will work immeasurable destruction of new kinds—unemployment, bankruptcy, depression, suicide, multiplying public debt, broken supply chains, and increases of other serious health problems. Some of the signatories to this Declaration come from the most distinguished universities in the world, but never mind: their views do not fit the narrative propagated by the powerful. They have been effectively cancelled, ignored by the media and suppressed by Big Tech.

You would need some help from business, too. As far as influence is concerned, “business” is dominated by large institutions—those comprising big business—whose leaders are also educated in the same universities that conceived bureaucratic government and trained the bureaucrats and media heads. This provides a ground of agreement between big business and the bureaucratic state. Anyway, agree or not, businesses are vulnerable to regulation, and to mitigate the risk of regulatory harm they play the game: they send lobbyists to Washington, make political contributions, hire armies of lawyers. If you are big enough to play the game, there are plenty of advantages to be won. If you are not big enough to play the game—well, in that case you are on your own.

Amidst the unprecedented lockdowns, imagine there comes an election, a time for the people to say if they approve of the new way of governing and of this vast, unprecedented intrusion into their lives. Then let us say that in several states the election rules and practices are altered by their executive branches—the people in charge of enforcing the law—on their own, without approval by their legislatures. Say this brazen violation of the separation of powers takes place in the name of the pandemic. One does not need to know what percentage of votes in the final tally were affected to see that this is fishy. No sensible person would place control of the election process in one party—any party—or in one branch—any branch—of the government, alone. In some crucial states, that was done.

Finally, to sustain this new kind of government, you would need to work on education. You might build a system of centralized influence, if not control, over every classroom in the land. You might require certification of the teachers with a bias toward the schools of education that train them in the approved way. These schools, poor but obedient cousins of the elite universities, are always up on the latest methods of “delivery” of instruction (we do not call it teaching anymore). These new methods do not require much actual knowledge, which can be supplied from above.

As far as content, you might set up a system of textbook adoption that guarantees to publishers a massive and captive market but requires them to submit proposed books to committees of “experts,” subject of course to political pressures. You might build a standard approved curriculum on the assumption that everything changes—even history, even principles. You might use this curriculum to lay the ground for holding everything old, everything previously thought high and noble, in contempt.

Doing this, incidentally, deprives the student of the motive to learn anything out of fashion today. It is a preparation not for a life of knowing and thinking, but for a life of compliance and conformity.

This is by no means an exhaustive account of what it would take to build a thoroughgoing tyranny—for further instruction, read Book Five of Aristotle’s Politics or George Orwell’s 1984. But it gives an idea of a mighty system, a system that seems unassailable, a system combining the powers of government and commerce, of education and communication. Money and power in such a system would accrue to the same hands. The people who benefit from the system would be the ruling class. Others would be frustrated. And such a system would tend to get worse, because the exercise of unchecked power does not bring out the best in people.

Any elaborate system of government must have a justification, and the justification of this one cannot simply be that those in the ruling class are entitled on the basis of their superiority. That argument went away with the divine right of kings. No, for the current ruling class, the justification is science. The claim of bureaucratic rule is a claim of expertise—of technical or scientific knowledge about everything. Listen to Fauci on Face the Nation, dismissing his critics in Congress as backward reactionaries. When those critics disagree with him, Fauci said recently, “They’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”

The problem with this kind of thinking was pointed out by a young Winston Churchill in a letter to the writer H.G. Wells in 1901. Churchill wrote:

Nothing would be more fatal than for the government of states to get into the hands of the experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge: and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows only what hurts is a safer guide, than any vigorous direction of a specialised character. Why should you assume that all except doctors, engineers, etc. are drones or worse? . . . If the Ruler is to be an expert in anything he should be an expert in everything; and that is plainly impossible.

Churchill goes on to argue that practical judgment is the capacity necessary to making decisions. And practical judgment, he writes in many places, is something that everyone is capable of to varying degrees. Everyone, then, is equipped to guide his own life in the things that concern mainly himself.

Another thing about the experts is that they are not really engaged in the search for truth. Instead, the powerful among them suppress the obvious fact that there is wide disagreement among the experts. There always is.

God save us from falling completely into the hands of experts. But God has given us the wherewithal to save ourselves from that. So let us move to the second question posed above.

How to Defeat a Rising Despotism

In answering the second question, I will tell two stories that are suggestive.

The first took place in the small town of Jonesville, Michigan, five miles north of Hillsdale College. In our state, as in most places where the lockdowns were enforced, businesses were crippled or destroyed en masse. Restaurants were chief among them. One of our local restaurants is a 30-year-old diner called Spanglers Family Restaurant. Mitch Spangler is the proprietor. The business was founded by his late father, and Mitch was purchasing the business from his mother. The payments to his mother depended upon the revenues of the business, and his mother’s retirement depended upon the payments. The life’s work of two generations was at stake. Mitch was also helping to support a daughter in college.

This is not to mention the more than 20 employees whose livelihoods are dependent on Spanglers. “Our employees are moms who have kids,” Spangler told the local paper. “One of our employees is pregnant; another is a 19-year-old kid. This is his first job, and he just bought a car.” Our leaders in Washington treat it as a small thing when trillions are being thrown about. To the Spanglers and people like them, their relatively small revenue streams are everything.

Mr. Spangler was not prepared to surrender all this. When a second lockdown was ordered by Michigan’s governor a year ago last month, he kept his restaurant open. He put a sign on the door and posted on Facebook to make clear, among other things, that he was acting out of necessity for the sake of his business and the livelihoods of all those dependent on it; that precautions would be taken, including the installation of an electrostatic fogger that would disinfect the air; that he understood the thinking of those who would choose to stay away from his restaurant, but that he hoped they would understand his own thinking. “If you cannot support us, we understand,” he wrote, “but please allow us to have the freedom to do what we have to do.”

The wheels of bureaucracy began to grind. Spanglers was visited repeatedly by the health department, by the licensing authorities, and even by the agriculture department (one wonders what they had to do with it). Spangler was fined and threatened with forcible closure. But he persevered, never backing down, and his busines did well. On a typical weekend, not only locals but supporters from the neighboring states of Indiana and Ohio lined up outside to show their support.

Mitch Spangler is our kind of fellow, and the College gave him some help organizing his legal representation. We did not wish to be in the newspaper about this because we were facing our own pressures, and we too were determined to resist them. But Spangler was no good at keeping a secret: he wore a Hillsdale College t-shirt on FOX News and thanked us for our help. And when he had a little ceremony in his parking lot in the spring to thank his staff and his customers, I was honored to say a few words.

This may not seem on its face a big story, but it is a most important story. It is important because it is a story about the nature of human beings and of citizens and of our rights. The nature of a thing is the essence of a thing. One aspect of the nature of a human being is that he must eat to live. In condemnation of slavery, Abraham Lincoln loved to say that every man was created with a head, hands, and mouth, the implication being that the head should guide the hands in the feeding of the mouth. Because we are made to live this way, we are also determined to live this way. The alternative is dependence, which does not make us happy.

It should not therefore be surprising that, if you try to destroy the business of a man whose family has spent over 30 years building it, he will resist. Trying to strongarm people like Mitch Spangler is not a good idea. There are millions of them, and they have always made up the core of this greatest of free republics.

