Visa Program for Illegal Alien Crime Victims Approves Forged, Altered, Unauthorized Petitions

A controversial program that awards special visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of crimes in the U.S. rubber stamps petitions with forged, unauthorized, altered, or suspicious law enforcement certifications, according to a scathing federal audit released this month. The probe also discloses that the Homeland Security agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), that authorizes the visas has for years allowed fraud to go unchecked in the program that receives over 50,000 applications annually. It is known as the U nonimmigrant visa, or simply U visa, and it grants lawful status as well as a path to American citizenship to illegal alien crime victims and their families.

Congress created it in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act to help authorities prosecute criminals with the help of victims in the country illegally who might otherwise not cooperate with police. Though victims of other crimes and those who have suffered “substantial physical or mental abuse” may also qualify, the visa was designed to assist victims of sexual assault, gangs, domestic violence, and human trafficking. In the last few years U visa petitions have grown tremendously, according to government figures, and the Biden administration wants to expand the program even more by raising the annual cap from 10,000 to 30,000 (family members do not count against the cap). That will only add to the huge backlog. It is bad enough that a few years ago USCIS estimated that petitioners would wait more than a decade to receive a U visa if policies and processing procedures remain the same.

While on the waitlist illegal immigrants and their family members receive deferred action or parole and may apply for work authorization. A USCIS publication reveals that 22% of petitioners and 11% of derivatives were previously in deportation proceedings and nearly 10% of those approved required a waiver for fraud or willful misrepresentation. The report also states that in 2010 USCIS implemented a waitlist process due to the growing number of petitioners. By 2019 the agency estimated petitioners would wait north of 10 years to receive a U visa. The overwhelming majority (68%) of U visa applicants come from Mexico, according to figures embedded in the USCIS report. The rest come from Guatemala (7%), El Salvador (6.3%), Honduras (5.3%), India (3%) and Ecuador (1.9%).

To qualify for a U visa applicants must show that they are a victim of a qualifying crime, have information about the crime and are likely to be helpful in the detection or investigation of the crime or the prosecution and conviction of the perpetrator. Victims must submit a signed certification (1-918 form) from a law enforcement official containing basic information about the criminal activity and the victim’s willingness to assist in the detection, investigation, prosecution, conviction or sentencing. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG), which conducted the latest probe, found that USCIS approved petitions with law enforcement certifications that were unauthorized, forged, altered or suspicious. Investigators from the watchdog’s office contacted law enforcement officials and confirmed in various cases that certifications had forged or unauthorized signatures. It seems that USCIS is not terribly concerned because the IG writes that, even after learning about these serious issues, the agency “did not adequately manage the U visa program” and failed to address “fraud risks.”

As part of the probe, the DHS watchdog surveyed law enforcement officials at dozens of agencies across the nation to determine if the U visa program helps solve crimes. Of 57 certifying law enforcement agencies contacted, “61 percent stated the program does not significantly improve their ability to investigate and solve crimes and 54 percent believe petitioners abuse the program,” the recently published DHS IG report says. Officials at several law enforcement agencies said the U visa program is not helpful because the requests are often for old or closed cases, and in some instances, “staged” crimes, or “exaggerated injuries.” Portions of the report are redacted but the key point is well conveyed. “USCIS’ mismanagement of the U visa program led to questionable petitioners gaining U visa benefits,” the IG writes, adding that the agency has failed to take corrective actions although it acknowledged issues and vulnerabilities years ago.

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

CAIR Condemns 19th Century Slavery in the United States, But What About Muhammad?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has joined in the condemnation of monuments dedicated to Confederate soldiers who fought in the American Civil War (1861-1865).

On November 10, 2021, CAIR “welcomed a vote by Virginia’s Washington County Board of Supervisors to remove several Confederate monuments from outside a local courthouse.” CAIR National Communications Coordinator Ismail Allison stated, “People who betrayed this nation in order to preserve white supremacy and slavery do not deserve to be honored, especially not on public land.”[1]

However, CAIR’s appreciation of the action taken by the Washington County Board of Supervisors soon turned to condemnation because of a change that Board made by a unanimous decision. On December 15, 2021, CAIR “condemned a decision by Virginia’s Washington County to relocate two Confederate monuments to a space outside a government building.” CAIR National Communications Coordinator Ismail Allison said, “By moving these monuments to treason from outside a courthouse to outside another government building, the Board of Supervisors is allowing for the continued reverence of white supremacy and systemic anti-Black racism.”[2]

It is interesting that CAIR condemns white supremacy. According to the teachings of CAIR’s prophet Muhammad, there is no such thing as white supremacy or any other supremacy based on skin color. As I pointed out in an earlier article,[3] according to the teachings of CAIR’s prophet Muhammad, all people were divided into only two, non-racial categories; Muhammad stated:

One is only a righteous believer [Muslim] or a doomed evildoer.[4]

So according to Muhammad, and Koran verses such as 3:110, 98:6 and 98:7, regardless of skin color Muslims are inherently superior to non-Muslims.

CAIR also seems particularly incensed about the existence of slavery in the United States during a particular time period. Perhaps CAIR should be similarly incensed about slavery when it comes to their prophet Muhammad, because Muhammad was a slave owner and dealer. And as we are well aware, Muhammad is the perfect example for Muslims to follow today.

Muhammad was a slave owner and dealer

Muhammad happened to own a number of black slaves. He:

  1. Had a black slave boy named Mid’am.[5]
  2. Had a black male slave camel driver named Anjasha.[6]
  3. Had a black male slave as a doorman.[7]
  4. Had black slave girls. One of these slave girls committed fornication and Muhammad ordered that she be given 50 lashes after her postpartum bleeding had ended.[8] And a black slave girl played a drum for Muhammad’s entertainment.[9]
  5. Used two of his black slaves to purchase another slave.[10]

And there are numerous other authoritative reports in which Muhammad was personally involved in possessing, buying, selling, and giving away slaves in general. Here are some eye-opening stories about Muhammad and his dealings with slaves:

