PODCAST: Mueller Report Proves Russian Collusion Claim Is a Hoax

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky analyzes the redacted report about the findings from special counsel Robert Mueller, and why it’s time to investigate why President Donald Trump was ever suspected of collusion in the first place. Read the transcript, posted below, or listen to the interview in the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • Democrats are trying to get Mueller to testify in May.
  • North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a bill that protects the lives of abortion survivors.
  • New York City is actually losing residents for the first time in recent years.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Kate Trinko: Joining us today to discuss the newly released Mueller Report is Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert. Hans, have you looked at the report? What are your takeaways?

Hans von Spakovsky: Yes, I’ve been skimming through it all day, putting my speed-reading lessons to work.

Trinko: It’s only 400 or so pages, right?

von Spakovsky: Right. The key thing that I get out of it is that, remember when the Attorney General William Barr sent his letter to Congress in which he basically gave what the conclusions of the report were? One, there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and two, there was no obstruction of justice.

There were a lot of claims by Democrats, including people like Jerry Nadler, who’s head of the Judiciary Committee, that, “Oh, well, we don’t believe you. We think you’re leaving things out.”

Well, reading through the report, it’s very clear that Barr was 100% accurate in his summary of it and that the two-volume report—half of which is the Russian collusion claim, the other half is the obstruction of justice claim.

No one can read that and come to any conclusion other than the whole Russian collusion claim was a hoax. There was just nothing to that at all. And none of the actions that were taken by the president could be considered obstruction of justice.

Now, it’s very clear when you read it, and you see they relate some of the internal conversations in meetings at the White House about this, it’s clear the president was very angry. But that is a sentiment that I think most people would share if they’ve been falsely accused of a crime and that’s exactly the situation here.

The key thing is that he took no official actions of any kind that could in any way actually be considered obstruction of justice.

Daniel Davis: Yeah. On that point, the report says that he gave orders to do things that were not obeyed, so Mueller says, quote, “The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the person declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

So it’s kind of a moot point then because it didn’t happen, but is that even a crime if he tried to get them to break the law but they didn’t?

von Spakovsky: No, I don’t think so, particularly because, and this is something that General Barr and others have talked about, is that it’s very clear when you read the report that he had no corrupt intent.

And what I mean by that is it’s one thing if you act because you’re innocent and you don’t believe the government should be investigating you because you haven’t committed a crime. That’s very different from having a corrupt intent to interfere with an investigation because, in fact, you did commit a crime and you want to cover it up.

Davis: So legally there’s a distinction there?

von Spakovsky: There is a distinction and they talk about the fact that the president’s anger over this makes it clear to General Barr that there was no corrupt intent with any of his hot talk, if I can call it that, over what Bob Mueller and others were doing.

And again, key point there, remember there were no restrictions placed on Bob Mueller. He had all the resources he needed, he had 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, and he did a very comprehensive, wide-ranging investigation.

I’ve already heard some folks claiming, “Well, he didn’t have everything he needed to do a complete investigation.” Again, that’s just not correct.

Trinko: The report says that President Trump did try to remove Mueller, or presumably a special council, but that people didn’t follow his orders … it didn’t happen. Is that telling or significant?

von Spakovsky: I don’t think so when it comes down to the obstruction of justice charge. It didn’t happen and the investigation was completely and thoroughly done. So again, I just don’t see how you could bring an obstruction of justice charge and the attorney general agrees with that assessment.

Davis: The report also said that Trump was asked a lot of written questions by Mueller and that Mueller was sort of unsatisfied with those answers.

I’ll just read from the report here. Mueller says, “The President stated on more than 30 occasions that he does not recall or remember or have an independent recollection of information called for by the questions. Other answers were incomplete or imprecise.”

It sounds like maybe he just got good legal advice.

von Spakovsky: It could be, and so what that Mueller wasn’t satisfied with that? That’s just Mueller’s claim. He hasn’t proved in a court of law that somehow those answers were untruthful. So again, I don’t pay much attention to accusations by a prosecutor who in the end concludes there’s not enough evidence for a prosecution.

Trinko: Liberals are calling for Mueller to testify before Congress—

von Spakovsky: Right.

Trinko: … in May. Is that a good idea? Is that something he should do? What do you think?

von Spakovsky: Well, he can do it, but if Democrats think they’re going to somehow get something out of it more than they’ve already gotten in his report, I think they’re going to be sadly disappointed.

If they believe that Mueller’s going to come up with some kind of smoking gun that’s not in the report, I just don’t believe that. I think Mueller put everything he could into that report and they’re just not going to discover anything else.

Trinko: That’s a real problem for all the liberals with the Mueller tattoos and all that other stuff, there’s going to be no smoking gun.

Davis: But it seems like there’s enough in this report for both sides to really build a narrative. Trump clearly has the no collusion and no criminal charges, no indictment, but Democrats do have what seemed like the president potentially trying to undermine the investigation, although that didn’t happen. What do you think is the political fallout?

von Spakovsky: I actually don’t think, from the standpoint of an ordinary American, that there’s going to be much fallout because I think the ordinary American will look at what happened and say, “Boy, if I was falsely accused of a crime in my neighborhood or at my work, I would have been just as angry and just as frustrated as the president.” And I also probably would have wanted to tell off the prosecutor who was investigating me with no valid reason to do so.

Davis: In light of the fact that they found no collusion despite two years of efforts, a huge amount of manpower, and financial resources, frankly, applied this, they’re talking about looking into further the spying on the Trump campaign and how this whole thing began.

Do you think there needs to be much more of a investigation and why they even thought there was collusion to investigate in the first place?

von Spakovsky: The answer to that is yes, and the reason being that people should not forget that this did not start off as a regular law enforcement investigation, it started off as a counterintelligence operation. Because, in fact, what the FBI did is they went to the secret FISA Court. That’s the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That’s the court that our intelligence agencies and the FBI go to when they suspect there’s a foreign spy in the United States and they want to, for example, initiate secret electronic surveillance.

There are certain evidentiary standards you have to meet to justify that and never before in the history of the United States has a counterintelligence operation been opened, sanctioned by a court against a presidential campaign.

And now that we know that in fact there was no basis for the claims that were being made and the claims that were used to open up the investigation, we need to find out: Was there actually a sufficient basis? Was there sufficient evidence for them to open up the investigation?

If there wasn’t, then people at the FBI and DOJ abused their law enforcement powers and not only do they need to be punished for that, but we need to be sure that never happens again.

Davis: As Sen. Lindsey Graham has pointed out, usually when those FISA investigations happen, it’s to protect the American entities and they will notify them and say, “Hey, these Russians or whoever are trying to spy on you,” but that never happens. So, it certainly allows for the possibility that there was some foul play.

von Spakovsky: Yeah. I have to say I heard the senator say that and I have to agree with him, that makes what happened highly suspicious to me.

If the FBI had knowledge that Russians were contacting the campaign, and as we now know in many efforts, there were many efforts where they were disguising themselves and trying to fool folks into not realizing they were Russian, why didn’t they go to the campaign and warn them about it?

Davis: Right. So how does this investigation into the FISA warrant happen? Does the attorney general now launch this or does Senator Graham have a special investigation?

von Spakovsky: Well, they both could happen at the same time because obviously the Senate and the House intelligence committees, and the judiciary committees, potentially, have jurisdiction over this.

But, in fact, if I was the attorney general, I would appoint a special inside task force. Not a special council, but a group of lawyers on the inside who can take a look at this and examine all the documents, interview the FBI agents and original DOJ lawyers involved, and find out did they actually have a real basis for opening up the investigation?

Trinko: Hans, thanks so much for making time and pulling away from the 400-page tome to talk to us today.

von Spakovsky: Sure, thanks for having me.

PODCAST BY

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal PodcastSend an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Russian Collusion’ a Giant Smokescreen to Obscure DNC Leaker?

Publisher of DCLeaks Contradicts the Mueller Report

Key Takeaways From the Mueller Report on Trump and Russia


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast and column is republished with permission.

Paris Weeps as Notre Dame Burns

April 15th, President Macron was scheduled to address the nation at 8 PM, to present a sort of executive summary of government policy, revised but not diverted by five months of weekly Gilet Jaune actions. I switched on the television 10 minutes before the hour, expecting to hear the usual quibbling: The Gilets Jaunes expect nothing and won’t be satisfied until the president resigns. What a surprise. Commentators, specialists, journalists and the man in the street don’t think any real problem will be really solved. That’s a safe bet. They will all, who knows why, entertain the confusion between the Gilets Jaunes, boiled down to some thirty thousand seditionists, and French voters that may or may not have joined in the great national debate. President Macron does not have to satisfy the Gilets Jaunes. We live in a democracy, not a tyranny of turbulent minorities.

I turn on the television.

No, it’s not the panel waiting to pounce on the president.

It’s Notre Dame in flames.

You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian, or a lover of cathedral architecture. You don’t have to be Parisian, French, or a citizen of the western world. Raging flames devouring Notre Dame can bring tears to your eyes. It is universally heartbreaking.

