Al Qaeda Plans Plane Attacks Using ‘New Techniques and Tactics’ as Air Marshals Keep Getting Sent to Mexican Border

While the nation’s Federal Air Marshals (FAM) are busy on the Mexican border providing illegal immigrants with welfare checks, transportation, and other basic services, Al Qaeda is planning attacks in the U.S. involving planes, according to high-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sources. Judicial Watch obtained from government sources a copy of the new intelligence alert, which was delivered on December 31, 2022, at 12:23:52 Greenwich Mean Time. The caption of the widely circulated warning reads: “Al-Qaeda says upcoming attacks on US, possibly involving planes, will use new techniques and tactics.”

The threat could not come at a worse time, as the Biden administration leaves aircraft at risk by sending 150-200 FAM monthly to the southern border to help deal with what it calls “a surge in irregular migration.” The deployments will continue indefinitely, according to multiple FAM sources, and the specially trained aviation security specialists are outraged. The agency works under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which was created after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack. FAM is charged with protecting commercial passenger flights by deterring and countering the risk of terrorist activity. Nevertheless, in late October, the Biden administration began deploying the highly trained law enforcement officers to busy Border Patrol sectors to help with hospital watch, transportation, security and welfare checks at migrant facilities.

Days later the Air Marshal National Council, which represents thousands of FAM nationwide, accused TSA Administrator David Pekoske and FAM Director Tirrell Stevenson of violating federal law and overstepping their authority by assigning air marshals to assist the U.S. Border Patrol with the illegal immigration crisis. In a formal complaint to the DHS Inspector General, the group also accused the Homeland Security leaders of fraud, waste, and abuse of authority. Sending air marshals to El Paso, Texas, San Diego, California, Laredo, Texas, McAllen, Texas, Tucson, Arizona and Yuma, Arizona to transport illegal immigrants and conduct welfare checks has no relation to TSA’s core mission of transportation security, the complaint states. “The statute does not give the Administrator any authority to deploy TSA or FAM employees to the southern border to perform non transportation security related matters,” the complaint to the DHS IG says. “Further, under section (g) the statute describes what the Administrators authority is if an emergency, as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is declared.” The act makes clear that the legislative intent is to only allow TSA to exercise authority and deploy its assets for transportation security, the report to the DHS watchdog confirms.

Hours after learning about the latest Al Qaeda threat, the Air Marshal National Council fired off a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as well as Pekoske and Stevenson reminding them that deploying FAM to the southern border to perform humanitarian work is reckless and putting the nation at extreme risk. “We are once again requesting you immediately stop these dangerous and unnecessary deployments and let our FAMs do what the American taxpayers pay them to do, protect and defend our transportation system,” the letter reads. “We have to ask how can you justify sending FAMs to the border in huge numbers, when the border is in your words secure, and there is no emergency? Yet we have major security incidents happening right now affecting our aviation security.”

Sonya Hightower-LaBosco, a retired FAM who serves as executive director of the Air Marshal National Council, confirmed that FAM are still being pulled off flights at a rate of about 200 a month to serve illegal immigrants at stations along the Mexican border. “They are making sandwiches for them and driving them around like Uber or picking up supplies,” Hightower-LaBosco told Judicial Watch on New Year’s Day. The head of the council, David Londo, called the redeployment of air marshals to the southern border “insane” considering the latest aviation threat from Al Qaeda. “Either they don’t care about aviation security, or they really think it is secure,” Londo said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judicial Watch Sues Air Force Academy for Records on Critical Race Theory, ‘White Supremacy’

Removal of Criminal Illegal Immigrants Arrested by Local Police Drops 71% Under Biden

Biden Admin to Drop Half a Million on Artificial Intelligence That Detects Microaggressions on Social Media

Biden’s handlers send air marshals to border: ‘We’re not going to catch al Qaeda trying to grab a plane in El Paso’

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

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Officially Declares Himself A Dictator

Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky has officially signed a controversial new law expanding his administration’s control over Ukrainian news media, much to the concern of media unions and press freedom organizations who accuse the Eastern European leader of stifling free speech.

The terrible consequences of this U.S. funded bloodbath.

Ukraine’s Zelensky Signs Anti-Free Speech Law, Tightens Control Over Media

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reduced freedom of speech in his country by expanding government control

By: Andrew White, Valient News SXervice, January 3, 2023:

krainian President Volodimir Zelensky has officially signed a controversial new law expanding his administration’s control over Ukrainian news media, much to the concern of media unions and press freedom organizations who accuse the Eastern European leader of stifling free speech.

According to a report by the Hill, Zelensky’s new law allows his National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council, made up of his own appointees and those appointed by parliament, to have more control over what Ukrainian news outlets and journalists report on.

With the signing of his new law, Zelensky’s regulatory agency “can effectively shut down news sites that aren’t registered,” alleges The Kyiv Independent.

The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine in a statement last month claimed the controversial law posed a “threat” to press freedom in Ukraine, comparing it to similar laws in “the regime of dictatorial Russia.”

“Such powers are clearly excessive,” the organization wrote. “No one has yet managed to tame freedom of speech in Ukraine. It won’t work this time either.”

The law comes after Zelensky’s 2019 law, which gave the government regulatory authority over the media in his first year in office.

Zelensky has been battling accusations of authoritarianism, particularly after he criminalized his most popular opposition parties and banned his country’s largest Orthodox church.

BlackRock will be advising Zelensky on “reconstruction” funding for Ukraine, Valiant News reported. Perhaps coincidentally, a senior BlackRock executive currently sits as a top advisor to the US Treasury Department on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

In a press release last Wednesday, Zelensky, who recently appeared in front of Congress to demand even more money for Ukraine, revealed that he had a conference call with Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock.

https://twitter.com/crabcrawler1/status/1608177662484443136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1608177662484443136%7Ctwgr%5E0272b0db58ee6e04242656339e9dfd908e3957a5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2023%2F01%2Fukraines-zelenskyy-officially-declares-himself-a-dictator.html%2F

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Zelensky Bans Ukrainian Orthodox Church

BlackRock Will Partner With Ukraine To Help Attract Investors, Rebuild Country, Zelenskyy Says

Secretary of State Blinken: We Had to Surrender to the Taliban for Ukraine

In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions

Defense Department Records Reveal U.S. Funding of Anthrax Laboratory Activities in Ukraine

“Ukraine Effort”: Billions to Ukraine Was Laundered Back to Democrats Via FTX

Finland Says Ukraine Arms Ending Up In Hands Of Criminal Gangs

Biden’s WWIII: US Military Forces ‘Fully Prepared’ to Cross into Ukraine

MASS PROTESTS ACROSS EUROPE Against Food, Energy Prices, EU Green Edicts, Ukraine War

Ukraine’s Democrat Money Launderer Zelensky Demands America Nuke Russia

Biden Regime to Provide Ukraine an Additional $1.1 Billion in Aid But Snubs Florida, Silent If He’ll Help Florida For Hurricane Damage

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

The Muslim Vote May Have Helped Secure Democratic Party Control Of The Senate

82% of Muslims Are Registered Voters.


One of the many important data points from Ben Baird’s survey of Islamist successes in the election at Islamism.news.

Registered Muslim voters rose from 60 percent of the total adult Muslim population in 2016, to 82 percent in 2022. During the 2020 presidential race, which broke records for voter turnout in the 21st century, 71 percent of eligible Muslim voters cast a ballot, up from 59 percent in 2016 and 4 points higher than the national average.

Baird digs into the scale and scope of the election operation. The post-9/11 has seen record-breaking Muslim migration to America. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups that were not broken up after the attacks went on to form second and third-generation platforms that are entwined with the Left and sometimes rival them for sheer complexity. These organizations increasingly focus on not influencing politicians, but directly influencing the outcome of elections.

The Muslim vote may have decided the winner of key congressional and statewide races during the 2022 midterm elections and even helped secure Democratic Party control of the Senate…

a record-breaking 89 Muslim Americans – including more than a few apparent Islamists – were elected or re-elected in 2022 to offices ranging from school boards and state legislatures to U.S.

These are not just random Muslim people running for things, they’re products of the Islamist machine.

 In Ohio, State Rep.-elect Munira Abdullahi has not yet quit her day job with the Muslim American Society, which the United Arab Emirates designated as a terrorist organization in 2014, thanks to its status as the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Re-elected in Iowa, State Rep. Ako Abdul Samad (D) has served since 2015 as chairman of the American Muslim Alliance, an Islamic civic organization so virulently anti-Semitic that Hillary Clinton was obliged to return a $50,000 AMA donation meant to fund her 2000 Senate bid. Additionally, State Reps. Mauree Turner (D-OK) and Ruwa Romman (D-GA) are CAIR board members, and at least a couple candidates are alumni of Students for Justice in Palestine, a campus club which uses violence and intimidation to harass Jewish students and further an anti-Israel agenda.

There’s a good deal of important information in Baird’s article. It’s also likely to be ignored because few people want to hear about the Jihad anymore, especially when it’s happening more quietly and behind the scenes. Republicans are pivoting toward once again pursuing the Muslim vote. Some like Christie were notorious for their Islamist pandering already. In the wake of the Dearborn school protests, the machine for rebranding a pivot toward Islamism as a conservative cause is already there.

America is continuing on the path to becoming the new Europe in this way along with many others. If we want to know what the price for that looks like, we just need to look to Europe.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trying to defund the police a little more directly: three Muslim knife attacks on NYPD officers in 8 years

New York Times Blames Refusal to Teach America is Racist for Complaints by Disabled Students

Taliban Minister: We’ll Harbor Al Qaeda and Abuse Women Even If America Nukes Us

Hamas-linked CAIR: Irrelevant, self-serving, dangerous, and constantly on the TV news

French Writer Sued by Paris Mosque for Expressing an Opinion

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

Latest Jihadist Attack Shows Biden Bureaucratized Counterterrorism Apparatus is Out of Touch

On New Year’s Eve Two New York Police officers were stabbed in an apparent terrorist attack.