  1. It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet bought Safiyyah [one of his wives] for seven slaves.[11]
  2. ‘Adda’ bin Khalid bin Hawdhah said to me: ‘Shall I not read to you a letter that the Messenger of Allah wrote to me?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ So he took out a letter. In it was: ‘This is what ‘Adda’ bin Khalid bin Hawdhah bought [from] Muhammad the Messenger of Allah. He bought from him a slave’ – or – ‘a female slave, having no ailments, nor being a runaway, nor having any malicious behavior. Sold by a Muslim to a Muslim.’”[12]
  3. They [the Muslims] took several captives from the people of Mina’ which is on the shore, a mixed lot among them. They were sold as slaves and families were separated. The apostle arrived as they were weeping and inquired the reason. When he was told he said, ‘Sell them only in lots’, meaning the mothers with the children.[13]
  4. At times Muhammad personally took that same approach in keeping families together when he was distributing slaves: It was narrated that ‘Abdullah said: Prisoners would be brought to the Messenger of Allah and he would give an entire family [to someone, as slaves], because he did not want to separate them.[14]
  5. After the defeat of the Jewish Banu Qurayzah tribe, Muhammad divided up that tribe’s “property, wives, and children” among the Muslims, with the exception of some of the women that he sent to Najd and to Syria to be sold for horses and weapons.[15] Muhammad personally sold some of the other captured women. One Muslim explained: I attended the Messenger of God who was selling the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. Abu al-Shahm al-Yahudi bought two women, with each one of them three male children, for one hundred and fifty dinars. Muhammad also personally sold “a portion” of the women and children to ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan and ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf. [16]
  6. After the defeat of the Jews at Khaybar, Muhammad had the women of Khaybar “distributed among the Muslims.”[17]
  7. After the non-Muslim Hawazin tribe was defeated, Muhammad gave Ali, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman (all later “Rightly Guided” Caliphs[18]) each a woman from among those captured. ‘Umar then gave his to his son.[19] Muhammad gave other “slave girls” to some of his Muslim warriors, who, along with ‘Uthman, then had “intercourse” with their slaves. It was reported that ‘Uthman’s slave-girl “detested him” after the “intercourse.”[20]
  8. Muhammad found out that one of his wives, Maimuna, had freed her slave-girl. Muhammad told Maimuna she would have received “more reward” had she given the slave-girl to one of her uncles (who no doubt would have greatly appreciated that gift): Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, “You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles.”[21]
  9. Muhammad gave his foster-sister a gift of a male and a female slave.[22]
  10. Muhammad tried to get the Banu Salamah tribe to join him in attacking the Byzantines at Tabuk by promising them that they would get sex slaves and servants. He told their leader, O Abu Wahb, would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?[23]

The “Slave Concubines” of Muhammad[24]

Muhammad had at least two slave concubines:

Mariyah bint Sham’un (Qibtiyyah),[25] the Copt:

Mariyah was a Coptic Christian given to Muhammad by al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Alexandria. She bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. When Muhammad was informed of Ibrahim’s birth by Abu Rafi, Muhammad gave Abu Rafi the gift of a slave because of the good news.[26] Ibrahim died as a young child in January 632.

Mariyah was the female slave mentioned in the following hadith where two of Muhammad’s wives were angry about a particular time he had intercourse with a female slave. This resulted in the “revelation” of 66:1 of the Koran, a portion of which is mentioned at the end of this hadith:

It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: “O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you, until the end of the Verse.”[27]

The Tafsir Al-Jalalayn noted that Hafsa was angry because while she was away, Muhammad had slept with Mariyah in Hafsa’s bed.[28]

Rayhanah bint Zayd al-Quraziyyah (Rayhanah bint ‘Amr b. Khunafah):

Rayhanah was among the captives when the Muslims defeated the Banu Qurayzah, and she was chosen by Muhammad. Some reported that Muhammad freed her after she accepted Islam and married her in 627, while others reported that she remained his slave girl.[29] She died soon after his return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in February 632.

Additional Slave Girls

In one source it was reported that Muhammad also had two more slave girls. Jamilah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh.[30]

And Ibn Ishaq wrote that on one occasion Muhammad had been given “four slave girls,” one of whom was Mariyah.[31]

According to a prize-winning 20th Century biography of Muhammad, he did not free his own slaves until the day before he died.[32]

CAIR’s criticism of slavery in the United States during a particular time period would have more credibility if they were to also acknowledge that Muhammad possessed, bought, and sold slaves, and then to criticize Muhammad’s extensive involvement in that slave trade. Until then, CAIR’s criticism of the Confederacy rings somewhat hollow.

COLUMN BY

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

RELATED ARTICLE: Aafia Siddiqui and the Misguided Support for Women of Jihad

REFERENCES:

[1]           Ismail Allison, “CAIR Welcomes Vote to Remove Virginia Confederate Monuments,” CAIR, November 10, 2021, https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-welcomes-vote-to-remove-virginia-confederate-monuments/.

[2]           Ismail Allison, “CAIR Condemns Decision to Relocate Virginia Confederate Monuments to Outside Government Building,” CAIR, December 15, 2021, https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-condemns-decision-to-relocate-virginia-confederate-monuments-to-outside-government-building/.

[3]           Stephen M. Kirby, “Was Muhammad Really the ‘First Anti-Racist in Human History’”?, Jihad Watch, October 23, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/10/was-muhammad-really-the-first-anti-racist-in-human-history.

[4]           Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin al-Ash’ath bin Ishaq, Sunan Abu Dawud, trans. Yaser Qadhi (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008),Vol. 5, No. 5116, p. 419.

[5]           Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir al-Asbahi, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, trans. Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (Inverness, Scotland: Madinah Press, 2004), 21.13.25, p. 179; Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2711, p. 323; and Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu’aib bin ‘Ali bin Sinan bin Bahr An-Nasa’i, Sunan An-Nasa’i, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 4, Nol. 3858, p. 449.

[6]           Abu’l Hussain ‘Asakir-ud-Din Muslim bin Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naisaburi, Sahih Muslim, trans. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (New Delhi, India: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2008), Vol. 7, No. 2323, p. 38; and Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 8, Book 78, No. 6161, p. 106.

[7]           Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad ibn ‘Eisa at-Tirmidhi, Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, trans. Abu Khaliyl (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 6, No. 3318, p. 50; Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 46, No. 2468, p. 376; Vol. 6, Book 65, No. 4913, p. 363; and Vol. 9, Book 95, No. 7263, p. 227; and Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal ash-Shaibani, Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, trans. Nasiruddin Al-Khattab, ed. Huda Al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2012), Vol. 1, No. 222, p. 144.

[8]           Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 1, No. 332, p. 212; and Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Vol. 1, No. 1142, p. 530.

[9]           Jami At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 6, No. 3690, p. 368. Abu Hurairah, a close companion of Muhammad, also had at least one black slave girl: Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, No. 2174, p. 566.

[10]         Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 5, No. 4189, p. 126; Muhammad bin Yazeed ibn Majah al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Majah, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 4, No. 2869, p. 107; and Jami At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1239, p. 49, and No. 1596, p. 360.

[11]         Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, No. 2272, p. 298. This purchase price was also mentioned in Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, No. 1365R4, p. 360.

Safiyyah had been among the captives taken when the Jewish community of Khaybar was defeated. The Muslims also captured two female cousins of Safiyyah, who Muhammad gave to Dihya b. Khalifa al-Kalbi, one of his Muslim warriors – see Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 511.

[12]         Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, No. 2251, p. 285. For a report about Muhammad buying a slave from bin Khalid, see Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 34, Chapter 19, p. 171.

[13]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 914, p. 791. There was a similar incident in which Muhammad ordered the selling of two slaves who were brothers; he said they should only be sold together – see Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Vol. 1, No. 760, p. 385.

[14]         Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Vol. 3, No. 3690, p. 324.

[15]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 466. This is also mentioned in Sahih Muslim, Vol. 5, No. 1766, p. 186; Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), p. 378; and Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Waqidi, The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail, and AbdulKader Tayob, ed. Rizwi Faizer (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 256-257.

[16]         The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, pp. 256-257.

[17]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 511.

[18]         The first four caliphs after Muhammad’s death were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. These four caliphs were called the “Rightly Guided” Caliphs because they are believed to have held the most firmly to the teachings and example of Muhammad.