Here in Paris, awestruck pedestrians stopped in their tracks. Gasped. Prayed. Exclaimed. Sobbed. Watched in disbelief as the sky-high inferno defied our will and determination. On the doorstep of Holy Week, Notre Dame was going up in flames and it looked like nothing could stop it. Do leaden roof tiles burn and melt, do stones go white hot and lose their grip, will we watch, helpless, as fire consumes the entire edifice, leaving a gaping black hole in the heart of Paris?

Is it terrorism? No one knows. It is absolutely terrifying. What if nothing could stop the blaze? It could spread across the Ile St. Louis, swallowing up mansions and touristy restaurants, leveling expensive hotels and sizzling a dozen Berthillon ice cream parlors.

Time stands still, the 19th century Viollet-le-Duc spire fills to bursting with red hot flames, dense turbulent multi-color smoke billows and roars. It seems like nothing can get on top of the fire. No ladder can reach that high. President Trump slaps us with a scorching tweet: Bring on the water bombardiers! Commentators, originally brought in to haggle over President Macron’s speech, mumble and stutter. Hmmm, maybe the Canadairs are too far south? I can hear my American friends snickering. “Those stupid French don’t even know how to extinguish cathedral fires.” It takes a while before we learn that a cathedral is not a forest, even when the roof beams are made of hoary oak. You can’t bombard Notre Dame with tons of water. The walls would come tumbling down.

The spire bends and collapses like a spent candle.

Later, we join the stream of people coming from all directions, on foot, on scooters, bikes, and motorcycles, converging in hushed tones at vista points on Ile St. Louis. An urban pilgrimage that reminds us, on a very small scale, of the millions that walked through the city after the Charlie Hebdo / Hyper Cacher / Montrouge jihad attack. Leaving the fire behind, we walk along the quai, embraced by a mild spring evening and the enduring beauty of bridges spanning the Seine, lights glittering on the softly flowing river.

Synagogues brûlées République en danger

“Torched Synagogues Troubled République.” We marched behind that banner in April 2002. The synagogue in Trappes had burned to the ground in October 2000. They said it was caused by a short circuit. And today we discover that French churches by the hundreds are desecrated, vandalized, sullied and cursed with Allahu akhbars. Arson is suspected in a March 17th fire at l’Eglise St. Sulpice. A week earlier a suspect was arrested for vandalizing the Basilique St. Denis. Inès Madani, ringleader of a cluster of niqab-clad jihadists was just sentenced to eight years in prison for enlisting and inciting terrorists. She will be tried six months from now for the botched car bomb attack on a side street near Notre Dame in 2016.

Two and two make four but the agonizing repetition of jihad assaults on the Western world does not prove that the spectacular Notre Dame fire is part of the series. While many, of all origins, shed tears over the blaze, others are exulting. Including antifas, left wing ultras, and ranking members of the French Students’ Union. France’s chief rabbi Haim Korsia was one of the first to express solidarity. Muslims can be found on both sides of the divide. Before the Notre Dame fire, Gilets Jaunes and assorted allies solemnly promised to burn and bleed Paris this Saturday. Apocalypse now. It is their prepaid reaction to the president’s — now postponed — speech. The government has been on the defensive since mid-November, allowing Yellow Saturdays to become an abiding feature of the cityscape. Thugs — of the gilet jaune, black blocs or banlieue persuasion — attack the police, torch cars and banks, sack and plunder boutiques, pelt firemen with rocks, and spout trash ideologies. They are the ones that vandalized l’Arc de Triomphe, fellow of the Tour Eiffel – Notre Dame trinity.

What do we know now, what will we know eventually? At this stage, the fire is being investigated by a criminal police unit… as accidental. They cannot go into the cathedral until inspectors have eliminated the danger of structural collapse. We don’t know if concrete evidence of the fire’s origin has gone up in smoke or is lurking in the charred and sodden remains that skulk on the cathedral floor. Officials have access to countless sources of information, while those who suspect a jihad attack rely on shaky “if x then y” logic. They assume that mainstream media, hand in hand with the government, will hide the truth.

Spontaneous combustion

The logic of real life is not so simple. The monumental Notre Dame fire may have been caused by a careless gesture or by an arsonist hell bent on destruction. A moment of inattention, a slight misjudgment, a stupid coincidence can have tragic consequences in a human life. A small spark could be responsible for the inferno that almost destroyed Notre Dame. According to published reports, when the first alarm rang at 6:20 PM the cathedral was evacuated but the source of the fire was not detected. 23 minutes later, the fire alarm rang again, and it was already too late to keep the fire from spreading to the entire roof. From there on, it’s a story of courage and heroism. The crown of thorns, the tunic of St. Louis the Crusader, and other treasures were saved. The belfries did not collapse. No fatalities. One firefighter slightly injured. The stained glass windows and the organ are apparently intact.

And the soul-searching begins. Was the cathedral, like so many national monuments, pauperized, bereft of safety features that would have prevented this colossal damage? Is it the lack of faith and penury of the faithful that reduces the Catholic architectural heritage to one more Disneyland? Has our capitalist, individualist, globalized, consumerist society turned its back on past glory and failed in its duty of transmission? The shame of the Church mired in abject pedophile scandals could, in itself, destroy one cathedral after the other by spontaneous combustion. And the Pope? Too busy compromising with Islam, shielding Jerusalem from Jewish sovereignty, and exhorting us to welcome immigrants to protect the fast-disappearing Christians of the Levant.

Mixed feelings

Holy Week was mortally dangerous for Jews in Christian lands. The main entrance to Notre Dame is flanked on the left by the statue of the blindfolded Sinagoga and on right by the noble Ecclesia. Ramadan is perilous for Jews in Islamic countries… or neighborhoods. The fiery Erdogan wants to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque. And today, when the great fortunes of France have pledged hundreds of millions of euros to restore Notre Dame… the social justice gang gives them boos and sneers. If they had so much money, why didn’t they give it to us… the people?

Jihad, cheap Facebook unrest, social media gutterish, anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, incendiary balloons from Gaza, seething hatred, vituperation, depravity, raging transgenderism, identity politics, cultural impoverishment, and flames leaping from the age-old rooftops of Notre Dame that bring tears to my eyes. I weep for the fragility of civilization, here in its concrete monumental form, there in the eloquent expression of noble values. For one night, the flames of Notre Dame portrayed those devouring forces that stubbornly defy our humanity.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elegy for a Fallen Spire

A Fire in the Heart of Europe

Catholic Bishop: ‘If Europe Disappears, Islam Will Invade the World’

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Times of Israel. It is republished with permission.

Rochester Mayor Responds to Trump Suggestion that Border Jumpers be Sent to Sanctuary Cities

But we don’t have the housing and the resources to care for them, Mayor Lovely Warren said earlier this week!

Exactly!

And, she thinks America does (in some other city)?

The other day I mentioned an idea that apparently is being kicked around in the more-immigration-is-better crowd and that is to turn the asylum seekers (aka illegal aliens) over to refugee resettlement agencies for care.

But, of course, the kicker is that those phony-baloney non-profits are all living off the US taxpayer to begin with. 

But what the heck, at least it isn’t the Rochester citizens carrying the burden, right Mayor Warren?

Here is the news from the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle,

Mayor on Trump’s tweets: Rochester will welcome asylum seekers. But there’s a problem.

Mayor Lovely Warren says Rochester would welcome asylum seekers if President Donald Trump follows through on his tweets to deliver them to Sanctuary Cities.

The problem comes in housing and providing basic necessities as they await adjudication of their cases amid an historic backlog in the nation’s immigration courts.

Faced with a humanitarian crisis at the southern border, Trump has latched onto a potentially solution that the Whitehouse confirmed Tuesday it was still exploring; to send asylum seekers to those communities that have declared themselves Sanctuary Cities. Rochester is one, having reaffirmed that stance shortly after Trump took office, in essence stating that it would follow the law but not actively participate in immigration enforcement activities. [See Rochester as Sanctuary City, here.—ed]

Tapping the once-robustresettlement programs for refugees would seem logical— particularly since Trump policies have sharply curtailed the number of refugees coming in. But this is a different population, not legally allowed to participate in resettlement programs.

Asylum seekers have no residency status, are not legally permitted to work while awaiting adjudication, and have no access to government assistance. Thus, those who are released either stay with relatives or crowd into shelters.

“You’d have to change the law, get cooperation at the state and federal level,” said Jim Morris, vice president for family services with the Catholic Family Center, which operates refugee resettlement programs locally.

So there it is, all this talk about how the law would need to be changed in order for Trump to move asylum seekers to other cities—it is all about federal money (or the lack of it) for asylum seekers.

The local do-gooders want federal dollars to follow the migrants!

Where is the “funding mechanism” they want to know!

“There is no funding mechanism here to pay for services for asylum seekers. But what a wonderful proposition that would be.”

[….]

“Catholic Family Center would be a likely agency. But nobody has talked to us about it. It doesn’t seem like a serious proposal.”

James Murphy with St. Joseph’s House of Hospitality in Rochester is having initial conversations with a shelter in Texas about assisting a single asylum seeker. And St. Joe’s already is housing one who is working through the process.