The second story is more famous, but it too is about nature—indeed, about that word’s most basic meaning. The word nature, as I said, refers to a thing’s essence, but it comes from the Latin word for birth. Our nature begins with how we are born and how we grow. Just as we are attached by nature to the way we get our livings, so we are attached by nature to our parents, and still more to our children. And this second story, set in Loudoun County, Virginia, is about parents and children.

In schools throughout Virginia, including in Loudoun County, children are being subjected to critical race theory (CRT). This involves lecturing children, especially those belonging to the non-preferred races, about the “structural evils” of which they are told they are part. Being taught alongside CRT is a distorted view of the history of our country, which true enough has its warts, but which surely has its glories as well—including glories about equal rights regardless of race. Between fighting the armies of the English monarch, the Confederacy, the Nazis, the communists, and Islamic terrorists, something nearing a million Americans have died for the cause of equal rights. These Americans have come in all colors.

Amidst statewide controversy over the teaching of CRT, the Loudoun County School Board also adopted a broad policy of recognizing “transgender” students in preference to their “biological sex” (excuse the redundancy). Even before this, boys were permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, in one of which there was an assault and rape of a female student by a “gender-fluid boy.” The boy in question was then allowed to attend another school in Loudoun County, where he assaulted another girl. This first girl’s parents were understandably outraged and, at the risk of being called narrow-minded, went so far as to complain to the school board.

Groups of parents who had already been protesting CRT and policies promoting transgenderism joined in the complaint. There was no violence at the school board meetings with one exception: law enforcement was summoned, and the outraged father of the assaulted and raped girl was bloodied and dragged out of one meeting. It is true, however, that voices were raised.

The National School Board Administration called upon the Biden administration to investigate these protesting parents as potential perpetrators of “domestic terrorism or hate crimes.” Remember, these parents were citizens attending a meeting of an elected body to tell their representatives what they think. The rights of petition and assembly are protected in the First Amendment. Except for certain preferred groups, these rights today appear to have been repealed.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland intervened, instructing the FBI to investigate these parents and others around the country. The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has reportedly deployed tools and resources normally reserved for terrorist threats against parents who are angry at school boards for what is occurring in their children’s schools. All this provoked massive support, across Virginia and around the nation, for the parents of Loudoun County.

This support is not surprising. By nature, parents love their children and feel responsibility for them. Citizens, especially one hopes American citizens, feel entitled to state their grievances. The Declaration of Independence itself contains a list of grievances against the King. The Biden administration reacted to these protests just as King George III reacted against the American colonists in the years leading up to the American Revolution: he called in law enforcement. And the people of Virginia reacted in a way reminiscent of the American colonists: they defeated the candidate for governor who took the position that parents should have nothing to do with their children’s education.

What do these two stories—one of them taking place in Hillsdale County, Michigan, a deep red county, and the other in Loudoun County, Virginia, which is deeply blue—have in common? In both stories we see reactions against violations of our rights, rights that we have by nature as human beings.

The story about Mitch Spangler is about our right to work and to store up the product of our labor so that we and our families can eat and thrive. The American Founders put this in terms of our natural right to property. The story about the parents of Loudoun County is about the natural right of mothers and fathers to raise their children. To interfere with these rights is to interfere with the nature of the human being.

These facts about nature were well known during the American Revolution, the very Revolution that is besmirched by the members of our ruling class today, just as it was besmirched by the ruling class at the time of the Revolution. It was the interference with the colonists’ natural rights by that former ruling class that led to the American Revolution. These recent stories from Michigan and Virginia show that we Americans do not seem to like that interference any better today.

In addition to the right to make a living and the right to raise our children, we have the right to participate in our government, even if we are not experts, and the right to look to the heavens and not to our ruling class for guidance. We have these rights because we—every single one of us—were born with them sewn by God into our nature, and we cannot find our earthly fulfillment without them.

If we put these facts together as a people, we will have recovered the understanding that produced the American Revolution. We will stop these current predations upon our rights. We will bring this overwhelming government back where it belongs, under the control of the people.

The signs of such a movement are emerging. Pray they are enough.

COLUMN BY

Larry P. Arnn

Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. From October 2020 to January 2021, he served as co-chair of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. He is the author of several books, including The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.

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

VIDEO: Children being poisoned with hate against Jews in refugee camp classroom

How tragic it is to see this video on the anniversary of the Wannsee (Final Solution) Conference held 80 years ago – decreeing the genocide of the Jewish People!

Palestinian kids taught to hate Israel in UN-funded camps, clip shows

New video footage appears to show Palestinian children in summer camps run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) being taught that “Jews are the wolf,” and that they will one day conquer Israeli cities by force.

The video, uploaded to Youtube in late July and screened in part on Channel 2 news on Tuesday night, was directed by journalist David Bedein, who has written extensively about United Nations activities for the Israel Resource News Agency in Jerusalem. Channel 2 said the UN had promised to look into the indications in the report that UNRWA-funded camps were inciting hostility to Israel among young Palestinians.

Entitled “Camp Jihad,” the report says it shows footage from UNRWA summer programs in the Balata refugee camp north of Nablus and in the Gaza Strip. The focus of the camps, according to campers and staff in the clip, is educating the young Palestinians about the “Nakba”, the Palestinian term for the consequences of the 1948 war in which Israel won its independence.

In one scene, Amina Hinawi, director of the Gaza camp, explains her educational approach: “We teach the children about the villages they came from…,” she says, “this way, every child will be motivated to return to their original village.”

“UNRWA finances this summer camp,” she continues. “I’m very, very, very appreciative of UNRWA.”

Read more.

©Beverly Newman. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden administration to restore $235m in US aid to UNRWA and Palestinians

US pledges $99 million to Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA

Gaslighting Anti-Semitism in America

RELATED VIDEO: Why Do Some Muslims Believe They are at War (Jihad)?

VIDEO: A Year in the Strife of Joe Biden

To Joe Biden, it’s been a year. To the rest of the country, it’s felt like an eternity. The one-year anniversary of this president’s inauguration hasn’t exactly been cause for nationwide celebration, as a good number of his voters will tell you. Twelve months into his catastrophic term, only 28 percent of the country would reelect him (and that was before his disaster of a press conference). So when a reporter asked if the country is more unified than when he took office, Joe Biden is right. They are more unified — against him.

Of course, to hear this president tell it, the last several months have been “enormous progress,” the stuff of political legend. One correspondent begged to differ, asking, “Did you overpromise to the American public what you could achieve?” Biden’s response was typical. “I didn’t overpromise, but I have outperformed what anybody thought would happen… Everything is changing,” the president said. “It’s getting better.” People like Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) wondered what planet Biden was living on. “His record is a record of failure,” Johnson insisted. To the average American, this is true. But to the radical Left, he’s outperformed beyond their wildest dreams.