[19]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 593.

[20]         The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 462.

[21]         Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 51, No. 2594, p. 442. Muslim women also had slaves. According to the four major Sunni schools of Islamic Sacred Law it is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with his wife’s slave girl, even if the wife gave her permission – see Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Ar-Rahman as-Safadi, The Mercy in the Difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law, Trans. Aisha Bewley (Dar Al Taqwa: London, 2004), p. 190.

[22]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 576.

[23]         Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Wahidi, Al-Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul, trans. Mokrane Guezzou (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2008), p. 122.

[24]         This is the description used in Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, Vol. IX, trans. and annotated Ismail K. Poonawala (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), p. 141.  Ibn Hisham said he had been told that Mariyah was Muhammad’s “concubine” – see The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 129, p. 711. Mariyah and Rayhanah were referred to as Muhammad’s “slave girls” in the Salahuddin Yusuf, Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, trans. Mohammad Kamal Myshkat (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2010), Vol. 4, p. 402.

[25]         In listing “slave girls” owned by Muhammad, Ibn Kathir identified Mariyah as Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah – see Abu al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), abr. Shaykh Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, trans. Jalal Abualrub, et al. (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2000), Vol. 7, p. 720.

[26]         The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, p. 39.

[27]         Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 4, No. 3411, pp. 204-205. Here is 66:1: O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[28]         Jalalu’d-Din al-Mahalli and Jalalu’d-Din as-Suyuti, Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, trans. Aisha Bewley (London: Dar Al Taqwa Ltd., 2007), p. 1220. A variation of this hadith reported that Hafsa actually found Muhammad and Mariyah in her house engaged in “an intimate moment” – see Al-Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 237.

[29]         The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, n. 909, p. 137. Ibn Ishaq did not indicate that Muhammad freed Rayhanah; instead, Ibn Ishaq wrote that Rayhanah “remained with him until she died, in his power” – see The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 466. That she was Muhammad’s “captive” instead of a freed woman was also pointed out in The Sealed Nectar, p. 565. In listing “slave girls” owned by Muhammad, Ibn Kathir identified Rayhanah as Rayhanah bint Sham’un An-Nadariyyah – see Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 7, p. 720. Rayhanah was not listed as being among Muhammad’s wives in The Honorable Wives of the Prophet, ed. Abdul Ahad (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2004).

[30]         The Sealed Nectar, p. 565.

[31]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 653.

[32]         The Sealed Nectar, p. 555.

VIDEO: Biden’s Military Retreats into Wokeism

With all of the disruptions to daily life right now, it’s hard to see past America’s own crises. But there’s a lot of volatility outside our borders these days — and very little faith that our president has the strength to confront it. If the United States is hoping for any sense of stability, that has to change — Republicans warn — and fast.

Sidetracked by inflation, shortages, supply chain disruptions, and worker scarcities, most Americans have more than enough to worry about. But the leaders of Russia and China are on the move, and every single one of us should care. Protecting our neighbors’ independence is crucial to our own, experts warn. And as Russian President Vladimir Putin builds up a massive force on the Ukrainian border, leaders like Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) see nothing but danger ahead.

“I was just out there in Kyiv, Ukraine about a month ago, and it’s looking pretty ominous,” the former Army Ranger admitted on “Washington Watch.” “It’s not so much the numbers of troops, but it’s also the types of troops that Putin is putting on the border, many of them from his National Guard, who really are only trained in occupation duty.” Frankly, Waltz said, the Russian leader has a lot of options for hurting Ukraine. They could attack them through cyber means, they could cut off their gas in the middle of winter, or they could invade parts — or all — of their country. “I think an invasion itself is pretty much a slam dunk for [an overwhelming] army that [can outgun] the Ukrainians.” The president needs to get his head in the game and start sending lethal arms now, Waltz insisted.

But what’s in it for America, most people want to know? Why is any of this in our interest now, when we have so many other problems to solve? Well, for starters, Waltz explained, “China is watching, Iran is watching, North Korea is watching. They already saw us abandoned one democracy, even as imperfect as it was in Afghanistan and walk away there. We walk away now and Ukraine, and I truly fear for Israel. I fear for Taiwan. I fear for South Korea. Authoritarianism is on the march, because they smell weakness in this White House, and that’s how that’s how aggressive nations behave. They take advantage of that weakness, and that’s how you lead to global instability that will affect every American.”

As disconnected as the Biden administration has been, even it recognizes the threat here. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is hurrying to Switzerland to meet with his Russian counterparts and try to head off a disastrous fate. Another delegation of U.S. senators also flew to Kyiv to meet with the Ukrainian president. Although the far-Leftists and Republicans rarely have much in common, this is one problem they seem united to solve. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told reporters that their bipartisan delegation wants to send a clear message to the global community: “The United States stands in unwavering support of our Ukrainian partners to defend their sovereignty and in the face of persistent Russian aggression.”

Here at home, Americans have their own beef with the president — but world leaders have to be just as frustrated with Biden’s policies. “I just don’t think we can overstate how Biden’s failed energy policies are playing into this,” Waltz shook his head. “When you crack down on American pipelines, on drilling, on fracking and you move America away from energy independence, you put that demand in the hands of the Russians. We now have Europe more dependent on Russian oil and gas. Putin is flush with cash with the high price of oil, and he now has a pipeline in place the Nord Stream 2 that allows him to bypass Eastern Europe and bypass Ukraine and create a dependency in Western Europe… And don’t think he’ll stop with Ukraine.”

Equally as disturbing, America’s fighting force may not be up to the challenge. Thanks to the woke leadership of the Biden administration, our military has been increasingly hollowed out. Good men and women have either been purged by the “extremist” witch hunt, left the ranks in disgust, or been forced out by the administration’s senseless COVID policy. The stronger and more prepared our military is, the less likely it is we’ll have to use it. To the rest of the world, it’s a deterrent. What we have now are serious liabilities in readiness — and our enemies know it.

“When you have your Secretary of Defense state [that] his number one priority is [eliminating] the ‘growing threat of white supremacy’ (even though there’s no data to back that up) and climate change,” the U.S. is in trouble, Waltz agrees “Meanwhile, the Chinese have a larger navy now than the United States Navy. They’ve launched more into space than the United States [and] the rest of the world combined. We’ve talked about Russia on the march and Iran’s nuclear weapon. So the priorities have been misplaced, number one. And when you couple that with cuts in the budget,” it’s a problem.

The stakes at home are high. We need leaders that recognize the threat and the importance of a military fit to meet it. Let’s hope that’s what we get in November. The rest of the world depends on it.

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

PODCAST: Texas Jihadi Came To USA To Conduct Terror Operation

Pamela Geller talks with Joe Hoft about the Texas jihadist hostage-taker over the weekend and the destruction of NYC by former Mayor De Blasio and his replacement following his destructive footsteps.

Listen as Pamela Geller exposes the Texas jihad, the Biden terror regime the ruin of NYC, etc.