Their alleged assailant, 19-year-old Trevor Bickford, was identified as a recent convert to Islam. Armed with a kukri knife common to South Asian nations such as Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, Bickford reportedly wounded two officers before being shot in the shoulder by another officer on the scene.

All the available evidence seems to suggest that Bickford carried out the attack as an act of jihad.

Fox News reported that a “high-level police source” stated that Bickford was being “watched by the FBI’s counterterrorism task force in the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack.” According to media reports Bickford also left a message to family members prior to the attack, urging them to convert to Islam.

This is the first high profile attack reported in the US in some time and the law enforcement response and actions indicate that the nation remains largely in denial about the ongoing threat of jihadist violence.

For those who closely monitor such things, this attack was not a complete surprise. Over the past month, as the Islamic State (IS) named a new emir, Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurayshi, dozens of IS affiliates around the globe released videos pledging their allegiance. In the past the Islamic State has been able to inspire and/or direct individual acts of jihad like Bickford’s attack, something that other jihadist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, have had less success accomplishing.

The report that Bickford was known to the FBI and “on their radar” as a known “extremist” is unsurprising, another example of a long-standing trend of terror suspects “watched by the FBI’s counterterrorism task force” all the way up until they conduct their attacks. A significant number of those attackers were also jihadists.

One can also not help but wonder whether the FBI is taking its eye off the ball due to command influence from the Biden administration. For more than two years now President Biden has repeated the claim that the major terrorist threat in America is from “white supremacists” or right-wing extremists. This oft-repeated claim comes despite the fact that the FBI has not a single white supremacist on its most wanted terrorist lists—lists dominated by jihadist terrorists.

Just a few weeks ago the United Nations Security Council—hardly a sentinel for the security of freedom-loving peoples—issued a report warning that the threat from “terrorism” has increased and has spread around the globe.

The report specifically mentioned the regenerating threat from Al Qaeda and the Islamic State and financing that is reaching them. The UN’s counterterrorism chief specifically mentioned the groups’ activities in Africa and Afghanistan.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, acknowledged that there were “8,000 terrorist incidents across 65 countries, killing more than 23,000 people” last year.

Then she said something incomprehensible. She pointed to “hateful incidents here in our country” as proof no country is safe from the threat.

The overwhelming majority of the 8,000 terrorist incidents in 65 countries that Nuland referred to were acts of jihad. And most of them occurred in Africa. The “hateful incidents” in America she mentions, without reference or attribution, are presumably violations of hate crimes statues, in no way comparable to the threat from global jihad. Nuland’s comments reflect the profound ignorance that pervades this administration as well as a growing willingness to conflate terrorism with other, less lethal, issues.

As we head into 2023 we have more than a warning from the UN to alert us to the threat from jihadist terrorism. We have a new terrorist leader who has garnered pledges of allegiance from jihadists from Nigeria to Afghanistan to the Philippines. And now we have a jihadist terrorist attack on police officers on the streets of America.

Will the Biden administration be ready?

AUTHOR

Christopher Holton

Senior Analyst and Director of State Outreach.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Hezbollah Chief Nasrallah Rumored to Have Suffered Stroke

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah’s recent cancellation of a planned public address is continuing to fuel rumors that the 62-year-old terrorist leader is gravely ill.

Nasrallah had been scheduled to make a televised speech Friday evening, but postponed the address, with Hezbollah’s media relations department claiming he was suffering from an influenza infection which would “prevent him from speaking in a regular and normal manner.”

Since then, however, reports from Lebanon and Saudi Arabia have claimed that Nasrallah in fact suffered a stroke last week and has been incapacitated. “Nasrallah’s illness, which led him to be admitted to the hospital, is not the ‘flu’, as has been claimed, but rather is a second stroke,” Saudi journalist Hussein al-Gawi wrote.

“Arab sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a stroke, with one source going so far as to say Nasrallah has died and that the news of his death is being kept secret for the time being. There are no confirmations yet as to Nasrallah’s current status,” said former Israeli intelligence official and regional analyst Avi Melamed.

Hezbollah also said its leader is “receiving the appropriate treatment” and will speak on Tuesday evening at a Hezbollah rally commemorating slain Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and slain Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, but “If Nasrallah either cancels or doesn’t show for the speech on Tuesday, it could indicate a wider issue with his health,” continued Melamed.

“While right now rumors are the only potential indicators of Nasrallah’s present condition, their reverberation throughout the Arab world clearly indicate the distaste that many Arabs have for Nasrallah. Those detractors, great in number are certainly hoping that Hassan Nasrallah is indeed dead,” Melamed concluded.


Hassan Nasrallah

9 Known Connections

In August 2010, Nasrallah, making his first public appearance in more than a year, told hundreds of cheering supporters at a rally that Israel was “a cancerous growth,” and that “[t]he only solution is to destroy it without giving it the opportunity to surrender.” “The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest,” he added. “It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world…. We say to America, Israel, Great Britain and their regional tools, we say to every enemy and friend … we in Hezbollah will not abandon Palestine and the people of Palestine. Call us terrorists, criminals, try to kill us, we Shi’ites will never abandon Palestine.”

To learn more about Hassan Nasrallah, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rob Reiner Earns Newsbusters’ 2022 Celebrity Freak-Out Award

Newsbusters Bestows ‘Joy of Hate Award’ for Joy Reid Rants

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

NYC: Muslim Who Stabbed Two Cops in Times Square Was On The FBI’s Watchlist

Clearly the feds weren’t watching Bickford closely. They were too busy trying to find “white supremacists.”


REVEALED: Times Square ‘jihadi’, 19, was on an FBI ‘watchlist’ after being radicalized and vowing to fight in Afghanistan before stabbing rookie NYPD cop in the head on New Year’s Eve: ‘Terrorist’s’ brother is in US Army

by Andrea Cavallier, DailyMail.com, January 1, 2023:

The alleged Islamic extremist who stabbed a rookie NYPD cop in the head with a machete in Times Square on New Year’s Eve has been pictured.

Trevor Bickford, 19, from Wells, Maine, is seen in unsuspecting photographs shared by his mother on Facebook from his birthday in the summer.

She refers to him as an ‘old soul’ and repeatedly tells him how much she loves him after he left their home for Seattle in September.

Her social media also reveals her other son Devin is in the US Army, with him pictured alongside the suspected jihadist in one shot.

It comes after Bickford allegedly slashed two officers with a machete on 8th Avenue near Times Square around 10pm last night.

Another officer shot him in the shoulder and he was rushed to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, along with the two cops. They are all expected to survive.

There appears to be no criminal record for Bickford, police sources said. But they say the FBI in Boston do have an open case on him. He is on a ‘guardian list’ because of his radicalization. The New York Post reports that Bickford apparently made statements to his aunt about a desire to go fight in Afghanistan, and she notified the authorities.

The attack happened just outside of the high-security zone where thousands of revelers were screened for weapons as they prepared to ring in 2023.

Both officers were slashed in their heads, including the rookie cop who suffered a skull fracture along with an 8-year veteran who had a head laceration….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York City: Muslim attacks NYPD cops with machete near Times Square

NYC: Times Square jihad stabber may have posted jihad propaganda online, cops search for motive

France: Grand Mosque of Paris files criminal complaint against writer for ‘Islamophobia’

France: Two people, including a Muslim migrant, arrested for attempting massacre at Paris train station

Muslims and Blacks Commit 81% of the Attacks on Jews in NYC

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

German Study Provides Direct Evidence Showing People Died From Covid mRNA Vaccination

German scientists published a peer reviewed study on autopsies of twenty five people who had died suddenly. Reports of otherwise healthy people suddenly collapsing and dying need to be investigated. But the very agencies responsibility for such a task are the least interested. Just the opposite. They don’t want to know. And worse still, they don’t want people to know.

Medical pathologists from Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany have published direct evidence showing how people found dead after mRNA vaccination died. As this team of six scientists explore in their study, these mRNA-vaccinated patients suffered from heart damage because their hearts were attacked by their own immune cells. This autoimmune attack on their own heart cells then leads to their damaged hearts beating so many times per second that, once the tachycardia unexpectedly started, they died in minutes. (The Epoch Times)

And still the Democrats are pushing this poison – on our children.

Possibly the most important study on COVID shots might explain why COVID never seems to end

By: Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, December 30, 2022:

Tolerance is a good thing in most aspects of life. But when it comes to the immune system, artificially juicing up the body to create antibodies with long-term tolerance to a pathogen is a recipe for disaster. Amid thousands of papers on COVID and the vaccines, a new German paper published in Science Immunology should be the headline story this week. Although the subject matter is very dense, the implication of it is that the Pfizer shots (and possibly other mRNA spike protein shots) caused the immune system to misfire, thereby creating an endless feedback loop of viral immune escape, perpetuating the pandemic in the macro, and creating immune suppression for the individuals who received them.

The vexing question of 2022 is why the virus is even still with us to this day. Why is it that so many countries in the Pacific Rim that did so well in 2020 and 2021 now have a bigger problem in 2022 with less virulent strains of COVID? Why does it appear the pandemic will never end and so many people continue to get the virus multiple times? None of this is normal.

Wherever you turn, the most vaccinated countries are not only experiencing rampant side effects from the shots, but worse outcomes from COVID itself following their endless booster campaigns.

But even more telling than an epidemiological comparison of one nation to another is a comparison of outcomes within nations themselves between pre- and post-vaccination/booster campaign. Prior to the mass vaccination, two parts of the world largely escaped excess deaths from the virus: continental Africa and the Pacific Rim nations. Yet whereas Africa flatlined in terms of COVID deaths throughout 2021-2022, countries like Japan only experienced meaningful numbers of deaths after the mass vaccination program.