While the rest of the country scrounges for groceries — and the cash to pay for them — look at what Biden has accomplished for his fringe: record-setting abortion dollars, transgender mandates for public schools, attacks on Christian education, chaos at the border, chaos in Afghanistan, chaos in our election system, taxpayer-funded gender reassignments, CRT and LGBT indoctrination in our classrooms, American parents labeled “domestic terrorists,” transgenderism and wokeness in the military, conservatives and the unvaccinated out of the military, higher crime, fewer police, more division. The list goes on and on. Biden is failing on every single political measure except the one he cares about: the socialist Left’s.

“When you look at the pattern of what he’s done,” FRC Vice President Travis Weber pointed out, “it’s bizarre. It’s not in proportion to reality and what most people are concerned about.” He pointed to the 92 actions Biden has taken to undermine life, family, and religious freedom in just his first year — major policies or pronouncements that have altered the course for American values. It’s a record, surprisingly enough, that’s more extreme than Barack Obama’s. And it all points back to an abnormal fixation on things like transgenderism that are distracting from the very real issues our country is facing.

But there is one problem with catering to extremists, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) insisted on “Washington Watch.” Americans don’t like it. “They’re trying to force-feed their radical socialist agenda to the America people, and the American people are standing up and saying, ‘No, we don’t want anything to do with this.'” Unfortunately for Joe Biden, the bill for this gamble is about to come due. And the Democratic Party, limping into November because of this president’s failures, will appropriately be the ones paying it.

Earlier this week, Gallup painted a jarring picture of what’s coming: a 14-point party affiliation swing. It’s among the largest, the company says, it has ever measured for the parties “in any quarter since it started [tracking] party identification and leaning…” Making matters worse, Biden’s approval rating with African Americans is down more than 20 percent (78 to 57 percent), and among Hispanics, he can barely muster 28 percent support. If that’s his idea of a “pretty good” report card, the president is less in touch with reality than people thought.

But then, as his party has made quite clear, they aren’t going to let a little something like voters get in the way of their majority. As the background to Biden’s nightmare of a press conference, Senate Democrats were futilely trying to ram through their election takeover bill to guarantee one-party control. When it failed, the president moved on to plan B: undermining the midterm results.

In a statement that’s more than a little hypocritical, given the party’s outrage over the GOP’s skepticism in 2020, Biden lowered himself to casting doubt on any election the Democrats don’t win. “Oh, 2022… I mean, sure… I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit,” he told reporters at Wednesday’s press conference. “…[T]he increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed.”

“This isn’t normal,” Dan McLaughlin warns. When the president of the United States attacks our election system as “rigged,” he’s “playing with fire.” Sure, “Democrats have a long history of refusing to accept the legitimacy of defeats… But this is still an alarming escalation.” An escalation that was already well on its way when the president equated honest Americans with history’s racists.

It’s certainly a long way from where we were at this point last year when Joe Biden stood at the podium and promised unity. “We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.” Twelve months later, he’s the one who’s shouting. And disunity rages on like another virus he can’t stop.

COLUMN BY

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is Family Research Council’s fourth and longest-serving president, joining the organization in August of 2003. Described as a legislative pioneer by the national media, Tony has established himself as an innovative pro-life and pro-family policy and political leader since first being elected to office in 1996.

RELATED ARTICLES:

King of the Bungle

PATEL: Joe Biden Completes His Historic Failure

POLL: Less Than Half Of Democrats Want Biden To Run For Reelection

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat Regime: Arrest Warrants Can Be Used as ID for Illegals in Airports

The coup continues. Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, had sent a letter to TSA after a whistleblower claimed the agency was allowing ‘unknown migrants’ to board commercial airlines in the U.S.

TSA Administrator David Pekoske responded explaining that certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents may be considered acceptable alternate forms of identification, including a ‘Warrant for Arrest of Alien’ and a ‘Warrant of Removal/Deportation’ (The Daily Mail).

From The Daily Caller: TSA said it relies on agencies such as CBP or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which issue the documents to migrants, to verify that the name on the document used as alternate identification “is the person whom the person claims to be.”

If an identity cannot be verified through a database search, an airport’s Federal Security Director (FSD) is left to determine any extra screening process or decide to deny the individual entry, according to the letter (The Daily Caller).

RELATED TWEET:

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

Stop The Coming Democrat/RINO War With Russia

I ran this a couple of days ago but as the Democrats and RINOs increasingly sound the drums of war, I thought it best to run this again. Americans are sick and tired of these foreign wars. Like the average American gives a flying fig about Ukraine.

Avoiding War with Russia

In this war to end all wars there will be no one to root for.

By Julia Gorin, American Greatness, January 16, 2022:

On Christmas Eve eve, the stylist cutting my hair asked what I was doing for Christmas.

“Oh,” I said, “I’m trying to write something that’ll talk us out of war with Russia. I feel like as soon as these holidays are over, we’re going to war.”

“Hmm,” she replied, not caught as off-guard as I’d have thought. “You’re not the first person today to talk about that.”

“Really?” Now I was caught off-guard. After all, most folks (especially at Christmas) tend to have other things on their minds besides foreign policy. “Was it someone from another country?” I asked. She shook her head.

“An American?” I was puzzled. She nodded.

“Oh,” I epiphanized. “Military?” Another nod. “What did they say?” I asked.

“That there’s gonna be a war. Early in the year. He’s high up in the Air Force and told me he’s been traveling, selling/transferring weapons to the Marines; said they need it the most.”

“And this is for a war with Russia?” I double-checked.

“Yep. Don’t quote me or anything. I mean, I just met the guy, but my boyfriend has known him for 35 years and he basically said the military is preparing for war, and it’s going to be a world war.”

My blood ran cold. Everything I’ve been working to avoid, particularly these last two years through a monthly Washington Times column, was about to be actualized.

I looked at my perpetually disheveled self in the mirror, at my dog-rescuer t-shirt, and muttered, “What’s the point of saving this or that dog when we’re about to get them all nuked anyway?” I thought of Russia’s poor creatures too and of my mother’s friend Sveta, the 1969 women’s table tennis world champion, who now tends to Moscow’s strays.

The stylist brightened. “Hey, my daughter is studying to be a vet tech in college!” I could barely muster a “That’s great.”

“Your hair looks so cute now! Look how it bounced right up. Wanna see the back?”

I wasn’t even aware of the large hand-held mirror she’d thrust toward me, waiting for me to grab it. I took it limply and stared but could see only black in front of my eyes.

So a nation collapsing unto itself before all the world is about to do what all the clichés tell it to do: distract and unite the herd with war.

It’s the Clinton Yugoslavia distraction from Lewinsky-Broaddrick—on steroids. Atomic ones. Yugoslavia is a country that no longer exists. The Washingtonians and their pent-up henchmen/masters running our military seek the same status for Russia. It’s all there in Washington’s eternal godfather Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard.

I somehow managed to drive to my mother’s house. I told her that, come the new year, we were going to war over Ukraine, the last straw for Russia of NATO’s voracious expansion.

“Over Ukraine?!” she sneered in Russian. “Listen, Russia is a crappy country, but a crappier country is Ukraine. For Ukraine to be a ‘vital ally,’ you’d have to have no friends at all.”