Pam Geller on the Joe Hoft Show

RELATED ARTICLES:

Six Facts on the Texas Synagogue Terror Attack

Terror Regime: Biden Halted Terror-Vetting Procedures Which Would Have STOPPED Texas Jihadi From Entering the Country

Biden Frees Alternate 9/11 Hijacker and Military Base Truck Bomb Plotter

Career Criminal Admits Pushing New York City Women In Front of Subway Train That Killed Her

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

U.S. ambassador to Israel: ‘The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people’

At his first interview with the Israeli media in early January the new American ambassador was asked If he would be visiting any of the settlements. No, he said, “I absolutely will not.” This went over well in the Muqata in Ramallah, but left most Israelis feeling a blend of amazement, chagrin, and fury.

There was more to come. “New US envoy says ‘absolutely won’t’ visit settlements, to avoid inflaming tensions,” by Jacob Magid, Times of Israel, January 14, 2022:

Pointing to another difference between the current and previous American administrations, the US ambassador said, “The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people. That is the difference between us and the Trump administration.”

“The Biden administration believes it must take care of the Palestinian people”? Since when did that become an American duty? We have no historic connection to, no special affection for, no duty towards, the soi-disant “Palestinian people,” who, thanks to UNRWA’s ever-increasing largesse, are better provided for than any of the hundreds of millions of real refugees created since World War II.

Some of us – the better-informed some of us — don’t accept the existence of a separate “Palestinian people” whom Ambassador Nides thinks we must “take care of.” We know that their invention was a propaganda effort, suggested to Arafat by the KGB. The head of the Palestinian terror group As-Saiqa, Zuheir Mohsen, explained in an interview he gave to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977: “Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation […] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.”

Mohsen repeated – and reinforced — the point: “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.”

Nides may think “we have to take care of the Palestinian people,” but many will reject – as you and I do – both parts of that bizarre proposition.

Nides pointed to Biden’s renewal of hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians that was cut by Trump, amid Ramallah’s refusal to engage with his administration.

Asked if he’s had any meetings with Palestinian officials since his arrival, the envoy admitted that he had yet to cross the Green Line, but said he well might do so in the coming weeks if asked.

While the Palestinian Authority has renewed its ties with the Biden administration, it has maintained an overall boycott of the US embassy, objecting to its relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The boycott hasn’t always been maintained though, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas has met with the head of the embassy’s Palestinian Affairs Unit George Noll — which operates in lieu of the Jerusalem Consulate that Trump shuttered in 2019.

Nides repeated the Biden administration’s assertion that the US plans to reopen the consulate that historically served as the de facto mission to the Palestinians. However, he did not provide any additional details, including a timeline for when the matter will be seen through.

Biden is a year into his term as President, and while he promised to reopen the consulate to the Palestinians very early on, it looks as if it’s not going to happen. Biden has a lot on his plate: a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, a Chinese threat to Taiwan, the North Korean missiles, the endless wrangling with Iran in Vienna. The Palestinians are small beer. The Abraham Accords show how little they matter to the other Arabs. He’s already thinking of the 2024 election, his sinking numbers in the polls, and likely Democratic losses in 2022. Why unnecessarily antagonize Israel’s supporters by trying – in vain — to reopen that consulate to the Palestinians in east Jerusalem?

Besides, Biden would need to obtain the approval of Israel to open that consulate, and he knows that under the Vienna Convention of 1963, to which both Israel and the US are signatories, a consulate cannot be opened without the agreement of the host state. A unilateral reopening of the consulate would contradict the convention, custom, and common sense. Both Prime Minister Bennett and Foreign Minister Lapid have insisted that Israel will never give such approval. Biden is stuck.

And the Bidenites have gotten the message.

Three sources familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel last month that Washington has effectively decided to shelve plans to reopen the consulate amid strong Israeli resistance to the move. The news has deeply angered PA leaders, who warned ToI [Times of Israel] that the move would have consequences on US-Palestinian relations moving forward.

Oh dear. America, you have been warned. There will be “consequences on [sic] US-Palestinian relations” if that consulate is not reopened. What might they be? Will the Palestinians refuse to cash those generous checks the Bidenites have been sending to Ramallah? No one in the U.S. will be losing sleep over that.

Nides asserted that despite declarative efforts to reopen the consulate, “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the American ambassador works and lives there.”

Beyond that, he said that the US hopes the final status of Jerusalem will be determined through direct negotiations between the parties.

I hate to break it to Ambassador Nides, but the “final status” of Jerusalem was decided some 3000 years ago, when it became the center of Jewish life, the place where Jews lived uninterruptedly for thousands of years. There have been updates to the story since, as the city changed rulers, but not its central significance to Jews. The last major change was in 1980, when the modern state of Israel formally annexed all of Jerusalem. Its “status” is not subject to “negotiations between the parties.” Sorry, Mr. Ambassador. No can do.

As for the Biden administration’s support for Israel more broadly, Nides characterized it as “unconditional.”…

“Unconditional”? Not if the Bidenites are willing to violate the Taylor Force Act and provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the P.A. despite its continuing to reward past, and incentivize future, terrorist acts through the “Pay-For-Slay” program that is Mahmoud Abbas’ proudest achievement. Not if it is willing to let the PLO, which has Israeli blood on its hands, reopen an office in Washington.

“Unconditional”? Not If the Biden Administration refuses to admit that Israel has a very strong claim to retain all of Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank), based on Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, which encourages “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land that the League of Nations assigned to the Palestine Mandate for the Jewish National Home. That land extended from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. Have the Bidenites read, and understood what the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine signifies? Are they aware that Article 80 of the U.N. Charter committed the U.N. to fulfill the requirements of any League of Nations mandates still remaining? Does Biden, does Blinken, does Sullivan understand that Resolution 242 of the U.N. Security Council allowed Israel to retain the territory it deems necessary in order to have “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries”? I have an awful feeling that Ambassador Nides has paid no attention to, inter alia, the Mandate for Palestine, the Treaty of San Remo, Article 80 of the U.N Charter, and Resolution 242 of the Security Council. It’s time, Ambassador Nides, for you to hit the books, and burn the midnight oil.

“Some of the conversations are meant to calm your anxiety. If I were Israeli, I would be anxious too. I respect that with all my heart,” Nides said.

They’d be a little less anxious in Israel, Mr. Ambassador, If you’d do the right and handsome thing, and announce that “upon reconsideration, I intend to visit the five settlement blocs that Israelis keep telling me, will remain part of Israel, whatever else may be subject to negotiation. Yes, I’d like to see some things in the West Bank for myself. And I will.”

Impotent rage from the rais in Ramallah, feeling betrayed. Quiet satisfaction in Jerusalem. A highly desirable denouement.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Terror Regime: Biden Halted Terror-Vetting Procedures Which Would Have STOPPED Texas Jihadi From Entering the Country

Palestinians refer to Jesus in terms reserved for jihad terrorists

After synagogue incident, Muslim spokesmen ignore Islamic antisemitism, focus on ‘Islamophobia’ and criticize Israel

Why Was Texas Synagogue Jihadi Allowed Into U.S. Two Weeks Ago Despite ‘Long Criminal Record’?

In Wake of Texas Synagogue Hostage-Taking, Anti-Defamation League Warns Against ‘Islamophobia’

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

How did the Texas synagogue jihadi get a tourist visa to come to the U.S. despite having a criminal record?