Here is a chart of the daily COVID deaths per million in Japan, a country that is super vaccinated (and mask-obsessed).

CLICK HERE: Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people chart.

Keep reading…..

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

El Camino Hospital’s Emergency Department Head Laura Cook died suddenly in her sleep

Vaxxed Cardiologist Whose Father Died After Jab: Suspend mRNA Product NOW

Jabbed Athletes Die Suddenly

FIFTH Young Doctor, Triathlete, 27, DIES SUDDENLY

THREE DOCTORS From the Same Hospital “Die Suddenly” in the Same Week After Hospital Mandates Another COVID Shot“Medical Emergencies” Epidemic: Healthy vacationers collapse and die suddenly and unexpectedly

32-Year-Old Comedian Nick Nemeroff Suddenly Dies in His Sleep — Posted Earlier About Suffering Side Effects of COVID Vaccine (VIDEO)

Healthy young people are dying suddenly – as doctors seek answers

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

EXCLUSIVE TEXAS VIDEO: 600 illegal migrants cross the border into the U.S. in three hours

Biden actually told voters during the  2020 presidential campaign “that the choice between him and Donald Trump was between the lawful and the lawless.” So here’s what’s happening now on the Southern border, where illegal, unvetted migrants are invading.

The Commander-in-Chief of the American Army and Navy and the leader of the free world (once upon a time) has abandoned all concern for national security and the American economy. And everyone knows what he did to Americans in Afghanistan.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: 600 Migrants Cross Border in 3 Hours into Texas Border Town

by Bob Price and Randy Clark, Breitbart, December 28, 2022:

EAGLE PASS, Texas — Breitbart Texas posted along the Rio Grande south of town and observed a single group of nearly 300 migrants emerge from the riverbank and surrender to Texas National Guardsmen and Border Patrol agents Wednesday. Two large groups of nearly 600 crossed the Rio Grande in the early morning.

The first group of migrants consisted mainly of single adult male and female migrants from Colombia, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Scattered within the group were a few family units with small children and several elderly migrants. This was the first of two large migrant groups that would cross within three hours.

The large migrant groups have shifted their crossing points near Eagle Pass from just outside the north side of the city to a more remote crossing far south of the heart of the city.

The video shows the migrants emerging from the riverbank and being guided to a gap in a ranch fence on the edge of a nearby roadway. Once guided around the ranch fence, the migrants are interviewed by awaiting Border Patrol agents. The migrants are then sorted by nationality and gender and prioritized for transportation to a nearby processing center.

The group crossed shortly after 2:00 am as Breitbart Texas posted at several busy migrant crossing points. The large migrant group would not be the last for a weary shift of Border Patrol agents and Texas National Guard soldiers stationed in the area.

Another large group of 278 migrants crossed the Rio Grande at about 4:30 a.m. just north of the first group, according to a source operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The group crossed onto private property located about two miles from the Camino Real Port of Entry in Eagle Pass. The crossing point is near the south edge of a border wall built under orders of Governor Greg Abbott.

Within three hours, more than 600 migrants had crossed the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass.

Agents scrambled to that area about two miles away and repeated the process. The migrants crossing into the area are from countries not amenable to a speedy return to their home country under the CDC Title 42 emergency COVID-19 authority. According to a source within CBP, not authorized to speak to the media, the migrants crossing in Wednesday’s groups will be released into the United States to pursue asylum claims. The Supreme Court voted on Tuesday to leave Title 42 in place until it rules on the lawsuit filed by 19 states, Breitbart reported.

Once processed, the migrants will be taken to a charity shelter in the Eagle Pass and later transferred to a larger charity shelter in San Antonio, Texas. Many will depart San Antonio for other parts of the United States.

On Tuesday, nearly 1,100 migrants crossed the Rio Grande in just five hours in the same area south of the city…..

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Text and Email Evidence: Pelosi Staff Secretly DECREASED Security at US Capitol for Jan 6 (While Pelosi Organized Film Crew For That Day)

Remember the January 6 Political Prisoners and Their Families

German Study Provides Direct Evidence Showing People Died From Covid RNA Vaccination

While Taliban Beat Women, Secretary Blinken Releases Playlist

Afghanistan: Living under Sharia, woman says ‘I wish Allah never created women’

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

NORTH CAROLINA: Child Sex Crimes by Illegal Aliens in 2022 • 268 Illegals = 954 Charges of Rape/Sexual Assault

For the past 15 years, we have brought you these monthly reports of crimes being committed by illegal aliens in NC. For the past 9 years, we have focused specifically on monthly child rape/child sexual assault crimes.

You need no further proof that illegal aliens are a burden upon our legal system, our health system, our educational system and most importantly; a burden upon the mental and emotional state of the children of North Carolina. We have certainly laid to rest any possible claim that “illegal aliens do not increase criminal activity”, at least in NC.

Seeing as how, in the previous 15 years, no substantial actions have been taken by our Legislators to contain this insidious crime and there’s nothing to indicate they will act in the next 15 years, sadly, this will be the last monthly report from NCFIRE. Our website, www.NCFIRE.info will remain active and accessible to everyone who would like to use the information we have published. All that is required is to acknowledge where you obtained the information, should you choose to use it.

During the month of December 2022, NCFIRE was able to document 15 illegal aliens who committed 41 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault.

That brings the yearly total for 2022 to:

268 illegal aliens charged with:

954 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault

The grand totals, since 2013 are:

2,980 illegal aliens charged with:

12,663 separate acts of child rape/child sexual assault

Numbers that are quite frankly, hard to wrap your mind around. And keep in mind, these represent only about 2/3rds of the100 NC county Sheriff’s arrest records, because the rest of them made it exceedingly difficult to obtain their daily arrest records. So our monthly and grand total numbers are most assuredly on the low side, unbelievably.

So, for the final time:

For the December 2022 monthly report, click here: December 2022

And for the previous 9 years of monthly reports (as well as other useful information pertaining to NC), visit our website here: NCFIRE

I’d like to personally thank each and everyone of you for the support you have given NCFIRE over the years. Specifically our donors and also numerous NC House members (former and current) who have done everything in their power to pass meaningful legislation to halt this scourge but; have run up against senior members who are beholden to the NC Chamber of Commerce and the NC Farmers Associations for cheap illegal alien labor. Those organizations contribute HEAVILY to members’ reelection campaigns and I guess they decided that money was more important than the safety and well being of NC citizens and our children.

It’s been a duty and a honor to have brought you these reports. We can only hope that someday, it helps.

 Thanks for your support!

©NCFIRE. All rights reserved.

In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions

One thing is certain: the full extent of the ties between Ukraine and the posturing, self-righteous, desperately corrupt, hypocritical and self-serving U.S. Democrat establishment is not publicly known, and may never be known. But what we do know should have brought that entire establishment crashing down years ago. First, there was Hunter Biden’s $50,000-a-month job with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma despite his having no experience whatsoever in the industry. This was an obvious instance of influence-peddling despite all the ongoing attempts to explain it away. Then there are the allegations that the U.S. government sent taxpayer money to Ukraine, which then invested in the discredited cryptocurrency firm FTX, which then donated millions to Democrats. The heated denials of any wrongdoing in the latter case recall the denials of the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop. And there is much more, including the fact that yesterday’s Ukrainian Nazi terrorists are now U.S. taxpayer-funded heroes of freedom.

The facts have gotten little attention, but the independent journalism site Kanekoa News reported as long ago as last June that “on October 16, 2019, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee’s counterterrorism subpanel, Rep. Max Rose (NY), led a letter signed by forty Democrats asking the State Department why they had not placed Ukraine’s Azov Battalion on the U.S. list of ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs).” The irony couldn’t be richer, for now the New York Times, that reliable organ of far-Left opinion, refers to “Ukraine’s celebrated Azov Battalion,” and claims that “the group’s defense of the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol — the southern port city decimated by Russian forces in the first months of the war — has become a powerful symbol of the suffering inflicted by Russia and the resistance mounted by Ukraine.”

Every last Democrat who condemned the Azov Battalion likely reads and respects the Times, and every last one of them also would likely prefer us all to forget that they once likened the Azov Battalion to the Islamic State (ISIS) and noted that it “openly welcomes neo-Nazis into its ranks.” The Democrats’ 2019 letter added that “the 115th Congress of the United States stated in its 2018 omnibus spending bill that ‘none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.’” But that was when Volodymyr Zelensky was widely regarded as some kind of ally or tool of the Left’s Emanuel Goldstein of the day, Donald Trump; after all, the first Stalinist show trial impeaching the America-First president took place over a phone call to Zelensky. So it was in the Democrats’ interest to play up the Nazi element in Ukraine, just as it is in their interests now to pretend that element doesn’t exist.

The Democrats’ letter even declared “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Yet now it seems as if there is no limit to the taxpayer billions that must be funneled to these gallant Ukrainian defenders of freedom. Is anyone exercising any kind of oversight at all? Is Azov still “recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens”? Is our taxpayer money now being used to fund such activities?

Among the stalwart Democrat solons and defenders of the people signing the letter were Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Eliot Engel and Gregory Meeks of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green of Texas, Ro Khanna of California, and Rep. Al Green. None of them have any curiosity about any of this at all? Now they’re all just certain that Ukraine is 100% on the side of the angels and that there are no Nazis, zero, zip, nada, who are benefiting from American largesse to Zelensky and company? Back in 2018, Ro Khanna, in high moral dudgeon, declared: “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.” How about now? Kanekoa News reports that on March 10, 2022, Khanna “deleted a tweet saying, ‘the U.S. has been complicit in the rehabilitation and spread of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Enough is enough! Our government must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups.’”