This comes from a woman of Ukrainian-Jewish blood who, like a lot of Soviet emigrés, has always relished Russia getting even what it doesn’t have coming. Her revulsion for the place extends to these shores—she calls immigrants with still too much Russia in them (and she can spot them a mile away) “nedoyehovshiye,” or not-fully-arrived. As if they’re still on the plane somewhere between Russia and America.
Report Ad

My Odessa-raised father shared her undying hatred for the Soviet Union, where at six years old he gazed out at the Black Sea and asked my grandfather, “How might one get away from this place?” The look in my parents’ eyes when American liberals would defend the USSR, often with “But you had the Hermitage!” convinced me of every human being’s potential to kill.

In other words, I was raised a bona fide Russophobe. But the anti-Russia hysteria that has engulfed our confederacy of dunces is ridiculous—and very dangerous.

An emergency NATO meeting on Russia was held January 7, ahead of last week’s European security negotiations. Could it be all for show, pageantry for a fix that’s already in? We’ve done it before, in 1999 going through the motions with Belgrade at the Rambouillet Accords before bombing it. That was the last time our government, media, military, and public were this aligned on an issue. For months, Ukrainian soldiers have been on the move with great confidence against a much stronger neighbor, as if war were a foregone conclusion. What do they know that we don’t?

Headlines from the talks have been uniformly downbeat, lowering expectations and narrowing options outside of war. Secretary of State Antony Blinken briefed the press that “We’re prepared to respond forcefully to further Russian aggression.” He promised “massive . . . economic, financial and other consequences.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg came closest to spilling the beans, saying we needed to “be prepared for the possibility that diplomacy will fail.” According to Politico, he “was cryptic when pressed for details.”

Naturally, we’re projecting such tactics onto our target, with an ABC report characterizing Russia’s insistence on being taken seriously—after decades of eye-poking by us—as Vladimir Putin “seeking a pretext for war.” American officials’ “concern is that the Russians will emerge . . . declaring that diplomacy has failed,” a New York Times article read, “and that Mr. Putin will . . . carry out cyber [attacks on] Kyiv.” Lo and behold, the talks ended and Reuters informed us of “Ukraine suffering a massive cyberattack.”
Report Ad

Yet they call it “Russian paranoia” when Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu asks what the United States was smuggling into Donetsk the week before—apparently “containers with unknown chemical components.” As if convenient and sudden chemical attacks by our designated enemies haven’t been the M.O. when United States protégés are involved. Should we brace ourselves for some sort of “incident” that could scuttle all diplomatic and economic approaches, and “necessitate” war? No, thanks to our media dutifully citing Ukrainian military intelligence, we’re to expect only provocations being prepared by Russian special services. “Russia may try to fabricate a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine,” reports Reuters citing our own trusty intelligence agencies.

So even if Joe Biden was “hopeful” last month and ruled out U.S. military action over Ukraine, some things are as out of his hands as they were out of President Trump’s. Meanwhile, any attempt to avert World War III is pounced on by Republicans as Biden caving to Putin. Witness Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) reaction last week to an NBC headline (called inaccurate anyway by NSC spokeswoman Emily Horne) that read, “Biden admin weighs proposing cuts to U.S. troops in Eastern Europe.” Cruz tweeted, “If Biden was trying to signal weakness & surrender to Putin, what would he be doing differently?”

We’re supposed to believe that the current crisis started with Russia’s troop buildup and draft treaty demanding security guarantees, such as no staging of weaponry in the newer NATO states (states we had promised Mikhail Gorbachev would never become NATO states). In fact, these are a response not only to NATO advancing on Russia over the last two decades, but as the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlined last month in a protest letter, “The US military and its NATO allies have gone from attempts to test the strength of our border protection system to provocations against civilian aircraft . . . US and NATO military aircraft [have been] flying without radio communication or flight plans and failing to obtain air traffic control clearances . . . which violates basic principles of international air navigation.”

Russia’s military buildup is an attempt to be heard, to underscore the seriousness of what we’ve been doing there. Russia has been trying to tell us it has nowhere to which it can retreat. “We are not deploying our missiles over at the border of the US,” a Sky News report quoted Putin as saying. “The US is deploying its missiles . . . on the doorstep of our house. . . . And you keep demanding some guarantees from us. You must give us the guarantees.” The Russian leader recalled that in the 1990s Russia did much to build good relations with the United States. “He added that CIA advisers were able to visit Russian military nuclear sites . . . ‘What else did you need? Why did you have to support the terrorists in the North Caucasus . . . to reach your goals and break down the Russian federation?’”

But we don’t talk to prey. That’s why, days later, there was still no response from the State Department to the letter about our illegal air maneuvers. And it’s why our political class scoffs at the idea of giving any heed to Putin’s terms, practically everyone calling his proposal a “nonstarter,” despite his conditions essentially being an opportunity for us to unbreak our promises and show some integrity as the good-guy winner of the Cold War.

“Not gonna happen,” former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently swaggered on “Meet the Press.” Then Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), as if we haven’t been encircling Russia, deaf-toned with “If they do invade . . . we will move more NATO assets closer to Russia.” How much closer can we get? Russia is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t.

As with Bosnia, our politicians are being egged on by the press. Reporters goaded Biden during his June summit with Putin, and last month Chuck Todd told former Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor, “I worry that we have not given [Putin] consequences. He messed with Georgia, not a lot of consequences. He took Crimea, not a lot of consequences.”
Report Ad

Oh yes, the Putin of our imaginations just “messes with” neighbors. He invaded Georgia just because he wanted to, and not because we gave Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili the nod to invade South Ossetia; then Putin up and “took” Crimea, surely not because our Soros-sponsored operatives helped stage a Ukrainian coup against the Moscow-friendly government of Viktor Yanukovych, spurring a Crimean referendum that chose Russia. These events facilely enter the American lexicon as “Russian aggression,” such that right now Putin is about to “invade Ukraine” just because and not because we’ve been amping up Ukraine’s war preparations, practically buzzing Russian planes, or going on fly-alongs with trespassing British ships (see the HMS “Defender” incident). That’s without mentioning our performing military exercises on Putin’s borders, stoking his neighbors’ alienation of him, or liquidating nearby Yugoslavia, where America’s second-largest from-scratch military base promptly went up..

Provoke a reaction from the strawman, then start the clock for the public at the point of the reaction. It’s our Yugoslavia M.O. again. Watch for acts of self-defense in the early days of the war to be used as retroactive proof of hostility, where it had been missing in “hacking”; “bounties on Americans in Afghanistan”; “election meddling”; “electric-grid tampering,” and every other concoction against Russia that’s fallen apart.

“Look what Russia is doing!” we’ll scream as we continue on with our gushing, unifying, politically correct hatred of Vlad the Paler and consume a glut of Russian-villain TV and film, instead of understanding that it’s our government that’s brought us to the brink of Armageddon. After all, if they can do to us what they’ve been doing these past two years, why would we think they wouldn’t subject us to potential thermonuclear war? Our expendability is now a known quantity.

Is this where anyone thought we’d be 15 years after Putin was on hand in Bayonne, New Jersey at the groundbreaking of the 100-foot September 11 monument that Russia gave us? “It is not every day that the president of Russia comes to visit a blue collar New Jersey town,” the New York Times coverage read, “but here he was, Vladimir Putin . . . clasping hands with the mayor, and speaking of Russia’s ‘unity’ with the United States.”