No one seems to know. That raises even more questions.

How was he allowed into the U.S. to begin with?

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy demands answers from the Biden administration about how British synagogue gunman with criminal convictions was let into America

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

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is demanding President Joe Biden’s White House answer how a UK national with a criminal history was allowed to fly to the United States where he held four people hostage at a synagogue in Texas over the weekend.

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

Many accused the president of directing more federal law enforcement resources toward American parents protesting Critical Race Theory and mask mandates in public schools.

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

The FBI has declined to comment on the matter.

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

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

The top GOP lawmaker in the House of Representatives accused Biden officials of ‘downplaying’ the attack and demanded to know why the FBI ‘initially disregard[ed] the role anti-Semitism played in this hostage situation.’

‘How was it that someone with an apparent criminal record and suspicious travel history was allowed into the United States to begin with?’ he also questioned. ‘What national security concerns remain?’…

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

Akram spent two weeks at a homeless shelter in Dallas, during which time he was able to buy a gun on the street….

‘How long did the FBI know a radical Islamist foreign national with a criminal record was in the country? Were they working with him or his associates?

‘How did this person get a visa? Did he slip through the cracks because they were too busy surveilling your conservative grandma?’ Donald Trump Jr. tweeted.

‘They don’t want us to talk about how a known jihadist got past the FBI and into the country, obtained an illegal firearm, and took hostages at a synagogue,’ Jasec Posobiec said.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s former adviser, tweeted that ‘every journalist’ should be asking whether Biden changing vetting laws for tourists contributed to the incident.

The Independent reports that Akram was known to MI5 but that they didn’t consider him a severe threat.

It’s unclear what he said in his application for an ESTA tourist visa, which asks whether or not applicants have a criminal record.

The ESTA website claims checks will be carried out to see if an applicant has any undisclosed criminal convictions on file.

But according to social justice charity Nacro, the US authorities do not have access to criminal records held on the UK’s Police National Computer.

There was equal outrage in the UK, where lawmakers demanded to know how he was able to by-pass America’s immigration rules, which are known to be some of the strictest in the world.

Tory MP Bob Seely told MailOnline there seemed to have been a ‘dreadful’ error at the UK and US borders caused by an ‘intelligence failure’ and it needed to be looked at.

‘This is clearly a failure of intelligence sharing. It is absolutely dreadful that he has been allowed to go to the States and hurt people.

‘Clearly something has gone wrong somewhere,’ he said.

Another senior MP with knowledge of the security services voiced surprise that the background had not been picked up. ‘How did he get into the US?’ they said. ‘You get picked up for walking on the cracks in the pavement.’

Yesterday, his brother, Gulbar, demanded how he was allowed into America despite a long criminal record.

He said Malik was mentally ill and was mourning the death of his brother three months ago, reportedly from Covid.

The extent of his criminal record is not yet clear, but it may be that some of his offences may have been too petty or too old to stop him being turned away from the United States’ border.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Austria: Muslim migrant sets fire to apartment building and attacks fleeing residents with a knife

Indonesia: Woman flogged 100 times for adultery, her male partner gets only 15 lashes

Nigeria: “They asked ‘are you Muslim or Christian?’ I told them I was Christian, and they intensified the beating”

Nigeria: Muslims screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ murder 18 Christians

Belgium: Residence permit of imam of nation’s largest mosque withdrawn, he’s a ‘serious danger to national security’

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

How to Build Artificial Islands in the China Swamp

Many thanks to Laser List member Clare Lopez for her article on the connections between the U.S. government and China’s biological weapons program, cited herein.

A book due out January 25th gives new details about how communist China has corrupted American elites.  The author is Peter Shweizer who has made a name for himself exposing the corruption of the Clintons, the Biden family, and Congress critters.   His new book, Red-Handed, is subtitled “How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win”.  The book reveals “the secret deals wealthy Americans have cut to help China build its military, technological, and economic might…. [M]any of these elites quietly believe the Chinese dictatorial regime is superior to American democracy.”  Schweizer calls this the scariest investigation he has ever undertaken.

But you don’t have to wait for the book to get a good idea of what our corrupt elites have been up to with China, lately.  A quick trip through recent news gives you that:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the $10 million civil servant, has investments in China, including a pharmaceutical company.  Fauci has ties to EcoHealth Alliance which was funded by NIH to work with the Chinese military on gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  The connections between the U.S. government – specifically NIH and its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases run by Fauci – and China’s biological weapons program are all out in the open now.  No lab leak here, no sirree.

I previously reported to you how John Kerry, who can’t be bothered about China’s human rights abuses because he’s just the “climate guy”, also has investments in China, big ones.  In December, Kerry objected to the Uighur anti-slavery bill moving through Congress because it would upset China.  Or was it because it would upset his investment portfolio?

Two members of the House January 6th Committee have sizeable investments in China.  Elaine Luria has six figures invested in a Chinese company with ties to China’s military, a company our State Department calls a “tool” of the Chinese Communist Party.  The company develops surveillance technology for social control.  The husband of Stephanie Murphy manufactures in China.  Foreign companies in China must wear a ‘red hat’, that is, establish units to carry out the wishes of the Chinese Communist Party.  Yet we are supposed to believe Murphy’s tough talk on China.

There’s more, including lots on Hunter Biden, but I’ll save it for another day.  Let me end with a story that’s in the news today.  The co-owner of an NBA team, a million-dollar Democrat donor, was widely criticized for saying ‘nobody cares about the Uighurs.’  The NBA does substantial business in China, which the U.S. has accused of genocide of the Uighurs.

If you think China’s dictatorial communist system is superior to ours, we’ll start that conversation with the 35 to 60 million people who starved to death in the deliberately engineered famine of China’s Great Leap Forward, the protesters who were reduced to pulp when the tanks rolled over them in Tiananmen Square, the rape of Tibet, and the genocide of the Uighurs.  Then we’ll see how much of your case is left.

Enjoy the Olympics.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

The Midnight Flights of the Biden Administration

Traditionally, most discussions in the United States about immigration — and especially illegal immigration — focus on the southern border and aliens who enter the country without inspection.

In reality, our nation is comprised of 50 border states and not all aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety enter the U.S. illegally, but may instead commit immigration fraud or visa fraud, or otherwise violate the terms of their lawful admission into the U.S.

In September of 2009, I wrote an article about the multitude of ways aliens can gain entry to the U.S. by circumventing the processes that are supposed to safeguard America and Americans.

That piece was entitled, “National Security And An Updated Version of ‘The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.’”

It cites a famous poem Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote in 1775 about how fabled hero Paul Revere used lanterns to warn about which way the British would invade New England (“one if by land and two, if by sea”).

Today, aliens have many more pathways into the U.S. They are frequently aided, abetted, and encouraged by the President of the United States. Far more than Paul Revere’s three lanterns would be needed to warn about all of these methods.

President Biden, notwithstanding the Constitution, our laws, and the impact to America’s safety and security, has betrayed his Oath of Office and turned the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — or as I prefer to refer to it, the Department of Homeland Surrender — into the most massive alien smuggling / human trafficking organization in the history of the U.S.