So apparently our government no longer must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups. Instead, you and I have to pay for them. Is all this so that Democrats can line their pockets via money-laundering schemes akin to the alleged FTX arrangement? We may never know, since the officials who are supposed to be looking out for our interests are all corrupted themselves. The scammers and money launderers, whatever specifically they are doing or not doing, have a free hand.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Blinken: We Had to Surrender to the Taliban for Ukraine

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

The Netanyahu Doctrine: An In-Depth Regional Policy Interview

Al Arabiya English’s Mohammed Khalid Alyahya did the following interview with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu:

Transcript:

AA: Your father was a noted historian who taught at Cornell. What did you learn from him? How has your understanding of history, and growing up in the United States, shaped your understanding of Israel and of the region?

BN: Well, I think my time in the United States obviously made me appreciate the important role of the United States in protecting the peace and stability of the world. And I view that alliance with the United States as particularly important. I can also say that I think one of my main goals would be to speak with my friend of 40 years, President Biden. And I’m going to tell him that I think that there is a need for a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to its traditional allies in the Middle East. Israel, of course, is there and we’ve had a solid, unbreakable relationship. But I think that the alliance, the traditional alliance with Saudi Arabia and other countries, has to be reaffirmed. There should not be periodic swings, or even wild swings in this relationship, because I think that the alliance between America’s allies and with America is the anchor of stability in our region. I think it requires periodic reaffirmation and I’m to speak to President Biden about it.

AA: About the cabinet formation that stirred a lot of controversy. In light of the commitments you have made to your allies on the extreme right, including handing them broad powers in the West Bank, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz says that he expects a collapse of the security situation in the West Bank that would extend to the Gaza Strip. What’s your take on that?

BN: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise of your questions. I didn’t hand over great powers in Judea-Samaria, the West Bank, not at all. In fact, all the decisions will be made by me and the defense minister, and that’s actually in the coalition agreement. So there’s a lot of misinformation about that.

I think my record speaks for itself; the last decade in which I led Israel was the safest decade in Israel’s history. But not only safe and secure for Israelis, also safe and secure for the Palestinians. Because there’s been the least loss of life on both sides and that’s not accidental. It’s because of a policy of security that I’ve led, which has actually resulted in more peace and economic possibilities. And by the way, in the year that I left government and the outgoing government was in power, things changed immediately. We had an eruption of violence like we had not seen since 2008, a year before I returned to office.

My policy is one of stability, peace, prosperity and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I think that [this] record not only speaks for itself, it also speaks for the future. I will govern and I will lead, and I will navigate this government. The other parties are joining me, I’m not joining them.

Remember Likud is one-half of this coalition. The other parties are, some of them are 1/4, 1/5 the size of the Likud. They’re joining us; they will follow my policy.

AA: Your partnership with the far-right parties has stirred concerns at home and abroad. How do you expect our countries to deal with a government whose leading members portray Arabs as enemies, sometimes in terms that are overtly racist?

BN: Well, first of all, a lot of them have also changed and moderated their views, principally because with the assumption of power comes responsibility. And as you approach power, you become more responsible.

But again, here’s my record: I have led successive governments, some of them with parties to my right. And during those years, I actually invested in the Arab communities in Israel more than any of the previous governments combined. Investments where investments should go — in education and infrastructure, in transportation, and the quality of life, in governance.

Because a lot of them are complaining about the eruption of crime that makes their life hell. So I’ve invested in that too. I opened 11 police stations in Arab communities in Israel in the decade between 2010 and 2020 at the request of the community. [Do] you know, how many we had before? One. So I increased it by tenfold, both for security, for the ability for youngsters.

I want every young Arab boy or Arab girl in Israel to have the same opportunities to partake in the remarkable success story that is Israel. And therefore I’ve encouraged that, and will continue to encourage that.

AA: But what about the settlement, the new settlement about to [be established] in the West Bank that will further undermine the two-state solution. Mahmoud Abbas told al-Arabiya two days ago that this could lead to armed resistance, and he can’t stop it anymore.

BN: Well, I think he [Mahmoud Abbas] keeps on saying that. But in fact, the reason we’ve not had an Israeli-Palestinian peace is because the Palestinians have refused to do, and I think tragically their leadership for the last century has refused to do, what is finally happening in the rest of the Arab world. And that is to recognize that the State of Israel is here to stay.

I think coming to a solution with the Palestinians will require out-of-the-box thinking, will require new thinking. The reason we got the historic Abraham accords is that we got out of this mode that Mahmoud Abbas wants to stay in, and that is to, you know, to mount the same lines, to go through the same rabbit holes, not to seek new ways. In fact, it’s when we started thinking about things in a new way that we broke the cycle of paralysis that paralyzed [attempts at] peace for a quarter of a century.

Now, I think paradoxically – I don’t think it’s paradoxical, but other people do – that as we expand the number of countries that make peace with us, it actually helps bring about at the end a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Everybody said “No, first you have to solve the Palestinian problem, otherwise, you won’t get peace with the Arab world.” I said it may be the other way around. It may be that as you expand the peace with the Arab states, you’ll be able to actually get to the peace with the Palestinians and I firmly believe that.

But I will say this, I think we face a possibility of not merely an expansion of the peace; I think we can have a new peace initiative that will form a quantum leap for the achievement for the resolution of both the Arab-Israeli conflict and ultimately, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And of course, I’m referring to what could be a truly remarkable historic peace with Saudi Arabia.

Mind you, I’m committed to deepening and strengthening the remarkable Abraham Accords that we’ve had with our neighbors, but I think the peace with Saudi Arabia will serve two purposes. It will be a quantum leap for an overall peace between Israel and the Arab world. It will change our region in ways that are unimaginable. And I think it will facilitate, ultimately, a Palestinian-Israeli peace. I believe in that. I intend to pursue it.

Of course, it’s up to the to the leadership of Saudi Arabia if they want to partake in this effort. I certainly hope they would.

AA: Speaking in Abu Dhabi, the Saudi foreign minister recently reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to seeing a Palestinian state as a precondition to normalization. And Saudi officials have been saying time and again, they have predicted a fruitful and collectively beneficial relationship with Israel that would come after a two-state solution, after the Palestinian achievement of statehood.

What do you anticipate for Israeli-Saudi relations, given those constraints? Is normalization on the horizon? Would you meaningfully compromise on the Palestinian issue? Is there a plan after you become prime minister?

BN: There have been many ideas. I think the last initiative of President Trump actually put forth very innovative ideas that could help achieve or end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I think we can end the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieve peace with the Palestinians. We just have to be creative about it. And we have to not dig in our heels because if you dig in your heels, you get stuck in the old groove.

I think part of the remarkable thing that has happened in the last few years, with the Abraham Accords, showed that if we get out of this groove, then amazing things can happen. And I think that amazing things can happen not only for Israelis and Arabs, but for Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs as well. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this with the Arab leaders and with the Palestinians themselves.

AA: Are you willing to accept the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for negotiations? What concrete steps are you willing to take, or are you willing to take any concrete steps, in resolving the Palestinian issue in order to create this larger peace in the Arab world that you mentioned?

BN: Well, first of all, I have taken concrete steps under my administration, contrary to the public image. For example, it was under my government, not the previous left-led government, that we reduced dramatically the number of security checkpoints, we increased the number of passages that enabled 150,000 Palestinians from the territories to come and work every day. And you know I never shut that down even during periods of tension and terror. I said “no, they have to be able to earn a living, be able to care for their families, be able to move around.” I’ve encouraged investments, joint ventures, in high-tech between Israeli entrepreneurs and Palestinian entrepreneurs, the building of a Palestinian city, Rawabi, and other things. These are practical things that I say.

But I’m not here to tell you that an economic peace is a substitute for political peace. I believe that the reason we’ve not had a political peace, we couldn’t move forward, is because the Palestinian leadership still refuses to accept the right of the State of Israel to exist. That remains the problem. If you keep looking at other places, you’re not going to find a solution. I hope that [this] will change.

I think that the growing circle of peace between Israel and Arab states and the quantum leaps that we can have in a peace with Saudi Arabia will also convince the Palestinians, the Palestinian leadership, because I think quite a few of the Palestinian people already are there to adopt a different attitude towards accepting the State of Israel. And once that happens, then many things can happen. I think we should move forward creatively. We should have talks about it.

Look, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 was an indication that there is a willingness, in those days, to think about how to get out of the straitjacket and to get to a comprehensive peace. I think things have changed, things have moved. But the need to have this kind of new thinking is important. And again, if we stick to the old grooves, we’ll be stuck in the old groove. If we think about new ways, then I think the sky’s the limit. And I mean that; it’s limitless actually.

AA: Do you consider the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for negotiations, just as a starting point?

BN: I think it’s an indication of a desire to end the conflict in all its terms. But I think 20 years later, you know, we need to have a fresh view. And I’m not going say what it is. I think we need to talk about it. Maybe talk discreetly.

You know, I’m sort of a champion of a slight twist in what Woodrow Wilson said in the Versailles Peace Conference. He said he believed in open covenants, openly arrived at. I believe in open covenants, secretly arrived at or discreetly arrived at. There we will have to have discussions about all the questions that you asked today and see how we can advance this. If you try to sort it out in advance you get stuck. That’s what happens.

In Israel, we say “climb the tree.” Everybody climbs on their own tree and says, “I’m here, and I’m not climbing down and no matter how many ladders you give me.” I’m stuck in my tree, the other guy is stuck in his tree, and we just shout at each other across tree trunks and we never get to a meeting of the minds or an actual meeting on the ground. I think we have to take a different position. All these things need to be discussed discreetly, responsibly and, within the confines of closed meetings, openly. And once we get an agreement, then we can come out.

I don’t need the public fanfare, I don’t need it. You know, if you come to an agreement, it will be publicized. If you don’t come to an agreement, nothing happens. I think we can come to amazing agreements.