But that is about the capacity of the local nonprofit, Murphy said, and there are whole families at the border. If the government doesn’t step in, he said, it would require a network of host families to come froward.

And therein lies the rub!

It is easy to talk big about being a welcoming sanctuary city, but only if the government (in Washington) is going to take care of everything because we sure can’t find enough host families who would take on the burden out of Christian charity alone!

More here.

I really should have a category called political hypocrisy, but my Politicians as frauds’ will suffice for filing this story.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Office of Refugee Resettlement Still Doling Out Millions to Specific Ethnic Community Organizations

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Top Ten State Sponsors of Terrorism

The criteria used for making these selections were:

  • Does the country actually operate terrorist groups in the territory of other countries?
  • Does the country finance 3rd party terrorist groups operating in the territory of other countries and/or provide military equipment and/or training to said terrorist groups.
  • Does the country support other known state sponsors of terrorism either through the sale  of weapons to them, the sending of cash, and/or providing military protection for said state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the country provide diplomatic cover for other state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the government of said country allow international terrorist groups to recruit freely within its borders and/or allow the front groups of known terrorist groups to collect donations which are sent to 3rd party countries for terrorist acts there.

Using this criteria, the first three selections were rather obvious, and easy.  Numbers 4 through 10 were much more difficult and perhaps interchangeable. But with all of this in mind, here is the list as of April 2019.

#1 – TURKEY

Turkey.  Turkey served as the incubator for ISIS, then once they had launched ISIS into action in neighboring Iraq, and then Syria, they continued to help finance it by selling its stolen oil on the black market, and by providing transportation to jihadi wannabes from all over the world to facilitate their joining up with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey provided medical care for wounded ISIS fighters, including its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Turkey also smuggled al-Baghdadi into Libya where he would be safe from allied attacks.

Turkey continues to arm ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood militias in Libya, and has formed its own militias composed of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood personnel with which to ethnic cleanse portions of northern Syrian.  Turkey remains as one of the primary supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood international.

Egyptian sources claim that ISIS’s stolen millions are safely stashed in Turkish banks.

The Turkish fascist Grey Wolves terrorist group, once outlawed by the Turkish state,

and which tried to assassinate Pope John Paul, is now a part of Turkish mainstream, and a favorite group of Erdogan.  In addition to harassing and terrorizing minorities inside Turkey itself,  Turkey has established numerous cells and franchises of this group all over the world.  In Germany and other West European countries, the Grey Wolves have enough clout, through the threat of violence, etc., to hold Europe nearly hostage to Erdogan’s whims.

Turkey also supports the Maduro regime in Venezueala which has become a chief transit point for Middle Eastern terrorists to enter the new world, interface with Latin drug cartels, and smuggle personnel, drugs, and God knows what else, into the United States.

#2 – IRAN

Some would place Iran in the top slot based on the sheer volume of terrorist activities it supports.  But, I felt that Turkey edged Iran out of first place due primarily to its extensive involvement with ISIS, the most vile terrorist entity in history.  Iran, nonetheless has an impressive record in its own right.

Iran’s own Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) conducts terrorist activities in Iraq and Syria, and via its al-quds (Jerusalem) brigade, it trains numerous other terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah and is active across the globe.

Iran and/or its IRGC and al-quds units have staged bombings in Europe, Asia, and South America.

Iran also operates terrorist training camps in the Tri-border region of South America, and is one of the leading rogue nations that supports the failed Maduro regime in Venezuela, which Iran then uses as a funnel for launching terrorist personnel towards the United States.

Iran supports far leftist and revolutionary entities across Latin American, and in Europe as well–not to mention the U.S. Democrat Party since the 1990s.  Iranian money aided Spain’s Marxist podemos party to win seats in Spain’s parliament.  Podemos used the slogan si se puede to gain supporters.  The literal translation of si se puede is “it can be done,” but is usually translated as “Yes we can.”

This was the slogan used by the mass murderer Che Chevara, and by the Democrat candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, Barack Obama.

Shi’a Iran coordinated with Sunni terrorist group al-Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11, and has since maintained a close working relationship with it.  For example, Iran has allowed, and still allows, al-Qaeda to use its training camps in South America where Hezbollah also trains.

#3 – QATAR

This tiny natural gas rich country not only is a close ally of the top two state sponsors of terrorism above, but has earned impressive credentials of its own.

Qatar is the primary state financial supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood International.

Qatar also finances and arms al-Qaeda and other MB spin off groups in several countries, chiefly Syria and Libya.

Qatar is paying Tariq Ramadhan 35,000 Euros per month.   Who is Tariq Ramadhan, and why is this important?  Tariq Ramadhan, who has been under trial in France for sexual harassment and rape, is the grandson of MB founder Hasan al-Banna.  I doubt seriously that Qatar would be paying him that much just out of nostalgia for his grandfather.  He has to be doing a heck of a lot for Qatar and the MB cause.

Qatar flies out-of-region jihadis into Libya to join ISIS, al-Qaeda, and MB groups there.

Egyptian reporting indicates that Qatar’s ministry of defense might be actually training terrorist militias in Libya.

Qatar’s penetration of the American political and media arenas, and its influence over the American political decision-making have prevented that giant from declaring the MB to be a terrorist group, and helps to prevent the United States from taking any action to unravel the ideological and theological underpinnings of terrorism.

#4 – THE UNITED STATES

This country has made tremendous progress under the Trump regime, moving from the lofty first place it held under the Obama regime (refer to Ch. 15 in Confessions of an (ex) NSA spy for details), down to fourth by 2019.  Unfortunately, much more house cleaning needs to be done.

The United States thus continues to cling to the 4th spot for the following reasons:

  • The U.S. continues to coddle Turkey and Qatar, two of the top three state sponsors of terrorism, by selling weapons to both countries, and refusing to call them out for their own support of international terrorism, thus providing them with diplomatic cover for their activities.
  • The United States also continues to maintain large military bases in both countries which serve as a “shield” protecting these state sponsors of terrorism from any possible military retaliation by any of the countries they are abusing by supporting terrorism in these 3rd party countries.
  • In Syrian and Egyptian quarters, the United States is blamed for Turning Erdogan and the MB loose against the Arab World.  Even with Obama gone, this resentment still holds true after two years of Trump, because of Trump’s apparent encouragement of Erdogan’s conquests of N. Syria, and his lack of action against the MB.
  • The Trump administration also recently sold weapons to the ruling regime of Nigeria some of which are used by the Islamic Fulani tribesmen against minority Christian groups in Nigeria.
  • The U.S. continues to allow dozens of front entities for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to recruit large fan bases, to propagandize, and to collect funds for use overseas.  These entities are also deeply entrenched in the U.S. political system and exert tremendous pressure to silence free-speech so their activities may go undetected and uninterrupted.

So, while the United States leads the world in fighting the War on Terror with one hand, with its other massive hand it (perhaps unwittingly) continues to ensure that Terrorism will flourish across the face of the planet for a long time to come.

#5 – U.K.

The U.K is still a part of Europe as I write this, but may soon be out.  At any rate, they deserve special attention because it is considered to be the capital of the Muslim Brotherhood International, edging out Turkey and Qatar for that dubious title.

This is based on the absolute freedom of operation that MB members are allowed in the UK, and the vast amount of sums from donations that the MB and its allies are able to collect and use for terrorist purposes in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Huma Abadin’s brother, a high official in the MB, resides in the UK.

The UK also shares in the sins of the EU which are mentioned below.

The UK, like the U.S., is one of the leaders in terms of physically fighting the War on Terror, while at the same time it pursues bone headed policies that guarantee that the planet will be plagued by the cancer of terrorism for may years to come.

#6 – EUROPEAN UNION

The EU coddles and trades with all of the top three state sponsors of terrorism.

The EU has placed itself in a near hostage situation vis-à-vis state sponsor of terrorism number one, Turkey, while also coddling Iran, and continuing to trade with it while sometimes paying lip service to Trump’s call for re-instating the boycott.

As a pseudo hostage to Erdogan, the EU allows the Turkish fascist terrorist group the Grey Wolves to roam freely throughout the continent where they can harass and intimidate Turkish ethnic groups there to support Erdogan policies, collect funds, and pressure European governments to adhere to pro-Erdogan policies.

The EU also allows the MB to operate freely within its member countries, resulting in huge sums flowing from Europe to Middle East terrorist entities.

The EU also tends to take hostile political and diplomatic positions towards any Middle Eastern state that takes measures to halt religious extremism and jihadism.  The EU thus helps to perpetuate the cycles of violence in the Middle East, and in Europe itself.

#7 – LEBANON

Lebanon has been taken over by Iran’s puppet terrorist group the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Lebanon itself, has thus become a state sponsor of terrorism–even though the majority of the Lebanese people (primarily the Christian and Sunni elements) are peace-loving, anti-terrorists individuals.

#8 – PAKISTAN

The Pakistani intelligence service has long been divided 50/50 on whether to support the U.S. in the War on Terror, or to be active participants . . . on the side of al-Qaeda, etc.

That ambivalent attitude is pervasive throughout the Pakistani military and government.