Even conservatives, usually more immune to propaganda, don’t recognize they’ve been conditioned by a protracted, skewed presentation of events. So Putin doesn’t even get points for warning against Wokeism, nor for vocalizing that January 6 prisoners are victims of political persecution and reeducation? In case some do give him points, trusted luminaries such as National Review editor Rich Lowry are there to keep us on track to war. “Vladimir Putin Shouldn’t Be a Right-Wing Hero,” read his headline in Politico last month. Russian-born libertarian columnist Cathy Young beat him to it in 2013 with the Boston Globe column “Vladimir Putin is no Ally for the Right.” At the same time, the Right’s taunts that our effeminate military can’t win wars have likely gotten under the skin of our military brass and given them something to prove. “And what better way to do that than to kill people,” Tucker Carlson recently quipped. Add our “dangerously angry” American public, and the pressure cooker needs a release. Russia is the proverbial It.
Report Ad

So will the by-now anti-Russian Right unite behind Biden’s America at war? Sure. They’ll be glad to fit in for a moment with the lobotomized, left-molded mainstream, and show they can eschew partisanship when it’s “truly important” (watch for those op-eds), not stopping to question whether an administration that has all but dehumanized them is fighting a war for us, or for itself.

Indeed, a war with Russia would fix everything: show strength, distract, and unite. Russia makes for the perfect target: the public is already primed against it; there are no ethnic tripwires; and we’re not economically dependent on it as with China. Which is why, as former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe complained to Maria Bartiromo in late 2020, when he would brief Congress on election security threats posed by China, Russia and others, lawmakers would immediately start leaking just the Russia parts. And it’s why Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley said in a 2015 interview, “I consider Russia the number-one threat to the United States . . . Russia is the only country on earth that has the capability to destroy the United States of America. . . . China is not an enemy. They are . . . developing themselves into a great power.”

As we know, in 2020 Milley phoned China behind President Trump’s back, to reassure his counterpart that we weren’t planning an attack. “If we’re going to attack,” he said, “It’s not going to be a surprise.” But China may have a surprise for him. The memory of China’s NATO-bombed embassy in our last Eastern European war of convenience isn’t so distant, so no doubt President Xi Jinping and Putin have gamed out what happens in the event of a NATO attack on Russia. Ironically, our inability to forgive Russia’s abandonment of communism and return to Christianity has pushed it into an alliance with today’s most powerful communist regime, one that we do fear jabbing.

Only Russia can destroy America, say America’s destroyers. Have they missed 2020-21? And yet, these past two years of COVID that we complain so bitterly about may turn out to have been a reprieve, a comparative quiet before the storm. We naively ask for a better 2022, when things really could get even darker. The overgrown boys with four stars on their lapels are eager to play with their explosive toys and there’s nothing we can do about it.

But the powerful are prone to forgetting who’s actually in control. They consistently forget that they live in a diorama and are themselves mere figurines who, along with their high-tech death machinery, can be folded like paper at the Creator’s whim. They don’t have the right to destroy His diorama, and He may have sent emissaries to prevent it. Last year, the all-mighty Pentagon formally admitted to the existence of UFOs, to their constant presence since the dawn of the nuclear age, and to their recent crescendo. Early last month, TMZ and others broadcast footage from above Chino Hills, California, of what has been called a “swarm” of UFOs. One senses that such a display at this time isn’t mere coincidence. Nukes have gone offline mysteriously before. For now, however, we can only plead futilely, like victims to their killers, “Washington, you don’t have to do this.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Biden administration is sleepwalking America into wars it can’t feasibly win against Russia and China

Biden Administration Reverses Trump On Israel: We Won’t Support Your Pipeline

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.

Biden’s press conference panned by critics: ‘TOTAL DISASTER’

One doesn’t know were to start. A total train wreck of a press conference. We saw exactly why President Biden is not allowed to do many press conferences. Watch below. Pray for America, and for the stability of the free world.

Biden’s press conference gets panned by critics: ‘Total disaster’

One commentator quipped, ‘Joe Biden didn’t do a press conference for months. We all understand the reason why.’

By Fox News, January 20, 2022

President Biden spent most of 2021 avoiding press conferences, but he held one on Wednesday, which was panned as being a “total disaster.”

The White House had high hopes for Biden’s press conference on Wednesday — hoping to paint the administration as a less-cloistered outfit that embraces the public and transparency. With Biden’s strikingly low popularity numbers, the president was expected to cast himself as a competent leader, who is in touch with the problems of everyday American voters.

But the debacle that took place behind the podium from the East Room of the White House on Wednesday did little to support that persona according to reaction to the press conference.

The president was criticized throughout his long remarks on issues related to Russian aggression towards Ukraine, his claim that he outperformed expectations, his outburst toward a reporter and more.

1. Russia-Ukraine ‘minor incursion’

Perhaps the most startling comment of the evening was Biden’s response to a question about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Biden said that while he believes an invasion is imminent, the United States is prepared to impose significant economic consequences should Russia move forward. But, he clarified, a “minor incursion” by the Russians would elicit a softer response from the U.S. than that of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“Biden is attacking the legitimacy of American elections while signaling Putin to try a ‘minor incursion’ in Ukraine. None of this is normal. None of this is OK,” National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin responded.

“Biden just appeared to okay a ‘minor’ Russian incursion of Ukraine. So, invasion of an independent neighbor nation is bad. An incursion is OK with this president,” conservative commentator Andrew Malcolm agreed.

“Biden’s comments suggesting that a ‘minor incursion’ of Ukraine might not draw as vigorous a response as a full-scale invasion will trigger a lot of angst in the region, particularly in Kyiv,” New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker wrote.

“Why was there no pushback to Biden saying ‘it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion’ re Russia going into Ukraine?” former White House press secretary and Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany weighed in.

“What kind of answer was that? No incursion is ok,” Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer echoed.

Where are the follow-ups from reporters?

Why was there no pushback to Biden saying “it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion” re Russia going into Ukraine?

Where is the pushback on Biden claiming he “outperformed” expectations?

The list goes on

All pleasantries, no pushback!

— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) January 19, 2022

2.  Overpromise or Outperform?

Social media quickly circulated a clip of Biden where he appeared to tell reporters that he did not overpromise what he could get done in his first year in office, but that he has, on the contrary, “outperformed” what people thought he was capable of.

“I’m not sure what planet he’s inhabiting but on planet earth his record is a record of failure,” Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson responded.

“Biden just claimed he has ‘outperformed what anybody thought would happen’ Sheer lunacy,” Buck Sexton said.

“Joe Biden says he’s outperformed what anyone thought was possible in his first year in office. Really. He just said this,” Outkick’s Clay Travis reacted.

RELATED ARTICLES:

PATEL: Joe Biden Completes His Historic Failure

White House tries to clarify Biden’s ‘minor incursion’ comment on Russia and Ukraine

Biden’s press conference was an utter disaster

TRUMP TORCHES BIDEN: ‘Our Dignity, Our Strength, It’s Being Destroyed’

Biden Slammed Over ‘Embarrassing’ Press Conference: ‘Let The 25th Amendment Discussions Begin’

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.