During a White House briefing on October 19, 2021, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy challenged Jen Psaki about the nature of “middle of the night flights” reportedly transporting illegal aliens around the U.S.

Psaki contemptuously rebuffed that claim, saying 2:30 a.m. was not the “middle of the night, but “early in the morning,” in an effort to sidestep the entire issue.

On January 4, 2022, Fox News reported that former Rep. Lou Barletta had captured images of suspected ‘ghost flights’ arriving on Christmas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylavania. The ‘passengers’ were reportedly unloaded into buses and driven to staging areas where cars were waiting to disperse them across nearby communities.

Journalists who report on the Biden administration’s immigration policies generally focus solely on the disastrous U.S.-Mexican border. However, the southern border represents only one hole in what I refer to as the “Immigration Colander.”

America is a nation of 50 “border states.”

Any state that lies on the northern or southern frontiers are border states, as are those states that have international airports or access to America’s 95,000 miles of meandering coastline.

To underscore this point, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and James Lankford of Oklahoma recently issued a joint letter to DHS Secretary Mayorkas demanding the administration make public the number of aliens who were lawfully admitted into the U.S. and then failed to depart within their authorized period.

I reached out to Sen. Hawley’s office and suggested they also demand to know what the current visa refusal rates are under the Biden administration and how many aliens are denied entry at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection inspectors under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

While we are on the topic of 8 U.S. Code § 1182, it is worth noting that, in addition to codifying the classes of aliens who are to be excluded, it also provides the President with the absolute wide-ranging authority to suspend entry of aliens into the U.S.

Here is the appropriate section of law:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not, however, provide the President with the authority to ignore our immigration laws and encourage massive numbers of illegal aliens to head for the U.S., confident that no matter their backgrounds or failures to qualify for visas, they will be permitted to enter the U.S. and be disbursed across our nation with impunity.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The massive numbers of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. could certainly be described as an invasion — one that is sanctioned by the Biden administration in apparent violation of the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1324.

President Abraham Lincoln aspirationally envisioned the U.S. possessing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Biden, on the other hand, is acting not on behalf of Americans, but on behalf of those whose interests have nothing to do with those of America or Americans. They are the Profiteers of the Biden Administration’s Open Borders Policy, for whom malfeasance has it rewards.

This is truly a study in contrasts: Paul Revere and others heroically sought to warn the colonists about a pending British invasion. Today, Joe Biden and his administration are facilitating a modern-day invasion of the United States.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lawmakers Propose DOUBLING TAXES in Blue State to Pay for Insurance for Illegаls

The Coming War With Russia

Resident Russia expert non-pareil Julia Gorin lays it out in stark, unblinking terms.

Avoiding War with Russia

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

By Julia Gorin, American Greatness, January 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsurprisingly, the Texas Temple Terrorist Had a Criminal Record

In Texas Synagogue Terrorist Came Out of UK Islamist No-Go Zone, today’s investigative piece digging into the background of Faisal Akram, the Texas Temple terrorist, I noted that his brothers have names that match those of some local criminals.

The Blackburn Community message describes the terrorist as having brothers named “Gulbar”, “Malik” and the “Late Gulzameer Akram”.

Two brothers named Gulbar Akram and Gulzameer Akram in Blackburn had been locked up over stolen cars. Another time, a Blackburn resident named Gulbar Akram almost had his nose sliced off. A Gulzameer Akram ran a massive counterfeiting operation from a Blackburn home. A Malik Akram was locked up for harassing girls. Were all of them members of the same clan?

Gulbar has stated that Faisal had a criminal record.

But speaking to Sky News he also demanded to know how the incident had been allowed to unfold.

‘He’s known to police. Got a criminal record. How was he allowed to get a visa and acquire a gun?,’ the channel quoted him as saying.

Considering the criminal records here, it doesn’t seem like “mental issues”, the familiar excuse for a Jihad outburst, is really needed to explain how that lovely gentleman suddenly decided to turn violent.

COLUMN BY

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Synagogue Jihadi Had a Criminal Record So Why Was He Given a Visa?

Texas synagogue jihadi ranted about how he wished he had died in the 9/11 jihad attacks

Texas synagogue jihadi’s UK community hopes Allah will ‘bless him with the highest ranks of Paradise’

Two Muslims arrested in UK in connection with Texas synagogue hostage incident

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

Clueless: Woke FBI Downplays Anti-Semitic Aspect of Hostage-Taking at Texas Synagogue

The jihadi who stormed the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, and took hostages Saturday, demanding the release of convicted jihad terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, is dead, and the hostages are safe. And now comes the real work: whitewashing, downplaying, and ignoring outright what took place, because it doesn’t fit the establishment narrative.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno got the ball rolling when he said, “We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, uh, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community, uh, but we’re continuing to work to find motive and, and we will continue on that path.”

DeSarno’s bizarre statement is based on the fact that the demands the hostage-taker made all revolved around Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady al-Qaeda,” who is serving 86 years in prison for plotting a large-scale jihad massacre in New York City. The hostage-taker reportedly demanded that his “sister” be freed, which led to widespread speculation that he was in fact Aafia Siddiqui’s brother. At this point, however, although they have not released his name, officials have announced that he is no relation to Siddiqui, and thus was referring to her as his sister in Islam.

According to Tom Winter of NBC News, the hostage-taker even had the rabbi of Congregation Beth Israel, Charlie Cytron-Walker, whom he was holding hostage, call another rabbi in New York City. “The purpose of the call was to again demand the release of Aafia Siddiqui. The New York City based rabbi called 9-1-1 and the NYPD is well aware of the incident,” tweeted Winter.

So let’s get this straight. A man enters a synagogue and takes hostages, and warns that if anyone gets too close, people will die. He demands the release of an al-Qaeda terrorist. The FBI then asserts that his actions were “not specifically related to the Jewish community,” apparently because he was talking only about Aafia Siddiqui, and at least not reportedly railing against Jews and Israel.

So why exactly did he do all this in a synagogue? He had the whole wide green world in which to take hostages; why did he choose Congregation Beth Israel of Colleyville, Texas? Once he had taken his hostages, why did he have one rabbi call another rabbi in order to demand Aafia Siddiqui’s release? What does Congregation Beth Israel have to do with Aafia Siddiqui? What does its rabbi, or the rabbi whom the hostage-taker had him contact in New York City, have to do with Aafia Siddiqui?

The answer to both questions is: nothing whatsoever. The hostage-taker chose the synagogue over any other possible target because of the widespread belief in the Islamic world that the Jews control the world through various surreptitious means, as Jordanian professor Ahmad Nofal articulated last April. Railing against “Zionist notions” and “Jewish notions,” Nofal said, “It is forbidden to say ‘Jewish’ nowadays … Forbidden! Fine. Whatever. We’ll say ‘Zionist.’ It is the same thing. See how they rule the world? They even monitor what words you use. What kind of power is this? If you curse 1.7 million [sic.] Muslims — there’s nothing to it, but if you dare to say one word [against the Jews], they cancel you.”