As a result, Pakistan has done less than nothing to root out the al-Qaeda and ISIS cells that operate more or less freely in its territory.

Pakistani intelligence entities themselves run terrorist activities in India’s Kashmir province, and in India proper, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Pakistan also allows Balochi tribesmen resident in the SW corner of Pakistan, to conduct terrorist attacks against Iranian interests across the border (not that we should care about that little bit of shenanigans).

#9 – SUDAN

While Sudan does not actually run terrorist operations on the soil of other countries soil (except for one exception to be mentioned shortly), it has always been a safe haven for groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS to set up shop, recruit volunteers, and collect funding.

With neighboring Libya in a state of chaos with over 300 militias operating just across its borders, Sudan could not resist sending its own personnel to operate one or more of these militias.

#10 – RUSSIA

While Russia is the one state most responsible for turning the tide on ISIS in Syria, it, like the U.S., UK, and EU, continues to support terrorism in other ways.

Russia diplomatically supports the number two state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and sells weapons to it.

Russia has recently added the number one state sponsor  of terrorism to the list with weapons sales to Turkey.  Expect to see more such arms deals in the near future.

Russia also supports the Maduro regime, having sold weapons to it and offered training to its military and security personal so that they can better terrorize the Venezuelan population.  Russia also lends diplomatic support to the Maduro regime allowing it continue to function as a terrorist transit depot.

Russian state institutions have done nothing to reign in Russian Mafia activities, either at home or abroad.  The Russian mafia is now reputed to be the most powerful of crime cartels in Mexico, and thus plays a role in the crime/drugs/terrorism nexus  on the U.S. border.

DIS-HONORABLE MENTIONS:

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Cuba

If I have left anyone’s favorite country off of this list, I apologize for the oversight

There are three kinds of liars: liars, damn liars and Democrats. But I repeat myself. [Videos]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain


Recently Candice Owens appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee was meeting to discuss white supremacism and nationalism. White supremacism was created in America in part by Margaret Sanger. Sanger wrote a  letter about the “Negro Project” to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, dated December 10, 1939. The “Negro Project,” headed by Miss Rose a Sanger staffer, was created to engage black doctors and black pastors to promote birth control and abortion of Negro babies. In her letter Sanger wrote:

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”

Adolph Hitler picked up on the progressive American ideal of Eugenics, the creation of a superior race, from Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics movement in America. The end result was slaughter on an industrial scale, today known as the the Holocaust. The Nazis (socialists party of Germany) justified the slaughter to create a pure Aryan race.

Watch these three videos of the exchange between Candice Owens and members of the House Judiciary Committee:

Calling a black woman a white supremacist is the big lie. Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, wrote this about the big lie:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Democrats are adept at telling the big lie. Lies and damn lies include:

  • Russian collusion
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Those who voted for Donald J. Trump are racists, misogynists, homophobic, Islamophobic, white supremacists.
  • The perpetrators of 9/11 were “some people [who] did something.”
  • Infanticide is a woman’s choice.
  • Taxing the rich (punishing the successful) in the name of social justice.
  • Illegal aliens have a civil right to break American immigration laws.
  • Illegal aliens have a right to vote in elections.
  • Putting a question on the Census form that asks a person’s citizenship status is racist.
  • Giving everyone free stuff doesn’t cost anything.
  • The Green New Deal.

Each of these lies are absurd. If you tell these absurdities often enough they will become public policy. In “The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution”, Ayn Rand wrote:

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.

Uncontested absurdities have become today’s slogans and public policies. Below are just 20 uncontested absurdities:

  1. You are a racist.
  2. You are homophobic.
  3. You are Islamophobic.
  4. You are a misogynist.
  5. A male can choose to be a female and visa versa or both.
  6. The nuclear family is bad, divorce/single parenthood is good.
  7. God is dead.
  8. Islam is the religion of peace.
  9. Believing there is no religion (Atheism) is a religion.
  10. Hate speech is any speech I disagree with or that causes me to be uncomfortable.
  11. Facts no longer matter.
  12. Truth is relative.
  13. Me, Myself and I feeling good is the only thing that counts.
  14. People don’t kill people, only guns kill people.
  15. Welfare is better than work.
  16. Self defense is bad.
  17. Killing the unborn is necessary to save the planet.
  18. Communism is better than Capitalism.
  19. I need to be protected from free speech.
  20. In order to “save humanity” we must give government more power.

Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist

RELATED VIDEO: 21 Quotes by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Netanyahu expected to remain Israel’s prime minister, after getting a boost from Trump

It’s all but certain now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will continue in office for a fifth term, following Tuesday’s national election. His main opponent – retired Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz of the Blue and White Alliance – conceded defeat Wednesday.

Israeli media report that Netanyahu’s Likud Party will be able to put together a coalition government with conservative and Orthodox Jewish parties that will hold 65 seats in the Knesset, the 120-member Israeli parliament.

With almost all votes counted it appears that Likud and the Blue and White Alliance (named for the colors of the Israeli flag) will each control 35 seats in the Knesset. But four right-wing and religious parties pledged support for Likud, while another party was expected to join a coalition with Likud as well, cementing Netanyahu’s majority.

President Trump, who didn’t officially endorse Netanyahu but whose strong support of Israel boosted Netanyahu’s popularity, told reporters at the White House Wednesday: “Everybody said you can’t have peace in the Middle East with Israel and the Palestinians. I think we have a chance. I think we have now a better chance with Bibi having won.”

Trump’s actions strengthening Netanyahu’s position included: moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal; recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights that were captured from Syria in 1967; and branding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a “foreign terrorist organization.”

The Trump-Netanyahu relationship was far better than Netanyahu’s relationship with President Obama, who frequently criticized Israeli actions under Netanyahu and sought to strengthen U.S. ties with Palestinians.

Netanyahu welcomed “a night of great victory” once election results confirmed his Likud party had gained seats in the Knesset. He promised to form a new government “swiftly” with his conservative coalition partners.

The past 25 years in Israel have been the Netanyahu years. You can tell how much Israel has changed by looking at those opposing the prime minister in the election.

In earlier years, Netanyahu was challenged on the left by a “pro-peace” Labor Party. Indeed, President Clinton weighed in heavily in support of the Labor Party to defeat Netanyahu twice after the Oslo Peace Accords were reached with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

But since the second intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) erupted in 2000 and Palestinians turned to suicide bombings, rocket attacks and other actions to strike Israeli civilians, the mood in Israel has shifted dramatically to the right.

The Israeli government under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon started to build a wall to keep out the terrorists from the West Bank. Sharon was widely criticized for it at the time, including by the administration of President George W. Bush, because the wall cut through some Palestinian neighborhoods.

Israelis called it the “Oslo Fence,” noting that it only became necessary after the Oslo Peace accords brought armed terrorists to their doorsteps. Israelis have also built walls along the northern border with Lebanon and the southwest border with Gaza.

Few Israelis still retain any illusions about the possibilities of a negotiated peace agreement with the Palestinians. With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – the most “moderate” of Palestinian leaders – vowing to never recognize the state of Israel, there simply is no partner for peace.

And so in Tuesday’s election, Netanyahu’s main opponents were three former Israeli Defense Forces chiefs of staff, who criticized him for being too soft on the Palestinians – not too hardline. They wanted him to launch a full-scale invasion of Gaza last November when Hamas and Iranian-backed militias stepped up rocket attacks into Israel.

Netanyahu argued, to the surprise of many, that he had received “secret intelligence” that convinced him to respond more cautiously, causing then-Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to resign in protest.

I believe that intelligence focused on Iran’s troop and missile infrastructure buildup inside Syria, and Iran’s repeated vows to open a “land bridge” from Iran through Iraq into Syria that would allow Iran to send massive numbers of ground troops and equipment right up to the Israeli border unhindered.

I reported from the front lines of the 2006 Lebanon war the last time an Israeli prime minister made the mistake of overestimating the threat from Gaza and underestimating the threat from Iranian-backed militias to the north.

At the time, Hezbollah fired some 4,400 unguided rockets into Israel, causing relatively few casualties. Today, Hezbollah alone claims it possesses 150,000 Iranian rockets, many of them equipped with sophisticated GPS guidance systems.

The Islamic State of Iran has long boasted that it will “eradicate” the state of Israel and “annihilate Tel Aviv” if Israel attacks; nothing new, for sure. But Iran has patiently built up new capabilities to make those threats much more convincing.

Iran today can open a three-front war against the Jewish state using proxy forces in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. This is a proven capability, not an idle threat. So far, Netanyahu has kept all three at bay.

In December 2017, for example, a senior Iranian-backed militia leader from Iraq posed for selfies on the Golan Heights peering down into the Galilee in northern Israel after he drove in a small convoy across the newly opened “land bridge” from Iraq.

The Iranians today command an estimated 80,000 militiamen in Syria from Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commanders have said that the “land bridge” will allow them to flow in another 100,000 troops to Israel’s borders, clearly the prelude to war.

And this is why Israel, under Netanyahu’s cautious leadership, has been relentlessly striking at Iranian military and intelligence bases in Syria over the past two years, pushing the Iranians as much as 80 kilometers from Israel’s northern border.