Coalition of Orthodox Rabbis says charges of ‘Islamophobia’ against Jewish groups are ‘Antisemitic’

Let’s hope that this important declaration that charges of “Islamophobia” against Jewish groups are “antisemitic” by the coalition of Orthodox Rabbis has far-reaching effects. Islamic blasphemy principles, which slap the label of “Islamophobia” on anyone who criticizes Islam in any way, not only go against the principles of free societies, but also promote anti-Semitism and provide a cover for the atrocities against Christians and other minorities globally to continue. Kudos to the rabbis.

“In every case, CAIR is deliberately claiming that to reject terrorism is anti-Muslim,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), told Fox News Digital.

Would CAIR state that the Quran’s verses of terror are “anti-Muslim?”

“I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” (Quran 8:12)

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers. (Quran 3:151)

Deception and outright lies (aka taqiyya) are a signature of every Islamic supremacist and jihadist. Read more about the violent texts of Islam HERE.

“Orthodox rabbis condemn CAIR, say charges of ‘Islamophobia’ against Jewish groups ‘antisemitic,’” by Tyler O’Neil, Fox News, November 18, 2022:

A coalition that represents more than 2,000 Orthodox Jewish rabbis on American public policy issues condemned a recent report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) regarding “Islamophobia in the Mainstream,” calling the report “both pro-terror and antisemitic.”

“In every case, CAIR is deliberately claiming that to reject terrorism is anti-Muslim,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), told Fox News Digital. “It is hard to imagine something that incites animus towards Islam and all who practice it more than the idea that tolerance for Islam requires acceptance of atrocities committed by purported believers.”

The CAIR report faulted charitable foundations for passing money along to “26 Islamophobia Network groups between 2017-2019 to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about Muslims and Islam.”

“As it is employed today, ‘Islamophobia’ is fake news,” CJV Midwestern Regional VP Rabbi Ze’ev Smason said in a statement provided first to Fox News. Smason said CAIR deserved “robust condemnation for spreading hate under the guise of religion.”

“CAIR was founded by individuals associated with Hamas, a genocidal terror organization, to provide a PR front and support the Hamas agenda in the U.S.,” CJV President Rabbi Pesach Lerner said. “It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal Holy Land Foundation anti-terror case, and now employs the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ as a cudgel to attack foundations, organizations and outspoken individuals who call it out correctly and truthfully as an apologist for terrorism.”

The U.S. government had shut down The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. at the time, in 2001. In 2008, its leaders received life sentences for “funneling $12 million to Hamas,” which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. CAIR opened its first office with a $5,000 grant from the Holy Land Foundation, and its founders participated in an October 1993 meeting in Philadelphia with Hamas sympathizers and HLF officials, according to prosecutors in the HLF case.

CAIR has long contested claims regarding ties to Hamas. In a 2017 blog post aiming to “dispel rumors,” the organization noted that “there is no legal implication to being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator, since it does not require the Justice Department to prove anything in a court of law.” CAIR also noted an October 2010 ruling in which Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled that the Department of Justice violated the Fifth Amendment rights of groups like CAIR when it included them on the unindicted coconspirator list in 2007. ….

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Temple Terrorist Wanted to Serve as Model for UK Muslims Attacking U.S.

UK: Jailed jihad preacher’s seven sons are all criminals or jihadis, cost taxpayers $13,582,800

Pakistan: 14-year-old Christian girl abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, married to 45-year-old Muslim

UK: Amid waning popularity, Boris Johnson calls in military to stem flow of illegals across English Channel

Palestinian Muslim guards remove Muslim from Temple Mount, confusing him for a Jew

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

The League for Islamic-American Relations (LIAR) – Part 2

Many thanks to Laser List member Jim Simpson for information on the UN below.


Today, I pick up where I left off yesterday – tearing apart the false narratives spun by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR would have you believe Islam is good for women.  In its op-ed, CAIR said sharia ended the chattel status of women and eradicated female infanticide, among other accomplishments benefitting women.  However, gender inequality is worse in Muslim countries, the testimony of women is worth less than men in sharia law, and Muhammad said women are intellectually inferior to men.  Quran 4:34 condones wife-beating, as long as no bones are broken.  Islam has a history of forced marriage and child brides that continues to this day, right here in America, meaning the chattel status of women still exists in Islam as we speak.  CAIR doesn’t deal with any of this in its op-ed, because it can’t.

On another subject, CAIR’s national deputy director wrote in another op-ed, which was touted on CAIR’s website, that the “great replacement theory” as a way of explaining open borders and mass migration policies is delusional, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.  However, the United Nations talks about Replacement Migration and promotes regular migration through its actions.  In addition, left-wing activists openly talk about the Great Replacement theory, and the Biden administration has not offered any other justification for its long list of open borders initiatives.  So spare me the indignation.  CAIR is either ignorant or lying about replacement migration.

I would guess lying, and here’s why – the Islamic doctrine of hijrah, the religious duty to colonize.  As one article put it:

To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” [Quran] (4:100)

So it’s no wonder CAIR gets all hysterical whenever anyone calls attention to the Biden administration’s open borders policies and the fact that the United Nations is funding and facilitating illegal immigration.  If, somehow, a stop were put to all this, that would put a crimp in hijrah.  The Islamic colonization of the West would be set back.  Funny, but the national deputy director of CAIR doesn’t mention hijrah in his op-ed – not one word about it.  Why do you suppose that is?

One final word:  Everything CAIR tells you is suspect.  This is because Islam imposes a religious duty on its followers to lie to outsiders if it will advance the cause of Islam.  The doctrine is called ‘taqiya’ and the fact that it exists is not disputed.   So, when CAIR or other Muslims tell you that jihad is just a struggle against eating too much cheesecake, or hide the fact that sharia is really about world domination, or proclaim that women have it really great under Islam, just remember taqiya – they are lying to you so they can take over the country and the world.  Realize they will stop at nothing to succeed.  This is why CAIR should rename itself the League for American-Islamic Relations, or ‘LIAR’, for short.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Christopher Wright.

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: Ahmad Daraldik Controversy and Anti-Semitism

FSU SJP is Florida State University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Israel organization that agitates on U.S. college campuses.

In June 2020, FSU SJP gained national attention for their shocking support for fellow SJP member Ahmad Daraldik. Daraldik, who was then president of the FSU Student Senate, became the center of controversy following the exposure of his antisemitic social media posts.

Rather than acknowledging the antisemitism in their midst, FSU SJP doubled down in their support for Daraldik, saying that calls for his removal were “racially and politically motivated to smear and silence Palestinian students and critics of the state of Israel” and “rooted in anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia.”

Canary Mission previously exposed FSU SJP in 2018, for social media posts expressing a wide variety of hatred against Jews and Israel, including Holocaust mockery and cursing Jews in Arabic.

FSU SJP regularly:

  • Paints Israel as an apartheid state and a colonialist, occupying force
  • Demonizes Zionists
  • Promotes BDS
  • Whitewashes Palestinian terrorism
  • Hosts anti-Israel agitators

This report includes 19 individuals who are affiliated with FSU SJP.