Nofal was not singular. In a Friday sermon in 2016 at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Sheikh Muhammad Ma’moun Rahma declared: “Are you aware, oh Muslims and Arabs, that global Jewry holds the political reins in the world’s superpowers? The entire world knows that the Jews control the sources of knowledge and fortune, in order to take hold of the reins of culture and economy. In America and in Europe, they are now the kings of finance, the leaders of the media, and the owners of the publishing houses. They are behind many of the ideological and political movements in the East and West. Oh Muslims and Arabs, listen to what The Protocols of the Elders of Zion tells us. They said: ‘We must get our hands on the global news agencies, because the press and the media are the means to control global ideology. That way, people will only see the news from the point of view we choose.’ Their goal is to uproot Islam and bring ruin upon its followers.”

If the “global news agencies” are really in the hands of Zionists, they’re doing a remarkably poor job in telling Israel’s side of the story, but never mind. The hostage-taker chose the synagogue because he clearly believed that the Jews, and perhaps only the Jews, held the power to secure Aafia Siddiqui’s release. The synagogue in Colleyville, in his febrile imagination, would be directly connected to the Jewish power brokers who could be compelled by his hostage-taking to do his bidding.

The FBI should know all this, but it doesn’t. Early in the Obama administration, it scrubbed all counterterror training materials that made any mention of Islamic texts and teachings, and severed ties with all the independent contractors (including me) who were teaching agents about the beliefs and goals of jihad terrorists. Islamic anti-Semitism is yet another forbidden area for today’s FBI; they can’t investigate anything that might appear to be “Islamophobic.” So Matt DeSarno is operating out of the willful ignorance the FBI chose as policy years ago. This time, the agency’s woke idiocy is actively misleading the American people about what happened in Colleyville.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s What’s Missing From Jen Psaki’s Tweet About the Texas Synagogue Hostage Situation

UK: Six Muslims rape and sexually abuse eight girls as young as 12, lured them over Facebook

Federal Civil-Rights Officials Raise Alarm Over ‘Horrifying Statistics’ on Antisemitism in workplace

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

Texas synagogue gunman identified as Muslim from UK, Malik Faisal Akram who had ‘mental health issues’

Well, sure. All jihadis have mental health issues. Nothing they do has anything to do with Islamic texts or teachings. Don’t you know that by now, you greasy Islamophobe?

Feds Identify Synagogue Hostage-Taker as 44-Year-Old British Citizen

by Dia Gill, Daily Beast, January 16, 2022:

The feds on Sunday identified the gunman who was shot dead after taking four hostages in a dramatic 10-hour standoff at a Texas synagogue as 44-year-old Malik Faisal Akram, a British citizen.

The Blackburn Muslim Community in the U.K. confirmed Akram’s death in a Facebook post on Sunday afternoon, asking the community to “avoid taking part in the sin of backbiting” as authorities continue to investigate the attack, which President Joe Biden has called “an act of terror.”

The group shared a statement from Akram’s brother, identified as Gulbar, that condemned the attack.

“We would like to say that we as a family do not condone any of his actions and would like to sincerely apologize wholeheartedly to all the victims involved in the unfortunate incident,” he wrote.

Hours before the FBI’s announcement, a spokesperson for the British Foreign Office said they were “aware of the death of a British man in Texas and are in contact with the local authorities.”

“The FBI’s Evidence Response Team (ERT) will continue processing evidence at the synagogue,” the FBI wrote in its release. “At this time, there is no indication that other individuals are involved. The FBI’s North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force (NTJTTF), which includes member agencies from across the region, will continue to follow investigative leads. An FBI Shooting Incident Review Team (SIRT) will conduct a thorough, factual, and objective investigation of the events.”…

According to the Gulbar’s statement, the family was aware of Akram’s involvement during the crisis. They said that despite his “mental health issues,” they believed he would not harm his captives.

According to Gulbar’s post, the FBI is expected to fly to the U.K. and meet with the family later today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic Terrorists Previously Discussed Trading Jewish Hostages for ‘Lady Al Qaeda’

Muslim Hostage Crisis at Synagogue Parallels Hamas-Linked CAIR Campaign for ‘Lady Al Qaeda’

Germany: More than 30 jihadis set to be released from prison

UK: For Telling the Truth About Islam, Jewish Board of Deputies Vice President Compelled to Resign

Austria: Hitler photos found on imam’s cell phone

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

Texas Synagogue Rabbi and Jewish Congregants RESCUED, Muslim Terrorist DEAD

The best of all resolutions. Don’t mess with Texas.

Meanwhile the media is scrubbing the motive:

“English man with accent.”

Beth Israel Synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, was in the middle of Shabbat services that were being livestreamed on Facebook, when a Muslim terrorist burst in and took hostages

“The gunman says he is Muslim and holding at least 6 people says ‘he will kill people if anyone gets close to the synagogue.’” Before the livestream from the synagogue was cut off, the gunman could be heard ranting in a foreign language that, according to journalist and trial attorney Marina Medvin, turned out to be Arabic. Medvin noted that the gunman said, “Are you listening? I am going to die. So don’t cry for me…”

Synagogues and Rabbis are a prime target for Muslim terrorists. The main target of the horrific Islamic attack in Mumbai was a synagogue:

A senior police official, told DNA on condition of anonymity, that the interrogation of Mohammed Amir Iman Ajmal (aka Kasab) revealed as much. Just before entering the city, the terrorists’ team leader, Ismail Khan, briefed them once again about their targets. “But Khan briefed Imran Babar, alias Abu Akasha, and Nasir, alias Abu Umer, intensely on what to do at Nariman House,” the officer said.

When asked during interrogation why Nariman House was specifically targetted, Ajmal reportedly told the police they wanted to sent a message to Jews across the world by attacking the synagogue.

Read the rest.

The chilling words of the Muslim Mumbai killers recorded during their murder spree: “Keep killing, keep killing, the dogs.’ “Insh’Allah” ‘The manner of your death will instill fear in the unbelievers. This is a battle between Islam and the unbelievers”

Robert Spencer writes:

Why would “Lady Al Qaeda’ Aafia Siddiqui’s brother choose a synagogue for his hostage-taking? Actually, a synagogue would be the most likely target for such a person, because of the deeply rooted anti-Semitism of the Qur’an. According to the Qur’an, Jews are called the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29), among many other slanders.

Meanwhile, the abduction of infidels as hostages is sanctioned in Islamic law and subject to particular rules. The renowned Islamic scholar al-Mawardi succinctly explained Islamic law for hostages: “As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, ‘When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks’ (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4).”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Terror-Tied CAIR Hosted Many Rallies to free Aafia Siddiqui a.k.a. Lady al-Qaeda, sister of Texas synagogue hostage-taker

Muhammed Siddiqui is Muslim hostage-taker at Texas synagogue shouting Islam, Islam, says his sister is “Lady al-Qaeda, a vicious Islamic terrorist serving 86 yars for trying to kill U.S. troops

Texas synagogue held hostage by “foreign man during Shabbat services

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

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

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

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

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

Russia Threatens To Send Armed Troops Into Cuba In Another EPIC BIDEN FAIL

Biden gave them the pipeline ……. what will give them now?