Netanyahu has shown himself to be a consummate diplomat, regularly flying to Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin to win Russian acquiescence to the Israeli air strikes.

Netanyahu’s calm behavior contrasts starkly with the hot-headed remarks of opposition candidate Ganz, the most gaffe-prone of the three former Israeli military chiefs. Ganz has called for annihilating not the Iranian threat but the Palestinian one, boasting in campaign ads of having sent parts of Gaza “back to the stone age” when he was chief of staff during the 2014 war.

Many Israelis may be fed up with Netanyahu the politician. They may be tired of the corruption allegations swirling around him – allegations he denies.

But Israelis increasingly appreciate Netanyahu’s steady hand on the tiller, and his ability to avoid war without appeasing Israel’s enemies. That alone is worth awarding him another term.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Look At The Winners and Losers in Israel’s Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Fox News column is republished with permission.

Ukrainian Prosecutor Reopens Corruption Case Involving Biden

The chief prosecutor in Ukraine recently revealed that he’s reopening a corruption probe into Ukraine’s largest private gas company that could have profound implications for the presidential aspirations of former Vice President Joe Biden.

The company, Burisma Holdings, appointed Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board of directors in 2014, and reportedly paid him more than $3 million during a 14-month period to head its legal team.

Burisma was then facing a state investigation over allegations that company Chairman Nikolai Zlochevskiy had used his official position as Minister of Environment in the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych to award the company lucrative oil and gas permits.

While the probe was underway, then-Vice President Biden made more than a dozen trips to Ukraine, ostensibly to support the new government of Petro Poroshenko. But during one of those trips in 2016, the vice president threatened to withdraw U.S. aid if Poroshenko didn’t fire the prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe.

Biden boasted of his success in getting Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, a year after leaving office.

“And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee,” Biden said. When Poroshenko refused to fire the prosecutor, Biden said he had authority from President Barack Obama to pull the loan guarantee.

“I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ … He got fired.”

Current Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told The Hill’s John Solomon that he was reopening the investigation his office had closed after Biden succeeded in convincing the Ukrainian president to remove his predecessor, Viktor Shokin.

Shokin himself confirmed in written answers to questions from Solomon that before he was fired, he was planning to conduct “interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the [Burisma] executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

Biden’s staff and, indeed, the Democratic National Committee leadership should have seen this coming. It’s not as if Hunter Biden’s appointment to the Burisma board was a secret, nor the fact that he got paid large sums of money for his services, at the same time that his powerful father was intervening in the company’s favor with the president of Ukraine.

This is no skeleton in Uncle Joe’s closet. It’s a raw cadaver, and it stinks to high heaven, despite the mounds of dirt piled on top of it by the national media.

The Wall Street Journal first announced Hunter Biden’s appointment to the Burisma board in May 2014 in a Page 4 item; one columnist in The Washington Post called Hunter Biden’s behavior “nefarious.”

But when asked by a reporter around the time of the appointment to comment, then-White House press secretary Jay Carney said the White House saw no problem with the younger Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine.

“Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens, and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the vice president or president,” Carney said.

Following that White House comment, the media obediently buried Joe Biden’s gross conflict of interest until 2018, when Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, detailed the allegations in a book titled “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.”

“The bottom line is, Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point-person on policy towards Ukraine,” Schweizer said on April 2. “He steered $1.8 billion in aid to that government, and while he was doing so, his son got a sweetheart deal with this energy company—that we’ve been able to trace over just a 14-month period—paid $3.1 million into an account where Hunter Biden was getting paid.”

Schweizer supported his allegation that the payments amounted to a sweetheart deal by noting that Hunter Biden had “no background in Ukraine” and “no background in energy policy.”

“There’s really no legitimate explanation as to why he got this deal with the energy company, other than the fact his father was responsible for doling out money in Ukraine itself,” Schweizer said.

The Ukrainian prosecutor general promises to turn over investigative files to the U.S. Department of Justice, so Joe Biden’s Ukraine scandal could just be getting started.

A source close to the prosecutor said last week that he was also investigating a corrupt intervention by Ukrainian authorities in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, when they leaked the so-called “black ledger” of the pro-Russian Party of Regions to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yavonovitch, an Obama appointee who remains on the job today.

They also leaked the ledger to The New York Times, which ran a front-page story alleging that the ledger included $12.7 million in payments to then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, leading candidate Trump to fire Manafort from the campaign.

Joe Biden might soon be looking back on the inappropriate touching allegations with regret. Not regret for his actions, but regret that public attention so quickly drifted off to other, more damaging scandals.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Epoch Times and is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Saving Kids from the Jaws of Terror

Lisa Miara is doing amazing work with children who’ve been to hell and back – saving them from the jaws of terror.

The founder of Springs of Hope, Miara left her family behind to work with Yazidi child victims of Islamic State – those both brutalized and radicalized.

She tells nightmare stories and explains what we can learn in the West:

RELATED STORIES:

Saving the Kids – Tales of Former ISIS Child Prisoners

VIDEO: Meet Lisa Miara – a Real Hero

Promoting Hate to Children

Man Claims NYC Officials are Abetting Neighbor’s Theft of His Property

A man’s home is supposed to be his castle. But this is no longer the case in New York City, according to a Brooklyn man who says that Big Apple officials are aiding and abetting a next-door neighbor’s attempt to steal his property.

It has been a long ordeal for John Hockenjos, 62, and his wife Irina, one whose twists and turns include a false arrest by the NYPD. The problems started in 2009, they say, when the couple Argo and Elen Paumere “purchased the home next to them with plans for an ambitious overhaul. According to the Hockenjoses, red flags flew fast when they were approached to sign documents turning over a two-foot easement to their new neighbor,” as Bklyner reported in 2013.

I spoke to the Hockenjos recently on the phone, and Irina told me their suspicions were borne out. After refusing to sign the documents, the Hockenjoses say that Argo Paumere “went and created a fraudulent land survey that marked a chunk of the driveway as theirs,” as Bklyner put it. The kicker?

The city’s Department of Buildings (DOB) approved it, the Hockenjoses report — and they’ve been battling the Paumeres and City Hall ever since.

It’s a battle that has cost the Hockenjoses their jobs, their health and more than $150,000 in legal fees, they say. But the real shock came in February 2012 when John, a former Metropolitan Transit Authority engineer, was falsely arrested by 61st Precinct police.

That dark day was Feb. 5 of that year. The police arrived at the Hockenjoses’ property, in Brooklyn’s Sheepshead Bay section, after being called by Paumere, according to NY’s Daily News. The incident culminated in John’s arrest and felony charges being brought after he was accused of driving at a “high rate of speed, causing an officer “to jump out of the way,” the News reports. But the police had a problem.

No such thing ever happened.

John had video surveillance footage to prove it, too, which showed “the Brooklyn man slowly pulling into his driveway and the cop not even flinching,” to quote the News again.

In fact, so egregious was the police frame-up that Officer Diego Palacios, who was involved in the arrest, resigned from the NYPD and was indicted by a grand jury “on five kinds of illegal lying, one of them a felony,” reported The New York Times in 2012.

Palacios pled guilty in exchange for a sentence of just four days in prison — just one day longer than John spent in jail after his arrest — but ended up serving only one night. Call it Kim Foxx justice.

Oh, had Palacios’ frame-up been successful, John would have faced seven years behind bars.

As for the land dispute, the Hockenjoses told me they know of other NYC residents in their shoes, people who face what’s essentially the theft of their property due to DOB corruption or incompetence. If this sounds fanciful, consider the comments of former Queens-based state senator Tony Avella, who was a staunch critic of the DOB.

“It’s something that’s a bottom line issue with the DOB where an applicant just presents an application and they never really check it to see if the size of the property is correct, or whether they own the property or not,” he told Sheepshead Bites (now part of Bklyner) in 2013.”

“The builder says they own part of the property that’s actually the neighbor’s, and the DOB approves it,” he continued. “It’s a very serious issue. Anyone can submit a false application, fraudulent documents and fraudulent land surveys, and no one checks it.”

And once this happens…well, go fight City Hall. As Bklyner also tells us, “According to both Avella and the Hockenjoses, the DOB’s modus operandi when they receive complaints about fraudulent documents is to wash its hands of the problem and declare it a property dispute to be handled in civil court.”

“That comes with its own set of problems,” Bklyner further informs. “The Hockenjoses have gone through lawyer after lawyer, some of which [sic] they say took their money and never did any work. Others have refused to take the case because it appears to exist in a sort of legal no-man’s-land.”

“‘They’re saying I’m not going to take this case because it’s not a real estate case, it’s not a property dispute case, it’s a criminal case,’” Irina told Bklyner (this echoes what she related to me). “‘And we go to criminal attorneys and they tell us we need to go to prosecutors. And the prosecutors say it’s a civil case.’”

The bottom line is that the Hockenjoses have spent a good part of the last decade in court, all due, they say, to a neighbor who’s quite a malevolent character. In fact, Irina told me that shortly after the Paumeres moved in, Argo Paumere said bluntly, “I’m going to take your property from you.” After being informed that it wasn’t for sale, he made known that this didn’t matter, Irina states.