Ahmad Daraldik Controversy

Ahmad Daraldik was the center of controversy following the exposure of his anti-Semitic social media posts after he became the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate President at Florida State University (FSU) in June 2020.

Daraldik also created an anti-Semitic website, reportedly as a high school sophomore in 2016, in which he compared Israel to Nazi Germany and suggested that Israel engaged in forced medical experimentation on Palestinians. The website was maintained in the public domain through at least mid-June 2020.

While he was FSU SGA Senate President, Daraldik opposed a June 2020 FSU student senate resolution that recognized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and was designed to combat anti-Semitic hate speech and activity on FSU’s campus. Daraldik also attempted to bar two Florida state legislators from speaking at an online meeting leading up to the vote.

On June 12, 2020, FSU SJP shared a statement on Facebook defending SJP activist Ahmad Daraldik following calls for his removal as FSU Student Senate President, after it was discovered that Daraldik shared anti-Semitic content on social media.

Daraldik, who was appointed Student Senate President at FSU in June 2020, faced calls for his removal when his social media posts and website were publicized. Daraldik retained his position after a vote by student senators at FSU.

Daraldik had assumed the presidency of the student senate on June 6, 2020 after presiding over an inappropriate student senate vote of no-confidence against fellow student Jack Denton, who was then Senate Student President.

The FSU SJP statement claimed that the calls for Daraldik to be removed as Senate President were “racially and politically motivated to smear and silence Palestinian students and critics of the state of Israel” and “rooted in anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia.”

The statement continued: “If SRR [FSU Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities] and/or Student Government staff take disciplinary action against Ahmad, Florida State University will be legitimizing anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia as well as weaponizing antisemitism to stifle free speech.”

On July 24, 2020 BDS Report tweeted that Daraldik had “just shared a new video on his Instagram story claiming that the problem with Jews is they make everything about themselves.”

The video Daraldik shared on his Instagram story featured a man claiming: “And most Jewish people, when talking about this conflict, it’s you guys always want to shift the focus back to you. It’s always anti-Semitism, it’s always anti-Jew. Everything has to be about you guys.”

In October 2020, FSU’s Student Supreme Court ruled that the no-confidence vote, which targeted Denton for his statements of religious conviction, made in a Catholic Student Union’s private group chat in his capacity as a private citizen, violated Denton’s rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Exercise Religion under the Student Body Constitution and Statutes, as well as the Constitution of the United States and of Florida.

EDITORS NOTE: This Canary Mission report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Sharpton: Blacks Behind Trump at a Rally Are Only ‘Props’ So He Won’t Look Racist

Monday on MSNBC’s Deadline, network host and lifelong race hustler Al Sharpton claimed with zero evidence that black people in the bleachers behind former President Donald Trump at an Arizona rally were merely “optics” to “sell racism.”

Sharpton said, “The fact that we all saw them sitting there, clearly they were put there for the optics. There was one guy that went around the whole 2020 race with a ‘Blacks for Trump’ sign. It seems like now he’s got more. They are put there strategically so that [Trump] can say the most racist things and not look racist.”

Nothing Trump or any Republican can do is ever enough for race-mongering, Democrat demagogues like Sharpton. If there are no blacks in the bleachers behind Trump, it’s evidence that he’s racist. If there are blacks in the bleachers, it’s again evidence that he’s racist. The right can’t win.

Sharpton added, “I mean who gets a group of people, ‘Blacks for Trump,’ and just happens to sit there, and they happen to get within camera view? I mean, no one could be that stupid to think that that just happened to be they got the good seats. That is choreographed so he can sell racism and look like he’s not a racist. I think it is something that we all ought to deplore. I wouldn’t waste my time worrying about who he props up.”

Speaking of wasting time worrying, no one should waste any worrying about Sharpton’s opinion because he is a shameful liar and smear merchant. To hate-mongers like Sharpton, blacks who have abandoned the Democrat plantation to support Trump — and there is a growing percentage who are — are contemptible race traitors. The truth is that the Rev. Al has made a career of dragging American blacks down, while Trump has done more than any Democrat ever to lift them up.


Al Sharpton

131 Known Connections

Sharpton Emphatically Calls America “A Racist Country” in His Eulogy for Black Man Killed by Policeman

On May 3, 2021, Sharpton delivered the eulogy at the funeral for Andrew Brown Jr., a black man who had died a few days earlier following an encounter with law enforcement. In his 22-minute eulogy, which was spent entirely on condemning America’s allegedly ubiquitous racism, Sharpton said that Brown had been: (a) “unjustly brought to death,” and (b) “unjustifiably and illegally” “execute[d].” “We must deal with the inequality in the criminal justice system today,” he declared. “… The challenge in these times is how we’re going to deal with policing in America and restoring the right to vote…. This must stop! Enough is enough! How many funerals do we have to have before we tell the Congress and the Senate that you’ve got to do something [in] these times?”

Sharpton also condemned black Republican Senator Tim Scott’s assertion that America is not a racist country. Among Sharpton’s remarks were the following:

  • “Seems something awkward to me where a white president [Biden] talked about white supremacy and a black senator said that America’s not racist. Seem a little strange to me. Now, everybody in America is not racist. But are you talking about whether the practice of America is racist, or the people? Because the practice of America was built on racism. It was against the law for us to read and write. It was against the law for us to marry. It was against the law for us to name our children after us. We were brought here to work and never get paid. That’s how the country was built…. What do you mean America is not racist? It was started off racism!”

To learn more about Al Sharpton, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Senate Rejects Filibuster Change, Defeats Election Overhaul Bills In History-Making Day

  • The Senate late Thursday rejected a Democratic effort to alter the filibuster in order to pass their long-sought voting bills over unanimous Republican opposition, capping one of the most consequential days in the history of the chamber.
  • The change, had it been adopted, would have established a “talking filibuster,” allowing any senator to speak for or against the bill for as long as they wanted but lowering the 60-vote threshold for passage to a simple majority.
  • Democrats’ attempt to change Senate rules concluded a marathon day of debating in the chamber that saw nearly half of the body speak about the voting bills. They failed, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer moved to change the rules soon after.
  • Though senators engaged in genuine debate throughout the day, most expressed disdain for how deliberation seemed to have faded from the world’s greatest deliberative body.
  • “I don’t know what happened to the good old days,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, “but I can’t tell you they aren’t here now.” 

The Senate late Thursday rejected a Democratic effort to alter the filibuster in order to pass their long-sought voting bills over unanimous Republican opposition, capping one of the most consequential days in the history of the chamber.

The vote failed 48-52 after Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voted as they said they would for months, joining a unanimous Republican caucus in opposition and denying their party the necessary support for the change to take effect. The change, had it been adopted, would have established a “talking filibuster” pertaining to the voting bills only, allowing any senator to speak for or against them for as long as they wanted but lowering the 60-vote threshold for passage to a simple majority.

“What we have now … is not a filibuster,” Maine Sen. Angus King, and independent who caucuses with Democrats, said ahead of the vote. “It doesn’t require any effort. It doesn’t require any speeches. It doesn’t require to hold the floor.”