Russia Suggests Military Deployment to Venezuela, Cuba if Tensions With U.S. Remain High 

Deputy foreign minister says Moscow couldn’t exclude sending military infrastructure to the two countries.

By: Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2022:

Russia’s deputy foreign minister said talks with the U.S. over the security situation in Ukraine had stalled and suggested that Moscow could dispatch a military deployment to Venezuela and Cuba, as the Kremlin seeks to pressure Washington to meet its demands to halt Western military activity that Russia claims poses a threat.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Thursday that Moscow couldn’t exclude dispatching “military infrastructure” to Venezuela or Cuba if tensions with Washington—which have soared in recent weeks over a huge buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border—continue to rise.

“I don’t want to confirm anything, I will not rule out anything…. Depends on the actions of our American colleagues,” Mr. Ryabkov told privately owned Russian-language television network RTVi in an interview Thursday in Moscow. Mr. Ryabkov said he saw no immediate grounds for fresh talks with the U.S., after several rounds of negotiations this week yielded little progress in defusing the crisis in Ukraine.

In Washington later, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said U.S. and European officials would confer in the coming days, but that no dates have been set for further discussions with Russia.

“I’m not going to respond to bluster in the public commentary that wasn’t raised in the discussions at the Strategic Stability Dialogue,” Mr. Sullivan said of Mr. Ryabkov’s remarks about a potential deployment in Latin America, referring to talks Monday between U.S. and Russian officials in Geneva.

“If Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively,” he said.
What’s Next for U.S. and Russia as Tensions Grow Over Ukraine
You may also like

A military buildup along the Ukrainian border is further straining ties between Russia and the U.S., after clashes over cybercrime, expulsions of diplomats and a migrant crisis in Belarus. WSJ explains what is deepening the rift between Washington and Moscow. Photo Composite/Video: Michelle Inez Simon

The remarks from the senior U.S. and Russian officials follow several rounds of talks this week between the West and Russia over the military buildup on the border with Ukraine. Moscow has sent more than 100,000 troops there, claiming the troops are on a military exercise. That has triggered fears in Ukraine and the West that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to invade Ukraine or is generating a crisis to exact security concessions from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Russia is demanding a halt to NATO’s expansion, notably into Ukraine; curtailment of the alliance’s ties with Ukraine and parts of the former Soviet Union; and restrictions on military deployments on the territory of the alliance’s Eastern European members.

Western officials have rejected those demands, saying countries are free to associate with any countries they choose.

On Thursday, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a 57-country grouping that helped to foster peace during the Cold War since its founding in the 1970s, discussed the Ukraine situation. The talks followed a U.S.-Russia meeting in Geneva on Monday and a NATO-Russia gathering in Brussels on Wednesday.

RELATED ARTICLE: White House Considers Backing Insurgency…

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

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

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

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

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

Islamo-Leftism [Part 10]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here. Part 5 is here. Part 6 is here. Part 7 is here. Part 8 is here. Part 9 is here.


Let’s have a few laughs when we read the rest of the paragraph in which, on the subject of “the visibility of Muslims in the public space”, Edwy Plenel castigates “recurring polemics, made up of media exaggerations in which a journalism of opinion rather than of information flourishes” (p. 107). Indeed, everyone knows that our author is a news journalist who obviously has nothing to do, but really nothing at all, with opinion journalism!

Fifth: denial. Plenel writes: “Between money and terrorism, the wealth of obscurantist regimes and the violence of fundamentalist radicals, the Muslims of France are caught in a universal reprobation, made guilty of misdeeds and crimes that are distant and foreign to them, simply because of their sense of belonging, origin or belief” (p. 64). Duly noted.

But where and when, by whom and with whom, in what circumstances and on what occasions did Edwy Plenel see that “the Muslims of France,” a new essentialization, were “caught in a universal reprobation,” that they were “made guilty of misdeeds and crimes”? What allows him to assert that the crimes of Muslims, claimed as such at the time they were committed by their perpetrators, who are closely followed by the Islamic State, would have nothing at all to do, nowhere, never, no way, with a certain type of Islam that Plenel encompasses in his plea for Muslims?

There is no universal disapproval of these acts – just go to Iran, the Gaza Strip, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other countries; not even French disapproval! Anti-Semitic crimes committed by Muslims who claim their religion to legitimize their acts are numerous, as we know. The list is impressive. What macabre catalogue could an Islamophile produce that would include the crimes and murders committed in France against Muslims on the sole pretext that they are Muslims?

Elsewhere, Plenel goes even further and writes that “never have the crimes been committed by so-called [sic] Muslims” (p. 129) – etc. The title of the journalist’s book is clear: he chose “the” and not “of”, thus “all”. What to do then with those who are undeniably Muslims, observant, who perform the obligations of Islam, do their five daily prayers, respect the prohibitions and practice the rituals, live the observances and have chosen warlike, conquering, military, murderous Islam? What about jihadism? It’s simple: in the eyes of Edwy Plenel, they are not Muslims… The matter is thus easily settled. In my place, on the other side of the fence, Edwy Plenel would probably speak of “revisionism” or “negationism” to describe such a cover-up.

In this vein, in connection with 9/11 and its aftermath, Plenel speaks of “terrorism identified with Islam” (p. 133) – not of Islamic terrorism. To name things, or not to name them, is food for thought. The fact that no mention is made of jihadism in a book devoted to defending “the” Muslims is significant, because if there is a problem, it is not with the Muslims, but only with some Muslims – a minority that besmirches the rest of the community, and it is a serious political and ethical sin, if not a religious and theological one, not to make this distinction.

Sixth, and this will be my conclusion: amalgamation. In the same way that Edwy Plenel rejects essentialization but practices it to excess, he also rejects amalgam [24](p. 164) but practices it with the same ardor… These are probably­­ the mysteries of neo-Trotskyite dialectics! For our author combats only the amalgam that consists in lumping all Muslims together in order to make the entire community pay for a crime (which, incidentally, he does not recognize…) committed by only a handful. With Islam, he does not separate the peaceful wheat from the terroristic chaff – which is a journalist’s pure ideological bias that is tantamount to a discreet blessing of the terrorist cause.

For it is another amalgam to imagine that those who assert that Muslims are all guilty of the crimes of a minority are wrong, whereas he would be right when he asserts that none are. For there are at least among “Muslims” those who perpetrate terrorist attacks and those who do not see anything wrong with them, and even some who support them and who are not a negligible quantity[25].

This is the danger and the trap of essentialization: if we speak of Muslim as an indivisible whole, they must be either all good or all bad. And Plenel has chosen: they are all good. Consequently, what appears to be bad cannot be Muslim. How then can we still have a debate?

COLUMN  BY

REFERENCES:

[24] It is quite common in French newspapers and magazines to warn readers after each terrorist attack to refrain from automatically associating Islam with Terrorism, by adding the phrase “pas d’amalgam.

[25]  [Onfray’s footnote]:An ICM poll published by Newsweek reveals that 16% of French Muslims support the Islamic State. This support rises to 27% among 18-24 year olds. A Pew Research Center poll shows that 42% of young Muslims in France support suicide bombings.

RELATED ARTICLE: Turkey’s Long Persecution Against Pontian Christians

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