And aside from the false arrest, the Hockenjoses say that the Paumeres have continually made false charges against them, resulting in actions by city inspectors that the couple has had to fight. The stress has been overwhelming, they state.

The Hockenjoses also believe that more than just garden-variety bureaucratic incompetence is at work: They suspect that Argo Paumere has connections with city officials. The false arrest certainly lends this theory credence, of course. Whatever the case, it’s a very strange story — and one many Americans wouldn’t expect to hear in these United States.

It’s a continuing story, too, as the Hockenjoses fight on. Hopefully, they’ll get the help they deserve, somewhere, and justice will finally be done.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The Red Thread: Who Runs the Anti-Trump Conspiracies [Video]

Forbidden Knowledge TV published the below video about a new book by Diane West. Stefan Molyneux interviews Diane West, author of ‘The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy‘, which investigates why a ring of senior Washington officials went rogue to derail the election and the presidency of Donald Trump.

Watch the interview, then buy Diane’s book ‘The Red Thread’:

On the Southern Poverty Law Center, Too Late for Tina, Send in the IRS

The question isn’t what went wrong at the SPLC; it is why it took so long for the rest of the country to learn what local reporters already knew.” – (Jim Tharpe, former managing editor of the Montgomery Advertiser)


The problems at the Southern Poverty Law Center could be bigger than discomfort by staff about racism and sexism in the internal office culture says the former managing editor of the Montgomery Advertiser who penned an op-ed in the Washington Post last week entitled,

Something strange is going on at this civil rights institution. It must be investigated.

Editor:  It is important that all of you, all fair-minded people! especially those who have been targets of the SPLC’s infamous hate lists, keep all of the unfolding news about the SPLC ‘s frauds in the public eye.  Tina is Tina Tchen Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff brought in by the board to help clean up the mess. She will be working to downplay information like this!

Author Jim Tharpe, a retired journalist who lives in Atlanta and was a former managing editor of the Montgomery Advertiser, says federal investigators need to investigate the finances of this massive ‘non-profit’ group.

Here is some of Tharpe’s thesis at the Washington Post,

(Emphasis is mine.)

There’s something strange afoot at the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the nation’s richest civil and human rights charities. In March, the center abruptly fired legendary co-founder Morris Dees. Dees’s biography was quickly scrubbed from the center’s website, and the SPLC announced this week that Karen Baynes-Dunning would serve as interim president and CEO, giving the civil rights organization its first black female leader.

In confirming Dees’s departure, then-President Richard Cohen emphasized the center’s values of “truth, justice, equity, and inclusion,” and said vaguely, “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

Subsequent news reports pointed to allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment inside an organization that had raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors to fight just that type of injustice.

Dees has said little about why he was shown the door after 48 years at the organization he had come to define. But to those of us familiar with the SPLC and its inner workings, the allegations swirling around the latest drama were familiar. The question isn’t what went wrong at the SPLC; it is why it took so long for the rest of the country to learn what local reporters already knew. It will probably take a federal investigation to fully unravel this deep-South mystery and provide a credible, long-term fix.

Twenty five years ago an investigation first revealed the problems at the SPLC and nothing was ever done about it.

In February 1994, after three years of research, the Advertiserpublished an eight-part series titled “Rising Fortunes: Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center” that found a litany of problems and questionable practices at the SPLC, including a deeply troubled history with its relatively few black employees, some of whom reported hearing the use of racial slurs by the organization’s staff and others who “likened the center to a plantation”; misleading donors with aggressive direct-mail tactics; exaggerating its accomplishments; spending most of its money not on programs but on raising more money; and paying its top staffers (including Dees and Cohen) lavish salaries.

Dees and Cohen vigorously denied its findings. And the SPLC mounted an aggressive campaign against the series when it was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize — it was a 1995 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism.

Too late for Tina, says Tharpe. Bring in the IRS and the Civil Rights Division at DOJ!

Cohen, before he announced his own departure, said the center would bring in well-regarded lawyer Tina Tchen to conduct an investigation. It’s too late for that.

The Internal Revenue Service, which grants the SPLC tax-exempt status, and the civil rights division of the Justice Department would be the best bets to really figure out what’s up at the center.

Any investigation should take a close look at the SPLC’s finances. It should look at what the center has told donors in its mail solicitations over the years. And it should take a close look at how that donor money has been spent.

Investigators should also look at how SPLC staffers have been treated over the years. Where was the center’s board when this mistreatment was going on? And why did no one step up sooner?

[….]

The feds owe that to the young progressives who work at the SPLC. And they certainly owe that to the donors who have put their own first-class stamps on the checks they mailed to Montgomery.

More here(I know it may be behind a paywall, I was able to read it on my first visit.)

Follow the money!

I don’t know that the feds owe anything to “young progressives” who naively work at the SPLC, but investigating a politically motivated ‘non-profit’ group for possible financial wrong-doing sure is a good idea.

And, to answer Tharpe’s question about why it took so long for the rest of the country to learn the truth about the SPLC, it is because the mainstream media protected and coddled the SPLC because the mainstream media wanted to believe that America was filled with hatersbeing exposed by the good and pure-minded staffers struggling for the little guy!  (And, I include Fox News in that bunch of protectors!)

It doesn’t take a genius to know that Fox stopped bringing on certain guests after calls from the SPLC!

Your job is to continue to post news like this about the SPLC to your social networks! Do not let Tina and Karen sweep the dirt under a rug!

I’ve got another post if I get to it today about malfeasance with non-profit groups — many are run by frauds and crooks (with do-nothing boards of directors).

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission.

Facebook’s Community Standards: Anti-Semitic, Anti-NRA, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Shariah Law and Pro-Democrats? You Decide.

I woke up this morning to find that my Facebook page was blocked because I had violated their “community standards.” When I finally was able to open my account I found seven recent posts with the following notice posted by Facebook below each:

This post goes against our Community Standards, so no one else can see it.

This has been known as “shadow banning.” Or perhaps Facebook has taken the next step and is actually openly banning freedom of expression to interact with like minded Facebook friends in certain areas? You be the judge.

Here are the seven posts that go against FB’s community standards:

The first was a One America News Network article titled “Pres. Trump To Deliver Remarks At Republican Jewish Coalition In Vegas.” Blocking reporting on a Jewish Republican event smacks of anti-Semitism?

The second violation of FB’s community standards was an article titled “Breaking News: President Trump to speak at NRA-ILA Leadership Forum in Indianapolis.” This FB community standards ban appears to be anti-Second Amendment and specifically anti-NRA.

The third was blocking a quote made by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The AOC quote published on BraineyQuote.com is, “Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.”

This community standards violation prevents restating what a politician has been quoted as saying. This community standard has a chilling effect by denying freedom of expression and free speech under the First Amendment. What possible community standard blocks anyone’s ability to quote any politician from any party (or from just one party)?

The fourth block was a column titled “Filing Income Taxes? Remember, TurboTax Funds Planned Parenthood.” This violation of FB’s community standards appears to be pro-abortion/infanticide and pro-Planned Parenthood.

The fifth block was a column titled “VIDEO: Muslim sociologist demonstrates proper Islamic way to beat one’s wife.” This violation of FB’s community standards indicates their adherence to Islamic Shariah Law and suppression of anything said that may offend the Muslim community (a.k.a. anything FB deems Islamophobic).

The sixth block was a meme that showed a serving of Chick-Fil-A waffle fries with the words under it “Come And Take It.” Chick-Fil-A is under attack by various Democratic controlled cities to ban it opening stores in airports. Chick-Fil-A is known for its pro-traditional marriage and pro-Christian stances, including its policy not to open on Sundays, as this is a day best spent worshiping. Are FB’s community standards anti-Christian?

The seventh block is of an April 2019 a cartoon by Michael P. Ramirez titled “Democratic Field.” FB’s community standards appear not to allow political satire, especially when it targets Democratic Party candidates for president.

Each of the above posts has a “Request Review” option. When you click on “Request Review” the words “Delete this post” appear. The only option offered by Facebook is to delete the post that violates their “community standards.” No appeal no review. Just delete.

Are you seeing any pattern in these violations of Facebook’s community standards?

If you or a friend have experienced something similar please leave a comment about it below.

RELATED ARTICLE: House Democrats Want ‘Oversight Over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions

RELATED VIDEO: The Myth of the Unbiased Search Engine – Forbidden Knowledge TV

The “Green” Whitehouse Agenda: The Enemies List

The “Green Whitehouse” Agenda (full series)
The Enemies List | Green Pays | Sheldon’s Endgame

Summary: Americans are accustomed to politicians saying one thing and doing another. But arguments about the funding behind think tanks and advocacy organizations are perhaps the most one-sided of the recurring debates on Capitol Hill. Few are as outspoken on the issue as Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The wrinkle? Senator Whitehouse has a prolific portfolio of stocks that oddly aligns with industries he oversees.