“Strom Thurmond would have loved this filibuster,” King added, invoking the late segregationist senator who set the record for the longest filibuster speech ever while speaking against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Democrats’ attempt to change Senate rules concluded a marathon day of debating in the chamber that saw nearly half of the body speak either for the John Lewis Voting Rights Reauthorization Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, the twin bills that passed the House Thursday with a quirk that prevented Senate Republicans from blocking debate on them as they had in the past.

The voting bills failed to garner 60 Senate votes earlier Wednesday night even though Manchin and Sinema voted in favor, sparking Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s motion to change Senate rules to allow them to pass without GOP support.

“For those who believe bipartisanship is possible, we have proven them wrong,” Manchin said ahead of the vote. “Ending the filibuster would be the easy way out. I cannot support such a perilous course for this nation when elected leaders are sent to Washington to unite our country by putting politics and party aside.”

Democrats have said the bills are necessary to counter election reform laws that Republican state legislatures across the country have passed in the wake of the 2020 election that allegedly suppress people’s ability to vote. As a result, nearly all have endorsed altering the filibuster to ensure their passage even if done on a partisan basis.

“I share with many of you … a vision of the Senate that collaborates and negotiates the most important issue of our time,” Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said. “I believe in bipartisanship. But at what cost? Who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship and is liberty itself the cost?”

Republicans, however, have countered that the federal legislation, which sets uniform voting standards and outlaws partisan gerrymandering, will invite voter fraud and infringe on states’ rights to oversee their own elections.

“The president and his party will try to use fear and panic to smash the Senate, silence millions of Americans and size control of our democracy,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday.

McConnell said hours later that while the day was one of the most consequential in the history of the Senate, it really boiled down to a simple question: “Will it take 60 votes to pass massive changes or a simple majority to ram them through? That’s what’s at stake here.”

Though senators engaged in genuine debate throughout the day, most expressed disdain for how deliberation seemed to have faded from the world’s greatest deliberative body. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican who backed the John Lewis voting bill, said Wednesday that the rhetoric surrounding voting has become very concerning.

“I was part of a very troubling conversation last evening,” she said. “It was shared depending on which side you’re on in this body today on this issue, you’re either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, is that where we are?”

Manchin echoed her hours later in his speech, criticizing the lack of bipartisanship as he has time and time again throughout his filibuster defenses.

“I don’t know what happened to the good old days,” he said, “but I can’t tell you they aren’t here now.”

COLUMN BY

ANDREW TRUNSKY

Political reporter. Follow Andrew on Twitter @atrunsky

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Double-Down On Sure-To-Fail Strategy To Pass Voting Bills

House Passes Two Democratic Voting Bills – With A Quirk That Allows Them To Skirt One Filibuster Vote

‘A Perilous Course For This Nation’: Manchin Breaks With Democrats, Reaffirms Support For The Filibuster Ahead Of Critical Vote

McConnell Blasts ‘The Left’s Big Lie’ As Schumer Prepares Another Voting Bill Push

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Shawn Laval Smith Named Killer of UCLA Student Brianna Kupfer, Her Father Blames Politicians

Heartbreaking.

“Los Angeles County Jail records show Covina police arrested him on Oct. 27, 2020 on a misdemeanor charge. He was released on $1,000 bail. The outcome of that case was not immediately clear. Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

Los Angeles police ID Shawn Laval Smith as suspected killer of Brianna Kupfer

By Fox News, January 18, 2022

Los Angeles police have identified the suspected killer of 24-year-old Brianna Kupfer, a UCLA grad student stabbed to death at her furniture store job last week.

Shawn Laval Smith, 31, should be considered armed and dangerous, according to the LAPD.

He allegedly walked into a furniture store on North La Brea Avenue on Jan. 13 and stabbed Kupfer to death moments after she texted a friend to say a man in the store was making her uncomfortable.

“She sent a text to a friend letting her know that there was someone inside the location that was giving her a bad vibe,” LAPD Lt. John Radtke said of the Jan. 13 slaying. “Regrettably, that person did not see the text immediately.”

Anyone who sees him should call 911 and no approach, police said Tuesday evening.

Police said he’s been spotted in numerous locations around Southern California – including Pasadena, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Covina and San Diego. They also included a mug shot showing Smith wearing a face mask – suggesting a recent run-in with the law sometime after the start of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020.

Los Angeles County Jail records show Covina police arrested him on Oct. 27, 2020 on a misdemeanor charge. He was released on $1,000 bail. The outcome of that case was not immediately clear.

Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Just a half-hour after the alleged stabbing at the Croft House, a luxury furniture store, police said surveillance cameras picked up Smith at a 7-Eleven, where he bought a vape pen in cash.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Father of slain UCLA grad student blames politicians for crime spike

How George Soros funded progressive ‘legal arsonist’ DAs behind US crime surge

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.

Psaki claims Texas synagogue jihadi was checked ‘multiple times’ before being admitted to the U.S.

If Psaki isn’t lying outright, which is possible, this makes the Biden administration look even worse, in that they didn’t find anything on this dedicated and hardened jihad terrorist.

Jen Psaki says British synagogue terrorist was checked against US government databases ‘multiple times’ before he entered the country as House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy demands answers

by Elizabeth Elkind and Jennifer Smith, DailyMail.com, January 18, 2022

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the British national who was able to fly to the United States despite having a criminal history and hold four people hostage at a Texas synagogue was checked ‘multiple times’ before he entered the country.

‘Our understanding, and obviously we’re still looking into this, is that he was checked against US government databases multiple times prior to entering the country,’ Psaki said on Tuesday.

A short while earlier, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy released a blistering statement demanding answers from President Joe Biden’s White House and raising alarms over ‘what national security concerns remain.’

In addition to condemning the attack, he and other national Republican figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have been grilling the administration over its handling of the incident.

There is growing outrage and demand for answers as to how the British terrorist gunman who took four hostages at a synagogue in Colleyville on Saturday was even able to enter the US on a tourist visa when he was known to intelligence agencies in the UK.

Malik Faisal Akram, 44, flew to New York City from the UK on January 22, despite being known to MI5 and having a criminal record.

She explained that the government did not have any ‘derogatory information’ on Akram when he entered the country.

‘We’re certainly looking back, as I referenced, at what occurred to learn every possible lesson we can to prevent attacks like this in the future,’ Psaki said.

She directed further questions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DailyMail.com has reached out to DHS for more information on whether Akram was ever on a US watchlist.

‘Over the past 48 hours, President Biden’s Justice Department has gone from denying the clear and religious, anti-Semitic implications of this attack to now backtracking to what we all already knew to be true. Now as more information becomes available, it only raises more questions,’ McCarthy said in a statement first sent to DailyMail.com….

Akram’s family say he had a criminal history but somehow, he was able to get an ESTA tourist visa – which are supposed to be off-limits to foreigners who have broken the law….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas synagogue jihadi ‘literally thought that Jews control the world’

Texas synagogue attack: yet more evidence of FBI corruption

Blackburn Muslim Community Backtracks on Hoping Texas Terrorist Goes to ‘Highest Ranks of Paradise’

Texas synagogue jihadi had been investigated by MI5, seen as posing ‘no credible threat’

Mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan: ‘Noble Islam promotes doing good and abandoning evil’

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