AA: Israel recently signed a US-Iranian-backed maritime deal with Lebanon, which you said was illegal. What exactly is wrong with the agreement? Why do you oppose it? And as prime minister will you repudiate that agreement, or do you intend to challenge it in court? There have been many statements saying that it’s unconstitutional.

BN: Yeah. I think it contravened a longstanding tradition of bringing agreements that change Israel’s territorial claims or territorial possessions or even economic claims. You bring it to the Knesset. I brought the Abraham Accords to the Knesset. By the way, I didn’t have to, but I thought it was right on such an important matter to have our parliament decide on it. And I think they should have done it here too. I said that I’ll look into it, [and] that I’ll find ways, if there are bad things in it or incorrect things in it, or harmful things in it, to correct it in a responsible way.

I don’t necessarily go tearing documents up, and I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I’ll do what I can to protect Israeli economic and security interests within the policy that I talk about. And I think I’ve shown that I know how to do that responsibly, without adventurism and without wild statements. I’m too experienced for that.

AA: Does Israel intend to sign any more US-sponsored agreements with Iran-backed neighbors and Iran-backed agreements in Syria, for example? And do such rumors reflect the wishes of the current US administration, which pushed Israel extremely hard to sign the Lebanon Maritime Agreement?

BN: Well, it’s been signed. I mean, it hasn’t been approved, but it’s been signed. You mean other agreements? I don’t know. I’ll look into it.

Look, my concern is that the revenues that come out of the sea that I think heavily favored Lebanon, do not favor Lebanon. They favor Hezbollah. And Hezbollah has not been a force for peace. So you may just be funding Hezbollah’s military arsenal that could be used not only against Israel, but against many others in the Middle East. You have to think about that very carefully. But that is already done. As I said, I’ll see what I can do to moderate any damage or to secure Israel’s economic and security interests.

But as far as new agreements, well, this time we’ll be negotiating it. And, you know, I’m a fair but tough negotiator, and we’ll see what is brought before us. I don’t rule out things, but I always negotiate based on what I believe is Israel’s interest. I don’t only look at Israel’s interest because any negotiation always involves the other side. But the first thing that I look at: Is Israel’s security going to be hurt? Are Israel’s national interests going to be impeded? And within these parameters, we can proceed. We’ll see. I don’t want to commit before I know what they’re suggesting.

AA: Mr. Prime Minister, are you willing to extend that or look at an agreement on the land border between Israel and Lebanon?

BN: Continual negotiations are there, and there have been border adjustments, by the way, on both sides, over the years. They have been tactical, and I don’t think there is a major claim for a major shift, not a serious one.

The instability under the Lebanese-Israeli border was not based on this or that claim that the border has to move a kilometer here or a kilometer there. The instability was that this border was taken over on the Lebanese side by Hezbollah that calls for the eradication of Israel, [and that has] flooded south Lebanon with tens of thousands of rockets, 10,000 of which were fired into Israel. That’s what’s causing the instability.

And Hezbollah doesn’t say, well, we’re doing all this because we think we should have 500 more meters on and this or that part of the border. They say: ‘We’re doing all this because Israel shouldn’t exist.’ That’s the problem.

I don’t know what is being told in the Arab world, but that’s the reality. Hezbollah is a force against peace, a force against stability, a force against the existence of my country and in my opinion, a force backed by Iran against the security and stability of many countries. And that’s what we’ve had to deal with on the Lebanese border.

I wish we had a real border dispute between us and Lebanon. If there are any such disputes, they’re trivial and minor compared to the real problem, which I’ve just discussed.

AA: If we take a step back geopolitically, do you see these US-backed agreements with countries that are backed by Iran, like Lebanon and Syria, or other countries where Iranian militias proliferate, as part of the framework of “regional balance” or regional “integration,” to use the language of the US administration.

In other words, is there a different purpose between US-sponsored agreements with countries that are backed by Iran on one hand, and the agreements between Israel and Gulf states also known as the Abraham Accords, are they all just part of making peace? Or are there in fact two different kinds of agreements that support two very different potential regional security architectures: one centered around the US relationship with Iran, and the second centered around Israel’s relationships in the Gulf?

BN: I think the agreements that we make with like-minded states, traditional allies of the United States, and now, I think sharing common interests to block Iranian aggression, are powerful agreements and they actually have substance to them and they have weight. You can see immediately the flourishing in economic relations. Right now, after the Abraham Accords, we have billions of dollars, billions of dollars shaping up every year in joint ventures. We have people-to-people meetings, hundreds of thousands of Israelis visiting the Gulf states, Gulf states’ citizens visiting Israel. It’s amazing. These are solid.

Why is that? Because there is a meeting of the minds. We both recognize each other’s existence, each other’s right to exist. The benefits that accrue to our population from cooperation and the desire to have our peoples move into the future with progress, with prosperity, and with security. It really is miraculous. That’s what we can do with countries that share our vision of a truly new Middle East.

The problem with Iran and its proxies is that they have a completely different vision. They want to stop this progress. They want to dominate the Middle East, if not conquer it outright. They openly say they want to annihilate Israel. So, you know, obviously you may have a tactical agreement on the agenda on the Lebanese maritime question, but you can’t really make it.

What kind of an agreement would I make with Iran? The method of our decapitation? How we commit suicide? How we allow them to have a nuclear arsenal that will threaten all of us? That’s not an agreement.

So yes, I think there is a quantum, an enormous difference between the solid agreements between like-minded states and the so-called agreements with Iran and its proxies that are usually violated even before they’re signed.

AA: Yeah, but surely the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel, essentially between Hezbollah and Israel, is an Iranian endorsed agreement? Now, whether it’s in Israel’s interest is besides the point of whether it is an Iranian-backed agreement.

BN: Look, there are ceasefire agreements between rivals and enemies, and they hold as long as the common interest to hold them keeps on. But that’s different from peace.

I draw a distinction between tactical agreements or ceasefire agreements, or agreements that temporarily, or in a limited fashion, serve otherwise warring parties and the establishment of a broad peace agreement. That’s so different.

Can we have a peace agreement with Iran? No, because Iran says there shouldn’t be an Israel. They also say maybe not as forcefully, publicly, but they also say you shouldn’t have many of the other countries in the Middle East, they should be subjugated as Iran’s, basically as Iran’s minions. They use their proxies in Syria, they use their proxies in Yemen, they use their proxies in Lebanon to affect such a policy, not merely against Israel, but against other Arab countries.

So, you know, who cares what they say? Look at what they do. Who cares what they sign? It doesn’t mean anything. They sign and they violate, they cheat as fast as they sign. And you certainly shouldn’t make agreements with them that are bad if they keep the agreement, which is what I think the JCPOA was. It was a horrible agreement because it allowed Iran basically with international approval, to develop a nuclear and basically an atomic arsenal paved with gold, with hundreds of billions of dollars of sanction relief. Where does the sanction relief go? Does it go to building hospitals in Tehran and Iran’s cities? Does it go to solving the water problem there? It goes for the expansion of terrorism and aggression throughout the Middle East. So I’m very clear-eyed about that.

By the way, I think I have to tell you, I think that beyond public statements, I think the leaders of most of the Arab countries, and certainly the leading Arab countries are absolutely clear-eyed about this threat of Iranian aggression. And I, for one, do not fall into the trap of saying that if I sign an agreement with the ayatollahs, they’re going to keep it. They’re going to violate it if they can. They’ll keep it only if it allows them to advance towards a capability of much greater aggression in a very short time.

AA: Speaking of the JCPOA, Washington is clearly still keen to strike a deal with Iran despite Iran’s clear weakness and despite Israeli warnings of Iran’s determination to pursue its nuclear ambitions independent of any international restriction. You have always been a vocal critic of the JCPOA, obviously. What is your plan…?

BN: Well, you’re quite right. You’re quite right. I have been a vocal critic of it. First of all, look at what is happening in Iran itself. The Iranian people are asking themselves are they better off today than they were 40 years ago when the revolution took place? You know, just look at their GDP per capita. It’s basically, you know, a few thousand dollars. It hasn’t moved. In Saudi Arabia, it more than doubled. In Israel, [it] more than doubled. Okay. Because we invest in our people. We invest in our citizens. But the ayatollah’s regime is just investing in radicalism and terrorism and aggression.

So, number one, the Iranian people are not well off, and the JCPOA would give hundreds of billions of dollars to this aggressive regime, which they will use, again, not for the Iranian people, but for their aggressive plans to take over the Middle East and beyond that. So I think that’s one criticism that I’ve had.

The second [is] it doesn’t stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear arsenal because under the JCPOA, if it’s resumed today, within 3 to 4 years, Iran would have unlimited enrichment, uranium enrichment capacity under an international approval, under a P5+1 and the great powers that would approve it, thereby basically saying to Iran: ‘All you have to do is postpone the manufacture of these bombs, these nuclear bombs for two years, and you can be a nuclear threshold state with our approval. That’s crazy. That’s folly.

But today, I sense a change – not only in Israel, obviously, and in our region, but I sense a change in Washington. And I think given what has happened in Iran, given the extraordinary courage of the Iranian men and these extraordinary Iranian women, I think there’s been a change and a lot of people now across the board in many lands say: ‘You really cannot go back to the JCPOA and we have to do everything in our power to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal.’

So the answer to your question in one sentence: I’m committed to do whatever I can do to prevent Iran from having a nuclear arsenal. I naturally won’t itemize that here, but that’s a firm commitment that I’ve made to myself and to the people of Israel.

AA: Even without the consent of Washington?

BN: Sorry?

AA: Even without the consent of Washington to pursue more aggression towards Iran?

BN: Not aggression. I want to protect ourselves against Iran’s aggression, and against a regime that openly calls for the annihilation of my country. That’s obvious, but the answer to your question is yes. With or without an agreement.