Dealing with Our Political Enemies

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is a supporter of socialist New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (GND). A radical environmental/economic fantasy that proposes to tear up and rebuild the U.S. economy over a ten-year period, the GND price tag, according to a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, will check in at between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. The high-side estimate roughly equals the combined annual economic output of . . . Earth.

Sen. Whitehouse disputes the characterization that this is a “radical” proposal, telling Salon in February that the true radicals are the “misbehaving” Republicans deluded by their “fossil fuel funding.”

This is one of many examples where there’s an ironic (less charitably, we might say “hypocritical”) twist in the character of one of the nation’s most influential left-wing politicians. Whether he’s trying to turn a climate policy disagreement into a federal racketeering lawsuit, or sheepishly dodging responsibility when his money and his mouth seem to be running in different directions, Whitehouse can be relied upon to replace accountability with accusations, and to wield his power and privilege in the service of gaining more of both.

Whitehouse has been berating the energy industry since 2007 and is arguably the Senate’s most accomplished practitioner of climate panic. In a 2008 news release, he denounced the oil industry for its “obscene” profits and doing “little to invest in the alternative energy technologies that will help end our dependence on fossil fuels.” In an October 2009 floor speech pitching a “clean energy” proposal he warned his colleagues not to “sit idle” and be “beguiled by the money and spin of polluting industries.”

But as he was talking, Whitehouse owned between $250,000 and $800,000 in ten different oil and gas industry stocks. This is according to his 2008 financial disclosure forms, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (the forms record a range of value for each investment, not a specific value). Giant oil and gas exploration and servicing firms, such as Devon Energy and Schlumberger Ltd, were two of his largest energy industry holdings.

For 2009, CRP reported his energy industry stock holdings at between $145,000 and $475,000.

So, while denouncing the energy company profits and preaching to the Senate about avoiding the beguiling money of the so-called “polluting industries,” his personal financial stake in “beguiling pollution” reportedly fell somewhere between “more than the value of most people’s homes” and “more than the total net worth of most Americans.”

This state of affairs seemed to hold until at least 2014, when he reported selling his stake in Schlumberger. Perhaps not coincidentally, this was the same year GoLocalProv, a news service in Providence, Rhode Island, began looking into whether Whitehouse’s investments squared with this ideology. In December 2014 they posted a report showing Whitehouse owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in Duke Energy (a large, coal-burning electric utility) as recently as the end of 2012.

Noting Whitehouse had (at that point) delivered “80 floor speeches about the adverse impact of global warming,” GoLocalProv speculated about the “conflict” between the politician’s “economic interests” and his “environmental pronouncements.”

Whitehouse usually escapes such media scrutiny. His complicated history with energy investments wasn’t mentioned in a March 2019 report in Roll Call, which gave critical examination to three Republican U.S. House members on a newly-formed “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” because of their “personal investment in fossil fuel companies.” One of the three, Congressman Gary Palmer (R—Alabama), was questioned by the reporter due to his owning just $1,000 to $15,000 in each of three energy firms. This means Palmer’s total “personal investment” could be as small as the price of a cheap used car ($3,000) – hardly enough to motivate the congressman to become a cartoonish climate villain.

A Whitehouse staffer wouldn’t fess up to the specific details regarding what the boss owned and when, but tried to explain that it had been taken care of, saying “the Senator divested his investments from fossil fuels during the past couple of years” and “feels strongly about his work on environmental issues.”

Maybe critics should go easy on him: His heart’s in the right place, even if his wallet is still trying to catch up.

But where Whitehouse has been very generously willing to excuse his own complicity, while literally being an owner of the fossil fuel industry, he thinks the industry itself needs a knock on the door from the FBI.

Writing in the Washington Post in 2015, he proposed using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against energy companies that disagree with his climate policy agenda. A year later, during a March 2016 hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, he asked then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch what the Department of Justice thought of this.

The stunning reply from President Obama’s top cop: “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.”

Richard Nixon analogies should be used sparingly but are sometimes too on-point to ignore. An infamous 1971 White House memo, titled “Dealing with our Political Enemies,” summarized what became known as Nixon’s “enemies list”—a plot to inflict IRS audits and other federal harassments on people whose only offense was disagreeing with a powerful politician.

“This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration,” wrote Nixon Administration lawyer John Dean. “Stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

Almost five decades later, Sheldon Whitehouse seems to be using the Nixon White House as a role model. And the next time he gets friendly climate cultists in the White House willing to listen to him, he won’t just be coming after the companies who keep the economy humming with low-cost energy, but anyone who speaks up to defend the good work they’re doing.

He’s tried it already.

In July 2016, just a few months after Lynch assured him the FBI was taking him seriously, Whitehouse and 18 other Democratic senators (including former and current minority leaders Harry Reid of Nevada and Chuck Schumer of New York) spent two days on the floor of the Senate denouncing dozens of free enterprise policy organizations that disagree with Whitehouse’s environmental extremism. Special times were reserved for verbal lashings directed at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others Whitehouse has elsewhere referred to as part of a “corrupt monster.”

Few relevant friends of the free market were excluded from this attack. In a joint letter responding to the assault, some of the think tanks denounced the creation of the “enemies list” by Whitehouse and the others, calling the Senators “tyrants” who were using their offices to “to bully and single out groups to blame rather than ideas to debate.”

In the next installment of The “Green” Whitehouse Agenda, learn how deep-pocketed environmentalist groups help support their man in the Senate.

COLUMN BY

Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for InfluenceWatch.org and the Capital Research magazine. He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six… + MORE BY KEN BRAUN.

EDITORS NOTE: This Capital Research Center column is republished with permission.

Kids Aren’t Born Transgender, So Don’t Let Advocates Bamboozle You

People who pursue a cross-sex identity aren’t born that way, and children should not be encouraged to “transition” to the opposite sex, according to a reference work endorsed by the American Psychological Association.

Yet every day I hear from another parent who tells me that a child’s therapist, after an appointment or two, strongly recommends that the parent allow the child to change his or her name and personal pronouns, live as the opposite sex, and get on the track toward irreversible medical interventions.

Laura Haynes, a licensed psychologist in California, recently reviewed the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and highlighted its research findings about transgender children.

Among those findings, cited on page 744 of Volume 1:

  • “In no more than about one in four children does gender dysphoria persist from childhood to adolescence or adulthood,” with the majority of affected boys later identifying as gay, not transgender, and up to half of affected girls identifying as lesbian, not transgender.
  • “Early social transition (i.e., change of gender role, such as registering a birth-assigned boy in school as a girl) should be approached with caution to avoid foreclosing this stage of gender identity development.”
  • “Early social transition may be necessary for some; however, the stress associated with possible reversal of this decision has been shown to be substantial.”

Yet we all have been bamboozled by distorted claims to the contrary from sex-change advocates, who insist the science is settled.

They say people who identify as the opposite sex will never change their mind, the cross-sex identity is fixed and the earlier the child, teen, or adult is affirmed as the opposite sex and makes the transition, the better off he or she will be.

In fact, however, the American Psychological Association and the weight of historical evidence both challenge society’s affirmation of cross-sex identities.

The preface to the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, published in 2014, says it is endorsed and approved by the American Psychological Association, which describes itself as “the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the largest association of psychologists in the world.”

underwent my own “sex change” in April 1983. I had no idea then that I would be here today talking about the subject, or that the evidence against “born that way” had started oozing out as early as 1979, four years before I was mutilated.

In 1979 an endocrinologist, Dr. Charles L. Ihlenfeld, sounded a warning on using hormones and surgery on the transgender population in remarks to a group of clinicians. Ihlenfeld had administered hormone therapy for six years to a large sample of 500 trans-identified adults.

Ihlenfeld, who is gay, told the clinicians that “80 percent of the people who want to change their sex shouldn’t do it.” Desires to change sex, he said, “most likely stem from powerful psychological factors—likely from the experiences of the first 18 months of life.”

Ihlenfeld’s comments 40 years ago foreshadowed the evidence provided in the APA Handbook, where page 743 of Volume 1 says that identifying as the opposite sex is “most likely the result of a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors.”

“Research on the influence of family of origin dynamics,” it adds, “has found some support for separation anxiety among gender-nonconforming boys and psychopathology among mothers.”

Ihlenfeld and the APA, generations apart in time, came to a similar conclusion: The desire to change sex most likely stems from early life experiences and psychological factors.

As to the wisdom and effectiveness of using cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgery to treat gender dysphoria, the evidence does not exist.

Above:  The author, Walt Heyer, takes part in a related panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation. His remarks begin at 47:30 in the video.

In the United Kingdom, the University of Birmingham’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility conducted a review in 2004 of 100 international medical studies of “post-operative transsexuals.” It found “no conclusive evidence [that] sex-change operations improve the lives of transsexuals.”

Additionally, the evidence showed that the transsexual person, after undergoing reassignment surgery, “remains severely distressed to the point of suicide.”

A professor at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan, is one recent voice questioning cross-sex hormone use in children and adolescents. Heneghan is editor-in-chief of a respected British medical journal, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

On Feb. 25, Heneghan and a fellow researcher reported significant problemswith how evidence is collected and analyzed, concluding:

Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility, adverse events, long-term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.