AA: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Would you mind if I just stick with the Iran situation right now? You just lightly touched on the protests that were happening there. Do you think the Iranian regime in the present moment is strong enough to withstand the current unrest, or do you believe that it’s weak enough to fall? What comes after? And in that situation, how would Israel react?

BN: I don’t think anyone has an answer to that question. It’s a very important question. But I think that if you look at what is happening now, since 1979, nothing like this has happened. I mean, initially people thought well, it’s you know, it’s like the green revolution, but it’s not. It’s stronger. Initially, they said it was only limited to the universities. No, it’s not. It’s stronger. They said it’s only limited to, you know, a few urban areas. No, it’s stronger.

Something very significant is happening in Iran. And it reflects the weakness of the regime that unlike, for example, Israel or unlike Saudi Arabia or other countries or the Gulf, the other Gulf states, they have not done anything for their people.

I mean, why are the people protesting? They’re protesting because they want basic life, you know. You know, Iran suffers from this unbelievable shortage of water. What have they done for it? Nothing. Well, you have to drink to live, to buy food at a reasonable price to live. You have to have basic income to live. You have to have basic infrastructure to live. And Iran has done nothing on that.

So I think that, you know, ultimately these pressures accumulate. And rather than adopt a policy of creative reform, which I think is happening, for example, in Saudi Arabia, they haven’t done that, haven’t moved an inch. They haven’t moved a nanometer. You know, they’re just stuck and they don’t care for their people. They don’t work for their people. They work for a radical ideology that is bad for Iranians, bad for Arabs, bad for Israelis, bad for Americans and everyone else in between. So I think that [this] realization [which] has now crystallized across so many sectors of Iranian society creates a new situation.

How far does it go? Does it bring about the collapse or fundamental change in the regime or the replacement of this regime? I think it’s too early to say, but I think we have to recognize that something very important is happening.

AA: Mr. Prime Minister, in the beginning of this interview, you mentioned that you’d like to see reaffirmation from Washington to its allies in the Middle East, to its traditional allies in the Middle East. In your recent autobiography, you portrayed Barack Obama as an optimist. That’s what you called him.

What strategic vision do you think Obama had for the Middle East? Also, what place does Israel and Saudi Arabia have in that vision, Obama’s vision, which is still being followed by Obama’s staffers, who staff the Biden Administration as well? And how would you describe the results of that vision so far, whether it be in Israel and Lebanon and Syria and Yemen or elsewhere.

BN: Well, I think President Obama, whom I respected but disagreed with, believed that Iran was the key to stabilizing the Middle East. And he thought that if he would make a deal with the ayatollahs, it would pacify the entire Middle East. He believed that the JCPOA, which he signed, would change Iran’s behavior in the Middle East. It would make Iran join the family of nations.

I think it disregarded the ideological thrust of this radical, radical regime, its plans, its raison d’etre, which is to dominate the Middle East and frankly, dominate good portions of the world with awesome power. I think he didn’t see that.

So when the JCPOA was signed, I argued this in Congress in 2015, I said, “well, you know, It won’t bring Iran into the family of nations. It will let Iran out of the tiger’s cage to devour one nation after the other.” And that’s what happened.

Did they pursue peace in Yemen? Did they pursue peace in Iraq? Did they pursue peace in Lebanon or in Gaza where they have their proxies and so many other places? And the answer is, of course not. They did the exact opposite. So I think on this, we had a difference of view with President Obama. And I think everybody can judge who was right and who was wrong.

I think that on this, many Arab leaders, including Gulf leaders and certainly the leadership of Saudi Arabia, see very clearly what the true nature of Iran’s policies are, the true nature of its regime. Now, you know, I can also tell you that from day one, Iran also cheated on the nuclear accord. But I think it goes well beyond that. I think it’s a question of how do you see the Middle East?

I saw it was not the right policy for the United States to seek an accommodation with such an aggressive regime in Tehran. Instead, it should bolster the traditional allies of America, beginning with Israel and Saudi Arabia, against Iranian aggression, and to develop our own societies, our own countries in every way, in security and in technology and in civilian life and so on. That was my vision.

Now you ask, where is America’s policy? Are they going to go back to the JCPOA and give Iran this free course paved with gold to a nuclear arsenal?

Well, a year and a half ago before the protests in Iran, I would say they were certainly trying to do that. But I think there is a re-thinking in Washington. I don’t think I’m quite convinced. I haven’t had obviously talks yet with the administration, but I will soon. From the initial contacts that we have, I think there’s a rethinking of that. And I’m glad there is.

I’d like that rethinking to go back to the reaffirmation of the traditional alliances in the Middle East. I think that’s good. I think it’s good for our countries. Those are good for America and good for peace.

AA: Everybody’s saying now that Iran is a threshold nuclear power. In other words, it is just a few months away from being a nuclear power. You have been talking about it for 20 years, but Israel never took action, direct military kinetic action against it. And now people are saying it’s too late.

Do you agree with that? I mean, is it too late to be able to stop a threshold nuclear power from becoming a nuclear power?

BN: No, it’s not. And also, we did take a lot of actions which I don’t itemize in my recently published autobiography, except one: The raid that our people did on the Iran’s Secret Atomic Archive. And we brought back a lot of valuable information out of this archive. But I can tell you this, I think, and our former chief of staff, who’s now a political opponent of mine, said during the recent elections, he said that because of the actions that the Israeli government under me took, we set back the Iranian program 7 to 10 years.

Did we stop it? No. But can we stop it militarily and in other ways? The answer is, I believe yes. And we’re certainly not going to let them just plunge ahead.

Now, if you ask how can you stop such a problem, I won’t go into the operational or technical details. But I will say that unless you’re able to have a credible military option against rogue states that are trying to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, you won’t stop them.

We stopped Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons with a credible military action. We stopped Syria from developing nuclear weapons with a credible military action. The United States stopped Gadhafi’s Libya from developing nuclear weapons with a credible threat of military action.

North Korea had signed all the agreements, including the NPT Non-proliferation Treaty. There were signatories to it for 17 years. That didn’t mean anything. There was no credible military threat. And therefore, they’re now a nuclear power. And half of Asia is quaking with fear.

Iran has been stopped or delayed by actions that again, I won’t detail. But if you’re not committed to taking the necessary action against Iran, then they will have a nuclear arsenal with deadly consequences for all of us and horrible consequences for their own people.

I think the answer – I don’t think, I know – the answer to your question is, we have the means and we have the will. And if necessary, we’ll do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal

AA: Even without the United States?

BN: Absolutely the actions that we took so far, and I’m not saying which ones we did, we did without the US. We didn’t do it with US approval because the US probably would disapprove. I mean, they were for many years going on with the assumption that they have to broker or reach a deal with Iran. And if we told them what it is, every operation, what we were about to take, you know, they would say “we oppose it,” in which case would be a direct conflict. Why do that? Just make you make your move. And secondly, it might leak. And if it leaks in The Washington Post, in The New York Times, then the Iranians would have forewarning, and our action would be nullified in advance.

So we’ve taken a lot of steps. We made a lot of operations that have rolled back Iran. But did we stop it? No. Are we committed to stopping it from achieving their goals? Yes. We’ll do everything in my power to achieve that goal.

AA: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. We have a question on Ukraine right now. Regarding the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, President Zelenskyy recently said that there’ll be no peace with Russia before Ukraine reclaims Crimea and Donbas. What side are you on in the Ukraine war, specifically as it pertains to Iran’s involvement? Will your government show intelligence for example with the Ukrainian governments about Iranian drones or the weapons? And do you plan to supply the defensive weapons to Ukraine that President Zelenskyy has asked for?

BN: Well, the recent supply of Iranian killer drones to Russia that are being used in the war with Ukraine is disturbing for two reasons. One, the human costs involved and two, this partnership [which] is troubling. I can tell you that our relationship with Russia obviously involved Iran, but paradoxically in a different way, because Iran was trying to use Syria, our northern border, as a staging ground for another Hezbollah-like front to open against Israel.

And they wanted to bring in a proxy army of about 80,000 people commanded by Iranian generals, stock it with missiles and other deadly weapons to be used against Israel. My policy was to prevent that, and we prevented it by, frankly, by taking air action. Bombing these installations and these forces from the air. And, of course, we were able to prevent that.

But that requires continual effort. And that effort involves Israeli pilots flying in the skies of Lebanon – sorry, the skies of Syria – and they’re in spitting distance from Russian pilots. Now, I remember when I was a young soldier almost half a century ago on the banks of the Suez Canal, we were shooting down Russian planes from the sky and with their anti-ground [and] anti-air batteries, they shot down our planes from the sky.

The last thing we want to do is have a military conflict between Russia and Israel. We don’t want it. I’m sure the Russians didn’t want it. So we actually, under my policy of actively preventing Iran from basing itself militarily in Syria, we reached an understanding with Russia that preserved Israel’s freedom of action on this important front. I’d like to continue to have that, but I’m also aware of the fact that we are being asked to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine.

I was asked about that and I said, look, I’ll look into this question as soon as I get into office. I’m still not there. I’m still involved in the least pleasant activity of politics, which is coalition forming. I don’t wish it on anyone. I’m actually taking a break right now and talking to you while this is happening.

Once I form the government, God willing, I hope it’ll happen in a few days. Then I’ll sit down with our people, learn from our intelligence people what’s happening, make a reasoned assessment, and then come back with an answer to your question.

AA: Mr. Prime Minister, there have been these strange rumors sporadically popping up in Washington and elsewhere that there’s a possibility of normalization between Israel and Syria and President Assad, there was pressure that was coming from one direction to the other. My question is, is there any credence to these rumors? Are they at least a reflection of some conversations going on? And is that a change to Israel’s policy vis a vis Syria?

BN: Not that I know of.

AA: Fair enough. In June, Tom Friedman of The New York Times said that President Joe Biden might be the last pro-Israel Democratic president because the base of the Democratic Party is moving against it. Would you agree with that? [Does] the high degree of aggressive partisanship in Washington these days mean that, in practice, regional states are dealing as much with the US political parties as they are with the American state itself?

BN: You know, I disagree with that, because I’ve heard these prognostications time and time again. First of all, about me when I took office — I would be the warmonger. And of course, the opposite has happened, my ten years in the prime minister’s office, more than any other prime minister in Israel have bought the safest decades for Arabs and Israelis alike.

Second, they said there’ll never be any more peace treaties, and that happened as well. Then they said that when I challenged President Obama in Congress and the JCPOA, it had caused an irreparable rupture of support among Democrats for Israel. Well, Gallup has a tracking poll, and they measured the support among Republicans and Democrats, the American people, as a whole.

Each year they ask the same question, you know, where does your sympathy lie? With Israel? And lo and behold, before the speech and after the speech, the differences, it went up by about 10 percent. It went up. Didn’t go down among Democrats. Okay.

What you see over time is this that support for Israel among Democrats is fairly high, but it’s stable. You know, it’s about 50 percent, something like that. Support among the Republicans has skyrocketed. It’s very high. So there’s a myopia because you think the Democrats are abandoning Israel. They’re not. It’s just that the Republicans have moved to a very strong Israeli position across the American political spectrum. Democrats, independents and Republicans. There is very strong and consistent support of the state of Israel.

This is not true of a part of the Democratic Party that has moved sharply to the left, you know, and it’s moved in some cases to a radical position and often against the wishes of a broad, broad constituency in the public. And I think that adjusts itself because, you know, I think people want to seize the center and every political movement, no matter how polarized it is, ultimately, you know, you govern by seeking to get the bulk of the people behind you.

So I don’t think that that basic attitude towards Israel is going to change. It’s changing among the chattering classes. It’s changing on the campuses. I don’t deny that. But I think that in many ways it’s a lot firmer and a lot more stable across the American public, both Democrats, independents and Republicans and independents alike. It’s more stable. But this is not the first time that op-eds in The New York Times have been wrong.

AA: Prime Minister. Getting back to the Palestine question now, beyond the Abraham Accords and beyond political tactics, because Palestinian leaders have really recognized Israel every which way possible —

BN: I disagree.

AA: Yeah, well, beyond that, shall we say, you are still stuck with 7 million Palestinians between the river and the sea. Given the dramatic power imbalance in Israel’s favor, you are not a reluctant bride that will be brought to the wedding. You are going to have to be the initiator. I mean, a final settlement is going to have to be driven by Israel, really.

Do you see yourself as a General de Gaulle? You use the words “out of the box” and “creative,” which seems to be what is needed now. Do you see yourself as a potential historical leader like General de Gaulle, who could come out with that out of the box and creative approach? For example, do you see the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with its respected monarchy and mature government infrastructure, as able to play a role in in a final settlement of this perennial issue?

BN: Well, first of all, our relations with Jordan are critically important. And I think the stability, prosperity and security of Jordan as it is, is an Israeli interest. We may have our disagreements periodically [and] that happens and even in the best of families. But I think the importance, the integrity of Jordan is important. And, for example, Hezbollah and Iran try to topple that regime periodically and bring in hostile forces.

As far as General de Gaulle, General de Gaulle had a relatively easy problem. You know why? Because Algeria was not five miles from Paris.

AA: I mean, in the metaphorical sense, as a historic leader.

BN: But this leads to my answer to you, I think [that] to have a solution, you have to be realistic about its nature. And I think people have not been realistic about its nature. And here’s the principle that would guide me. I would say that the Palestinians should have in a final settlement all the powers to govern themselves, but none of the powers to threaten the survival and existence of the state of Israel.

And this requires a balance. It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s not zero-one. There is a balance in there. So far, we’ve not been able to get beyond first base because the Palestinians, as we all think, you know, I don’t think they said publicly to you maybe, but I’ve seen it, you know, I’ve seen it public[ly] and I’ve seen it privately, they really have to shake off the fantasy that Israel will disappear, that somehow, you know, we’ll make a tactical agreement with Israel, get the high ground over Tel Aviv, and eventually drive the Israelis out.

AA: Assume that they’ve given that up —

BN: That’s a big assumption.

AA: Is there a road map you would envision, that would be enthusiastically adopted by you.

BN: Yes, there are a few. Well, take a look, for example, at the at the peace initiative of President Trump. It’s not that I didn’t have reservations. I did. It’s not that I didn’t expect the Palestinians to have reservations about it as well. But I think it offers interesting solutions to how do you have this coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians in such a tiny area between the river and the sea?

It actually has some interesting new ideas, like looking at transportational continuity instead of territorial continuity, things of that nature. You can look at it. I don’t think people have actually read it. But are there possibilities for ending this conflict? I think there are.

But realistically, I think that the Palestinians will come around to genuinely making their peace with the existence of an Israeli state as we add other countries, and the most important country in the Arab world, we make a quantum leap that will, I think, solidify peace and sort of convince people, hey, it’s over. Israel’s here to stay. Now, let’s make our peace with it.

AA: Mr. Prime Minister, we have another quick question [about] Lebanon: After the Israeli leaks that Iran is smuggling weapons through the Beirut airport to Hezbollah, to what extent is the airport now subject to Israeli strikes?

BN: I really couldn’t say. I mean, you know, there was a rule in Israel that follows the rule of the United States over there. They say one president at a time. And in Israel, it’s one prime minister at a time. So I’ll be briefed on this question. But in general, I’d say that without the scaffolding of Iranian support militarily, political, financial, the whole structure of Hezbollah collapses, [and] there is no Hezbollah rule in Lebanon. And that’s who is ruling in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Let’s be open about that. But without Iranian support, they’d collapse overnight. And the same is true of other Iran’s other proxies. They need Iran’s support.

How do we prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah or for that matter, to Hamas? Well, there are many ways to do it. There are many ways in which my governments did it. But I can’t tell you what is happening in recent months. I’ll be able to at least know that within a few weeks, I hope, once I form the government.

AA: Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for all the time you’ve given us. Have an excellent day.

BN: Thank you and good luck to you, and good luck to Saudi Arabia.

©Al Arabia English. All rights reserved.

The Son of a Holocaust Survivor Weaponizes Books to Stop Another Shoah

T. Belman. I first connected with Howard when he started Mantua Books. Since then I have promoted his books and he has generously donated money in support of Israpundit. I too was born in Canada but in my case to two immigrants from Poland who came to Canada in the twenties. You will recall that the US shut the door to Jewish Immigration in the early twenties, ergo Canada. My father’s family were attracted to Communism and my mother’s family were attracted to Zionism.


I am a Canadian author who has written often for Israel National News, New English Review and Frontpage Magazine, with some of my essays carried also in Israpundit.  I grew up in a small city about 15 miles from another small city where Ted Belman grew up.

I attained a degree in History from University of Toronto where I first became interested in cultural history and the history of ideologies and values.  I later graduated from that university in Law and practiced for 20 years, before founding a company providing affordable rental housing in converted heritage buildings such as old churches and warehouses.  I also founded Mantua Books, Canada’s sole pro-Israel and conservative and Torah values publishing house.

My writing is based on a traditional conservative or classically liberal understanding of ideologies and values and political culture.  I am particularly interested in Islamism and left wing ideologies.  The greatest influence on my writing is the Holocaust as my father was slave labor in Auschwitz and my father’s parents and then eight year old sister were murdered in the gas chambers.  My mother was born in Canada to parents who fled Uman near Kiev in the Ukraine, in 1910.   Since my mother grew up in peaceful Canada, I could distinguish a very different culture between my father’s family and my mother’s family.

I have written much criticism on Holocaust literature and commemorations.

My novel, The Second Catastrophe:, is very much in the genre of “Second Generation” literature as the protagonist is the son of a Holocaust survivor who is writing a book about Israel and becomes obsessed with what he sees as “Second Holocaust” this time directed at the Jews of Israel with explicit threats by the leadership of Iran that they will get nuclear weapons and use them against Israel.  There is a sad parallel between the world in general and Diaspora Jews in particular, concerning the lack of action to stop explicit threats to our people.

 Professor Norman Rosenfeld, my fictional cultural historian at a small Canadian university, has almost finished his new and controversial book about Israel and the Jewish people. He learns that his daughter, on a one-year study program at an Israeli university, has been injured in a terrorist attack. Rosenfeld, a widower, rushes to Israel, along with his father, an elderly Holocaust survivor, named “Lucky”. While in Israel visiting his injured daughter, at the height of the “Second Intifada”, Rosenfeld, an Orthodox Jew, meets and falls in love with a secular Israeli woman. This leads to discussion of the gulf between religions and secular Israelis. Chapters of the Professor’s book on Israel and the Jewish people are interspersed amongst the events of the novel. The dramatic events and difficulties of Rosenfeld’s life mirror catastrophic events in the life of the Jewish people. His journey to overcome these catastrophes is at the core of The Second Catastrophe.

By placing chapters of his book on Israel among the fictional events of his life, the reader can see how his life influences his writing and how his writing, (attacked by the usual anti-Israel crowd), then influences his life.  The book is set in Israel during the Second Intifada and nine-eleven, and was written in Jerusalem during the height of the suicide bombings.

In my first non-fiction book, Tolerism, I argue that we in the West have entered an ideology of “Tolerism” – an unhealthy degree of tolerance without limits, and an excessive leniency towards those who represent the most intolerant and illiberal societies.  Too many educated people think that tolerance is an important value when it is Justice that is stressed in the Torah, not tolerance.  I observe how cultural and moral relativism, moral equivalency, and political correctness have all contributed to a modern political culture whose elites and cultural symbols evidence, not only an undue tolerance of the illiberals, but a disturbing element of self-hatred, cultural masochism, and delusions about the difference between social tolerance and political tolerance – and an elevation of tolerance over the principle of Justice.

In the follow-up to Tolerism, which I titled The Ideological Path to Submission … and what we can do about it, I trace the ideological pathway resulting from tolerance and explore certain ideologies that have emanated from tolerism and pose a danger of possible submission to the anti-liberal values of the Islamists. I  look at such ideologies as Inclusive Diversity, Empathy, Denialism, Masochism, Islamophilia, Trumpophobia, Cultural Relativism, Postmodernism, Multiculturalism and the psychological factors that conduce to a flight from the anxieties of freedom to a submission to the enemy. I argue that Muslims who  wish to share Western freedoms, need to support reformers and participate in their essential duty to reject the Islamists who seek Sharia Law and a world-wide Caliphate in lands where they immigrate to. The sooner we understand the ideologies that lead us from tolerism to submission to the enemy, and that we can have a moral replacement to postmodernism, and the sooner we follow the Israeli example of resistance, patriotism and social cohesion as a way to build social resilience, the sooner we in the West can reverse our losses and start winning this war.

During the years subsequent to the publishing of these books (available through Amazon) the problems I deal with in my three books have only become more serious and more dangerous.  My prescience gives me no joy whatsoever;  instead it motivates me to do whatever I can.

“One thing that I learned was the need to publish other pro-Israel authors, and that I could do it.”  In talking to other authors and some professors, I realized as early as 2002 that mainstream publishing houses and media did not want anything to do with pro-Israel material.  Even some bookstores were becoming loath to carry these books.  I had taken early retirement from my law practice in order to concentrate on real estate development, but that new type of work did not occupy as much time as my law practice.   So, without any contacts and in the face of illiberal political correctness and cancel culture, I decided that somebody had to take on the project of publishing books that also constituted weapons in our war to stop radical Islamism and its Western enablers.

I knew that there was no money in it – the refusal of media to carry book reviews meant that we had somehow to get publicity for our books from social media, which at the time was not as developed as it is now.  I also realized that left wing university students and Islamists might well attack any authors for which we secured lectures or book signings.   And I became the first victim of Islamist threats at a book lecture for my novel.   See:  http://scragged.com/articles/how-i-became-a-banned-author-in-canada

The irony was that my novel was about, in part, a pro-Israel university professor who gets in trouble at a lecture.

We also learned that organizations that were founded to speak out for authors and their freedom of expression, such as PenCanada and the Writers’ Union and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association refused to speak out in favour of Zionist Jews, our authors and books.

Since my real estate work was remunerative yet did not take up all of my time, I was able to do all the work needed for Mantua Books with one part-time secretary.  I have had some health problems recently, so have had to pause some new releases.

Perhaps with my age (71) it is time to pass the torch, but people are not lined up to buy a publishing house that barely breaks even and which gets no governmental or media support.   Here is a list of pro-Israel books (in addition to mine shown above) that we have published, with all of them available from Amazon:

Mordechai Nisan – The Crack-up of the Israeli Left

Jacob Sivak – Chienke’s Motl and Motl’s Chienke: A Twentieth Century Story

David Solway – Hear O Israel

Stephen Schecter – Grasshoppers in Zion;  Israel and the Paradox of Modernity

Giulio Meotti – The Vatican Against Israel

Paul Merkley – Those That Bless You I Will Bless:  Christian Zionism in Historical Perspective

Pamela Peled – For the Love of God and Virgins

Salim Mansur – Delectable Lie;  a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism

Dianne Weber Bederman – Back to the Ethic;  Reclaiming Western Values

Dianne Weber Bederman – The Serpent and the Red Thread; The Definitive Biography of Evil

Farrell Bloch – Identity and Prejudice

Farzana Hassan – The Case Against Jihad

©Howard Rotberg. All rights reserved.

ICE Admits It Has ‘No Records’ For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Illegal Immigrants Released With Electronic Monitors

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) that it has “no records” of 377,980 illegal immigrants enrolled in its “Alternatives to Detention” program.
  • TRAC sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for data on the program, which used to electronically monitor illegal immigrants into the country.
  • “ICE’s response that they could no longer find records on immigrants in Alternatives to Detention (ATD) that they had previously released came as a shock, particularly after they informed us recently that they had been misleading the public for several months by releasing extremely inaccurate ATD data. The agency really needs to come clean. The American public deserves to have accurate data about the ATD program,” TRAC assistant Professor Austin Kocher told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted it has “no records” of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants released into the country with electronic tracking devices, the agency said in a Dec. 22 letter to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

ICE informed TRAC that it had “no records” of the 377,980 individuals monitored by the agency’s “Alternatives to Detention” (ATD) program used to electronically track illegal immigrants released into the country. TRAC had asked for data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on those in ATD custody from the start of fiscal year 2019 to August 2022. (RELATED: ‘Didn’t Have To Happen’: This Wyoming Sheriff Wants An Illegal Alien Who Raped An 8-Year-Old Imprisoned, Not Deported)

“ICE’s response that they could no longer find records on immigrants in Alternatives to Detention (ATD) that they had previously released came as a shock, particularly after they informed us recently that they had been misleading the public for several months by releasing extremely inaccurate ATD data. The agency really needs to come clean. The American public deserves to have accurate data about the ATD program,” TRAC assistant Professor Austin Kocher told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

ICE started the ATD program in 2004 to monitor illegal migrants released into the country using ankle monitors, GPS tracking and cellphones. With limited detention space, ICE relies on the program to hold those awaiting the years-long backlogs in immigration courts.

The agency has previously provided TRAC with data on individuals enrolled in ATD, disclosing which technology was used, dates of entry into the program among other key details.

TRAC’s latest issue with ICE isn’t the first time the data on the ATD program has faced scrutiny.

The DCNF recently reported on errors and miscalculations in the ATD data on illegal immigrants not tracked with any technology and others tracked using GPS monitoring. At the time, ICE had privately disclosed different data to participants of a private event that showed an over 18,000% discrepancy in public data on those not tracked with any technology and another roughly 600% difference in publicly disclosed GPS tracking data.

ICE later apologized for the issue and updated the data.

“Upon further inspection of what participants were provided against what was publicly available online, it became clear there was a data miscalculation. Teams worked quickly to address and reconcile the issue, now updated on ICE.gov. We regret ICE provided erroneous ATD enrollment data and worked to resolve the miscalculation going forward,” an ICE spokesperson told the DCNF at the time.

TRAC is concerned over ICE’s consistent errors.

“When Congress ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to publish data on immigrant detention, perhaps it should have been clearer that it expected ICE to produce accurate data—not inconsistent, error-ridden, and misleading data that the agency currently provides to the public on a regular basis. These sloppy, uncorrected errors—more of the norm rather than the exception—demand immediate attention from both the public and from Congress,” TRAC wrote on Sept. 20 after ICE incorrectly released data from May 2021 instead of September 2022.

ICE didn’t respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED VIDEO: Border Patrol Union VP: No One Is Helping Us

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

SCOTUS Rules Biden Admin Must Keep Trump-Era Border Policy In Place

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of Republican states asking to keep Title 42, a Trump-era policy used to expel certain illegal immigrants to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in place.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court forced the Biden administration to keep Title 42 amid record surges of illegal immigration at the southern border. Federal authorities encountered more than 2.3 million migrants in fiscal year 2022.

The Biden administration believed that ending the policy would bring roughly 14,000 illegal immigrants a day, according to Axios.

A federal judge previously ruled that the policy must end Dec. 21. Republican states asked the Supreme Court to intervene a day before the policy would expire, arguing that the recent decision would lead to a harmful surge in illegal immigration.

The Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in February to consider whether to fully scrap the policy beyond the pause. Until then, the Biden administration must continue to expel a number of illegal immigrants based on their country of origin.

Venezuelans coming to the U.S. illegally were the latest group of migrants to be expelled under the policy, which has resulted in the expulsion of over 2 million illegal immigrants, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hundreds of Migrants Climb a Wall to Get to Arizona, With Help from Smugglers

Migrants Seeking Asylum Wait Years For Their Day In Court As Backlog Reaches New Record Under Biden

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

NDAA Fails to Stop Biden’s Purge of Military

“An inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”


Unsurprising.

While Republicans rolled back some of Biden’s military cuts and managed to end the vaccine mandate for the military, they failed to reinstate military personnel forced out due to the mandate, they did nothing about wokeness in the military, which at this point is so great a threat that spending hundreds of billions on weapons systems is practically surplus to requirements if there will be no one reliable to operate them.

And the military purge of “extremists” launched by Biden’s political operatives has not been checked.

The “big win” here is a non-binding statement criticizing the political purge of opponents.

The final bill largely eschews issues related to the Pentagon’s efforts to root out extremism, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report accompanying its version of the bill calls for those plans to be curtailed, though the language is nonbinding.

The report language was added by Republicans with the backing of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). It argues that the low instances of extremism in the ranks “does not warrant a Department-wide effort.” It further argues that the Pentagon anti-extremism effort “is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”

Which everyone is free to ignore.

This is a lawless administration whose Treasury and State Department are in violation of federal law by refusing to comply with SIGAR, the watchdog on Afghanistan. The Biden administration has responded to court setbacks on its student loan bailout or open borders by doubling down.

Senate Republicans get to claim that they did something by way of a non-binding statement in a report.

Mission accomplished.

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghan officials smuggled $1,000,000,000 out before Taliban takeover as Biden poured in billions more

Sharia in Minnesota: Instructor fired for including painting of Muhammad in course on Islamic art

New Jersey: Hamas-linked CAIR wants January to be ‘Muslim Heritage Month’

Canada: Islamic conference features hate-filled, pro-jihad, pro-Sharia, anti-Semitic Muslim clerics

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