So the negative findings stack up, and alarms are raised about the lack of proof concerning effectiveness and safety. But administering unnecessary hormones and rearranging healthy body parts with sex-change surgeries continue undaunted by a deaf medical community.

I feel like I’m standing alongside the road shouting to warn approaching drivers: “The bridge is out! The bridge is out!”

Because I know—I drove off that cliff, and I’m still affected 35 years later.

The APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, again, says that transgender people are not born that way, that cross-sex identification can change, and that the majority of children grow out of a desire to change sex if they don’t engage in social transition.

Strangely, the medical and psychological community doesn’t follow its own evidence and seems oblivious to the experiment they’re conducting on real lives, especially those of children.

The sex-change cheerleaders falsely claim, “Affirmation is the only solution.” They use distorted doctrine to lobby for laws that punish counselors and parents who say otherwise, laws that take away the rights of patients to choose their own therapy goals.

Organizations such as The Trevor Project are lobbying in all 50 states to outlaw any therapy that suggests interest in cross-sex transition can change.

Meanwhile, accounts such as these of families and lives being ripped to shreds by sex change appear in my inbox daily. I have compiled 30 of the stories I’ve received, along with recent research, in my own book “Trans Life Survivors.”

We must wake up and use the evidence provided in the APA Handbook to counter those who say transgender people are born that way.

Instead, we must fight loudly for the rights of patients to choose their counseling goals and against laws that legislate affirmation as the only therapy allowed.

COMMENTARY BY

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLE: My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Liberal Complacency With Democratic Antisemitism

The Democratic Party clearly has an anti-Semitism problem, but too many Jewish Democrats have been restrained in their responses.


Anti-Semitism is reaching epidemic levels in the United States, enabled by progressives who disparage traditional values, misrepresent Jewish history, and delegitimize Israel.  They also tend to secularize Jewish identity and interpret the Jewish experience as a universal metaphor devoid of substantive religious or cultural content. In so doing, they often trivialize what it means to be Jewish.  The result is an identity detached from heritage and defined by a progressive political allegiance that blinds many to the anti-Semitism that has infected the Democratic Party, but which has done little to shake partisan loyalty.

As many Democrats embrace the BDS movement, anti-Zionism, and global conspiracy theories, as feminist leaders honor Louis Farrakhan and purge Jews from their ranks, and as progressive universities tolerate anti-Jewish hostility on campus, liberals often misdirect by blaming conservatives and Republicans. However, the forums where anti-Semitism flourishes today (e.g., college campuses, BDS programs, internet websites) are overwhelmingly progressive and far less tolerant of conservative thought than Jew-hatred.

The 2018 midterm elections demonstrated how inured liberals have become to progressive extremism.  Among the new Democrats representatives in Congress are Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose words and actions have raised concerns for many Jews, though apparently not so much within the party.

In a Twitter message in January, Rep. Tlaib suggested that members of Congress who voiced support for a pro-Israel Senate bill “forgot what country they represent,” which implicitly raised the old canard of divided Jewish loyalties. In addition, she supports BDS, has written for Farrakhan’s “The Final Call,” and seems quite appealing to anti-Israel activists and radicals.  Though some Democrats have expressed concern, there has been no real demand for discipline or restraint by the party hierarchy.  Instead, she was given a position on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.

Rep. Omar made similar waves with a tweet implying that AIPAC uses money to influence government Mideast policy saying, “it’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”  This time, there was criticism from some Democrats, though there was much wider outrage from Congressional Republicans, who tend to be more pro-Israel and mindful of anti-Semitism than their liberal counterparts. Democratic criticism was not unanimous, however, and the sincerity of those who did speak up was questionable considering their failure to do so last November – despite her public statements against Israel.

It was commonly known, for example, that during the war instigated by Hamas in 2012, Omar had stated on Twitter that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  Republicans were aware of this comment and deemed it anti-Semitic, but Democrats seemed to ignore it – even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed her to the prestigious Foreign Affairs Committee. Although Omar issued an apology for this comment, it was qualified and did not renounce her disparagement of Israel – and she was thereafter portrayed as the victim of a hate campaign perpetrated by those who took offense to her remarks.

Incredibly, some Jewish progressives came to her defense, although fallacious claims of Jewish “hypnosis” and financial influence echo hoary themes as old as the blood libel.  Others displayed cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by a tweet from the ADL stating, in relevant part: “[H]ats off to Rep Omar for her honest apology & commitment to a more just world. Open & respectful conversations will help us achieve this goal.”  But her apology failed to disavow claims of Israeli “evil”; and party leaders were subsequently reluctant to describe repeated comments as anti-Semitic.  In contrast, the Zionist Organization of America described her attempted conciliation as a “non-apology.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another freshman Democrat whose conduct has raised concerns among Jews.  In a television interview during the campaign, for example, she intoned the revisionist myth that Israel was occupying “Palestine,” a country that never existed, before demurring that she was not a geopolitical expert. In other forums, she would not condemn Jew-hatred within the women’s movement, was evasive about her stance on BDS, and engaged in a fawning dialogue with British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is widely regarded as anti-Semitic.

Despite such comments and actions (or perhaps because of them), Ocasio-Cortez asserted claims of Jewish ancestry last Hanukkah in an apparent effort to ingratiate herself to New York’s Jewish community.  Whether she truly has any Jewish blood is irrelevant, however, because attenuated ancestry neither confers Jewishness nor absolves one of bias. Facile assertions of common descent should be as grating to Jewish ears as the lame statement that “some of my best friends are Jewish.”

Progressive extremism is clearly influencing the Democratic mainstream, as illustrated by: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s public failure to deny that Israel is an apartheid state; the refusal of twenty-three Democratic senators to support the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act,” which inter alia condemns BDS; the snubbing of AIPAC by all declared Democratic presidential hopefuls; and the refusal to single out anti-Semitism for condemnation.

The Democratic Party clearly has an anti-Semitism problem, but too many Jewish Democrats have been restrained in their responses.  Many were reluctant, at least initially, to call for serious reprimand of Tlaib, Omar or Ocasio-Cortez, or to characterize their comments as biased.  And liberals who did speak out seemed more concerned that the representatives’ comments “could be interpreted” as bigoted, not that they were inherently so.  It is no coincidence that so many defended Barack Obama against charges of anti-Semitism in 2015, when White House mouthpieces implied that critics of his Iran nuclear had divided loyalties or wielded disproportionate influence.

Liberal hypocrisy comes into sharper focus when compared to the excoriation of Rep. Steven King (R. Iowa) for comments deemed racist and supportive of white supremacism.  After his comments became known, King was upbraided by Democrats and Republicans alike and stripped of his Congressional committee assignments, and liberal groups like the ADL called for his censure.  But if outrage against King was justified based on the tenor of his statements, why have relatively few liberals chastised the Democratic Party’s rising stars with similar indignation? The Democrats’ reaction has been woefully inadequate, falling well short of demands for censure.  Moreover, their Congressional resolution against hate – which was occasioned by Omar’s remarks – was diluted to avoid focusing on anti-Semitism or mentioning her use of abhorrent stereotypes.

In contrast, Republicans have been consistently proactive regarding both Democratic anti-Semitism and charges of racism against members of their own party.

The tendency of liberals to ignore progressive anti-Semitism goes hand-in-hand with the impulse to misrepresent Jewish history to validate their political agenda.  They debase the meaning of the Holocaust by analogizing it to the illegal immigration crisis or using it as a catchall metaphor for any generic hatred.  But the plight of Jews trying to escape Nazi genocide has nothing in common with today’s migrants seeking better economic opportunity or political stability.  And anti-Semitic genocide – whether during the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Crusades, the Khmelnytsky rebellion, or the Muslim conquests – is simply not comparable to prejudice against racial, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities that were never targeted for extermination as the Jews have been for two millennia.

Hatred of Jews today can be ugly and crass or it can masquerade as political discourse, but is identifiable regardless of packaging.  Disproportionate criticism and delegitimization of Israel are forms of anti-Semitism. So are anti-Zionism and the elevation of a Palestinian narrative lacking historicity over documented Jewish history that is corroborated by the historical, archeological, and literary records.  These modern manifestations of the oldest hatred are no different from the ancient libels that inspired massacres and pogroms – and which are enthusiastically embraced by the left today.

Though secular liberals may be loath to admit it, Jewish authenticity cannot be imputed to lifestyles that are largely devoid of traditional values and observance.  Some define Jewishness as purely cultural and others by adherence to political beliefs that actually conflict with Jewish law and tradition. But what these secularized identities all have in common is their drastic deviation from historically-normative Judaism, their focus on universalism instead of cultural self-preservation, and the failure to acknowledge G-d’s influence in the lives of Jews individually and collectively.

The alarming incidence of assimilation and anti-Israel rejectionism among Jewish progressives suggests that many of them have little or no connection to their tradition or history.  And it is this detachment that enables so many to ignore anti-Semitism within their political ranks, remain silent when confronted with it, or justify it based on blind partisan allegiance.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israeli Attitudes Towards American Jews

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission.