Islamic Republic of Iran Using Fear and Terror to Quell Protestors, begins Public Hangings

Iran’s back is against the wall. The Islamic Republic was reluctant to show its characteristic brutality toward protesters while it still hoped for world support in the form of a revived nuclear deal. The country has been under a microscope since protests began.

Last week, the UN removed Iran from women’s rights committee, of which it should never been part of in the first place. Biden also admitted that the Iran nuke deal is dead, but this still hasn’t been officially announced.

As Iran grapples with a revolution that it intensifying, including the formation of underground groups uniting to overthrow it, the Islamic regime warned of coming executions in early December. The regime’s desperation grows. Now it is once again using fear and terror to crush anti-government protests.

Iran turns to public executions in bid to crush anti-government protests

by Sanam Mahoozi and Alexander Smith, NBC News, December 19, 2022:

LONDON — Iran’s government has spent months violently cracking down on protests gripping the country. Now it has started hanging people in public — an approach some demonstrators and experts see as a desperate attempt to crush the dissent that has posed an unprecedented challenge to the clerical regime.

The first known executions of people arrested over the months of protests prompted an outcry from Western governments and human rights activists, but they came as little surprise to those involved in the demonstrations or carefully watching from afar.

“They want to create fear for the people who are involved,” Saeed, a business owner in his 30s from Tehran who is very active backing the protests on social media, said by voice note. As with all those interviewed for this story inside Iran, NBC News is identifying him only by his first name to avoid possible retaliation by the regime.

“They want to show the public that their actions will not go unpunished and that there are rules in the system,” he added, and so “families stop their children from going out to protest.”

Last Monday, officials publicly hanged a man from a construction crane in Mashhad, according to Mizan, a judiciary-run news agency. Majidreza Rahnavard was accused of “waging war on God” after he was accused of stabbing to death two members of the pro-government Basij militia in the northeast city. Human rights groups and Western governments say Iran’s judicial system is based on sham trials behind closed doors.

A week earlier, Iran executed another man, Mohsen Shekari, alleging he blocked a road in Tehran and stabbed a pro-government militia member who required stitches. Around a dozen other people have been sentenced to death, according to human rights groups.

“The regime knows it is fighting for its life,” said Abbas Milani, the director of an Iranian studies program at Stanford University. In the past, the regime has been “busy simply containing” demonstrators, he added. “Now they need to put the fear in people’s hearts again.”

Executions by hanging are far from rare in Iran, which Amnesty International says put 314 people to death last year, the most in the world after China.

But many activists and analysts alike believe the Islamic Republic is using the death penalty to terrify demonstrators into silence, after other attempts failed to quell the most significant wave of dissent since its founding revolution in 1979.

“This is very standard playbook by them; they have done this at previous protests” said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St. Andrews University in Scotland. But this time, “if anything, they are moving quicker now to execute protesters with sham trials that even their own side are criticizing.”……

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Handlers Amp Up Spying on Israel

Israel, Juxtaposed Between Vibrant Life and a Deadly Fight For Survival: An Account of the Christian Media Summit

France: Muslim asks his girlfriend to convert to Islam, beats her into a coma

North Carolina news outlet features Hamas-linked CAIR condemning anti-Semitic sign, though Islam was not mentioned

France Condemns Israel for Deporting French-Palestinian with ‘Terrorist Links’

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

Omnibus Spending Bill Does Not Secure the Border, but Further Incentivizes and Enables Illegal Immigration

Washington, D.C. — The 117th Congress finally wrapped up business by approving a lame-duck, pork-laden $1.7 trillion spending bill – consisting of more than 4,000 pages that not a single member had the time to read and fully analyze – funding the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year.

Passage of the omnibus coincides with a full-blown crisis along our southern border that is about to get a whole lot worse, as the Biden administration is close to ending Title 42, the last remaining mechanism in place under which a limited number of border-crossers are being removed from the country. Yet, not only did the Democratic-led Congress reject an amendment to keep Title 42 in place, they expressly barred increased funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from being used to secure the border.

“The final spending package approved by a Congress on their way out the door leaves little doubt that chaos at the border is the policy of the Democratic Party today and that their goal is to create even more of it,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “Only a party that affirmatively wants open borders – regardless of the fiscal, security, and humanitarian costs – would let the one remaining policy that allows for the expedited removal of even some illegal migrants lapse, and deliberately tie the hands of our border enforcement agency.

“Let’s be clear, the president can restore operational control of the border simply by enforcing laws that are already on the books – many of which he voted for as a senator. Instead, he and his party continue deflect blame by claiming they inherited a broken system. The truth is they deliberately broke it themselves and are standing in the way of efforts to fix it.

“Rather than do anything to regain control of our borders, the omnibus is focused entirely on processing illegal aliens as quickly as possible and transporting them to already overwhelmed communities all across the United States. This massive spending bill effectively turns CBP into a federally administered travel agency for illegal aliens and saddles state and local governments with the costs of education, health care, housing and other basic needs for the endless flow of illegal aliens the Biden administration is waiving into the country,” concluded Stein.

Below is a summary of harmful immigration provisions included in the omnibus spending bill at the urging of Democrats, as well as proposals that were successfully defeated due in part to FAIR’s aggressively lobbying efforts.:

Harmful provisions of the omnibus:

  • Provides $1.563 billion for CBP “border management” but does not allow using those funds to hire permanent border security officers, deport illegal aliens (only allows transportation to American communities), or expand border security technologies and capabilities unless it is for improving the processing of illegal aliens. This is not “border management,” it is $1.563 billion to essentially convert CBP into a federal travel agency for illegal aliens.
  • Provides $800 million from CBP to FEMA to pay for “sheltering and other services” through grant programs awarded to open border aligned non-governmental organizations and charities. This broad appropriation could be viewed as enticing others to illegally enter the country and there is no prohibition against funds being distributed to organizations in the interior, meaning that illegal; aliens could be sheltered throughout the country under this section.
  • Prohibits the use of funds for border wall construction in certain areas.
  • Allows the Office of Refugee Resettlement to accept private donations from politically motivated organizations for the care of unaccompanied alien children.
  • Provides funds to both CBP and ICE to transport unaccompanied alien children, demonstrating that domestic transportation throughout the United States is a large part of CBP and ICE operations. This is a key enticement for parents to pay smugglers to take their children on the dangerous trek up to the southern border.
  • Provides millions for a controversial case management pilot program to aid illegal aliens facing deportation – which is being overseen by a nonprofit that has previously called for the defunding and abolition of ICE.
  • Provides $29 million for the Justice Department’s Legal Orientation Program, which empowers NGOs to coach large groups of detained aliens on immigration court proceedings. The effectiveness of this program is dubious as it does not provide actual legal counsel to aliens, the aliens who use this program are less likely to get an attorney and their matters take longer to resolve. Additionally, program participant organizations often blur the line between providing basic information about the process and providing legal advice.
  • Provides $25 million for the USCIS Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, a program utilized by many of the same NGOs receiving federal grant money to process illegal aliens. This self-congratulatory grant program has been routinely awarded to organizations involved in active litigation against DHS and does nothing to enhance the administration of the immigration system.
  • Leaves it up to the DHS Inspector General’s discretion whether to allocate funds for partnerships between state and local law enforcement to assist in enforcing immigration laws. While seemingly an independent auditor, The DHS Office of Inspector General has been mired in reports of political bias. We have already witnessed the dangerous consequences of an administration unwilling to utilize the 287(g) program as the Obama era saw a plethora of cancelled agreements. Congress is essentially relinquishing control of a critical force multiplier for immigration enforcement.
  • Allows detention contracts to be rescinded based on arbitrary performance evaluations.
  • Extends discretionary authority for DHS to issue more H-2B guest worker visas than the cap allows, which displaces American workers and drives down wages.
  • Provides funds to eliminate processing backlogs and expedite adjudication of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa cases, as well as a cap increase of 4,000. Recent reports have exposed the lack of proper vetting for many of the Afghans in the program and the associated risks to public safety and national security. Any actions taken to expedite processing will detract from security checks and further vetting activities and increase the risks.
  • All budget increases directed towards immigration enforcement are below inflation. An unprecedented border crisis calls for funds at appropriate levels – the increases are simply insufficient.

Among the damaging immigration proposals that were defeated or withdrawn during the lame duck:

  • A mass amnesty proposal led by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in exchange for an extension of weakened Title 42 and other meaningless promises of future immigration enforcement.
  • The Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have granted permanent residence to largely unvetted Afghans who were allowed to enter the country under President Biden’s abuse of parole authority. Most of the Afghans who arrived in the U.S. after the administration’s disastrous withdrawal in 2021 played no role in assisting U.S. forces.
  • An agriculture bill containing both an amnesty for illegal aliens and an expanded guestworker program. The last farmworker amnesty, crafted in part by current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer when he was in the House, was the most fraud-ridden immigration program in American history.
  • The Biden Administration’s attempt to slash ICE detention capacity by 30 percent.
  • The Sinema-Tester amendment to the omnibus, which sought to process and release illegal aliens into our country more efficiently.
  • The EAGLE Act, which would have resulted in more than 90 percent of employment-based green cards being awarded to citizens of just two countries: China and India.
  • The misleadingly named Veterans Service Recognition Act, which would have provided amnesty for illegal alien relatives of veterans and even allowed deported criminals to return the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Informed Americans Back Border Security. No Wonder the Media Isn’t Doing Their Job

Bad Business: Mayorkas Betrays U.S. Workers With More H-2B Visas

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

Biden Regime to Drop Half a Million on Artificial Intelligence That Detects ‘Microaggressions’ on Social Media

Full on police state.

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

President Biden On His Administration’s New Actions On The Economy

By: Philip Caldwell • Washington Free Beacon •  December 21, 2022:

The Biden administration is set to dole out more than $550,000 in grants to develop an artificial intelligence model that can automatically detect and suppress microaggressions on social media, government spending records show.

The award, funded through President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, was granted to researchers at the University of Washington in March to develop technologies that could be used to protect online users from discriminatory language. The researchers have already received $132,000 and expect total government funding to reach $550,436 over the next five years.

The researchers are developing machine-learning models that can analyze social media posts to detect implicit bias and microaggressions, commonly defined as slights that cause offense to members of marginalized groups. It’s a broad category, but past research conducted by the lead researcher on the University of Washington project suggests something as tame as praising meritocracy could be considered a microaggression.

The Biden administration’s funding of the research comes as the White House faces growing accusations that it seeks to suppress free speech online. Biden last month suggested there should be an investigation into Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter after the billionaire declared the social media app would pursue a “free speech” agenda. Internal Twitter communications Musk released this month also revealed a prolonged relationship between the FBI and Twitter employees, with the agency playing a regular role in the platform’s content moderation.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton likened the Biden administration’s funding of the artificial intelligence research to the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to “censor speech unapproved by the state.” For the Biden administration, Fitton said, the research is a “project to make it easier for their leftist allies to censor speech.”

A spokesman for the National Science Foundation, which issued the research grant, rebuffed criticism of the project, which he said “does not attempt to hamper free speech.” The project, the spokesman said, creates “automated ways of identifying biases in speech” and addresses the biases of human content moderators.

The research’s description doesn’t give examples of what comments would qualify as microaggressions—though it acknowledges they can be unconscious and unintentional. The project is led by computer science professor Yulia Tsvetkov, who has authored studies that suggest the artificial intelligence model might identify and suppress language many would consider inoffensive, such as comments praising the concept of meritocracy.

Tsvetkov coauthored a 2019 study titled “Finding Microaggressions in the Wild,” which categorized microaggressions into subcategories, one of which was the “myth” that “differences in treatment are due to one’s merit.” Examples of microaggressions laid out in the paper included statements like “Your mom is white, so it’s not like you’re really black,” and questions including “But where are you from, originally?”

Tsvetkov also coauthored a July article that analyzed the “prominence of positivity in #BlackLivesMatter tweets” during the June 2020 George Floyd riots. Tsvetkov and her colleagues determined positive emotions like “hope, pride, and optimism” were prevalent in pro-Black Lives Matter tweets, evidence they said contradicts narratives framing Black Lives Matter protesters as angry.

Conservative watchdog groups raised alarm over the Biden administration’s funding of the research, telling the Washington Free Beacon the project represents a White House effort to curb free speech online.

“It’s not the role of government to police speech that some might find either offensive or emotionally draining,” said Dan Schneider, vice president of the Media Research Center’s free speech division. “Government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not suppressing our rights.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Intel Agencies Capability to Impose “Total Tyranny” In America on NBC’s Meet the Press 1975

Twitter Emails Prove Existence of Intelligence Community Efforts to Elect Biden | Truth Over News

The Final War–The 100-Year Plot to Defeat America

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

‘Confusion’: Trump-Era Border Policy’s Uncertain Fate Is Only Worsening Illegal Immigration

The number of illegal immigrant crossings is surging at the southern border as the fate of a major Trump-era immigration order known as Title 42 remains uncertain.

A federal judge recently ruled that the Biden administration must end the policy, which former President Donald Trump invoked in 2020 to expel certain illegal immigrants to prevent the spread of COVID-19, on Dec. 21 before Republican states asked the Supreme Court to intervene, which resulted with a temporary pause on the order. Areas like El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona, have seen surges that have overwhelmed local resources surrounding the previous Dec. 21 deadline even as some illegal immigrants continue to face expulsion.

In Yuma, Arizona, Mayor Douglas Nicholls says a recent surge in illegal immigration will lead to the release of migrants onto the town’s streets. Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines says the surge coincides with “confusion” over when Title 42 ends.

“There is so much confusion from the illegals coming across the border regarding Title 42 , numbers continue to climb as many believe they will be granted permission to stay. The President must address the open border and the consequences of illegals pouring into our communities overwhelming the Hospitals and NGOs. If DHS proceeds with street releases the burdens will be placed on the already strained resources of local cities. This is not sustainable,” Lines told the DCNF.

Federal border authorities in El Paso have moved roughly 10,000 illegal immigrants that crossed into the area recently, as many released from custody were sleeping on city sidewalks and on the floors of the local airport.

Migrant encounters at the southern border typically decrease at this time of year. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered over 45,000 migrants at the southern border in October 2019, over 71,000 in October 2020 and over 164,000 in October 2021.

CBP encountered a record of more than 230,000 migrants in October 2022.

As of publication, CBP hasn’t officially released encounter numbers for November 2022. However, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) says border agents arrested more than 209,000 illegal immigrants during that time period.

The encounters during that time period are up from more than 174,000 across CBP in November 2021, more than 72,000 in November 2020 and more than 42,000 in November 2019.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Abolish ICE’ Group Could Reap Millions From Congress’ Massive Spending Bill

Biden Regime Forbids US Border Patrol Officials from Releasing Total Daily Illegal Alien Apprehensions

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.

Son of Biden’s Iran Envoy Works for ‘Iran Lobby’

During the 2008 election, the Obama campaign dropped Robert Malley as an adviser over his work with Hamas on behalf of George Soros’ International Crisis Group. Once in office, Obama brought back his old buddy into the National Security Council.

Malley (pictured above) then became the lead negotiator for the sellout deal to legitimize Iran’s nuclear program.

Despite vocal criticism from Iranian dissidents and the country’s freedom movement, Biden chose Malley as his special envoy to Iran. Even as Robert Malley continues conducting outreach to the Islamic terrorist state on behalf of the Biden administration, his son works at a pro-Iran organization tied to a key figure in the Iran Lobby.

Robert was the son of Simon Malley, an adviser to PLO terrorist leader Yasser Arafat and the founder of a Communist party in Arafat’s native homeland of Egypt. Blaise Malley represents the third generation of the family’s leftist radicalism being used to prop up Islamist movements.

The son of Biden’s envoy to Iran spends his time undermining American efforts against Iran.

Blaise Malley is listed as a full-time reporter for the Quincy Institute run and funded by key figures in the pro-Iran movement. His most recently article agitates against further American involvement in the conflict against the Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen whose motto is, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse to the Jews, Victory to Islam.”

Iran spends an estimated $20 million a year backing the Houthis. Their ability to hold parts of Yemen is crucial to the terror regime’s ambitions for the region. America’s first strike against the Houthis was actually in response to their cruise missile attack on the USS Mason.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft was founded by George Soros and Charles Koch. Its donors include a roster of leftists and their foundations including the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Barbara Streisand, and Frank Giustra: the billionaire at the center of the Clinton Foundation scandal involving the sale of Uranium One to Russia.

The executive VP of Quincy however is Trita Parsi: a dual Iranian-Swedish national who founded the National Iranian American Council. NIAC, described by critics as the ‘Iran Lobby’, has been accused of violating tax laws and the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Quincy’s board includes Francis Najafi. a wealthy Iranian real estate developer who is also a major funder of NIAC, and Amir Handjani, the exclusive broker for an American company doing business with Iran, and a Quincy Institute fellow, who also appears to be a donor.

Masih Alinejad, the Iranian-American dissident journalist targeted for kidnapping by the regime, tweeted that, “NIAC and Quincy are the Russia Today of the Iranian Regime. They spend all of their time defaming critics of the Islamic Republic, myself included. When the regime attempts to kill us they’re either silent or mealy-mouthed. ”

As an envoy, Robert Malley is in theory supposed to represent American interests. At a minimum, close family members of Biden’s envoy to Iran should not be employed by an organization that has a vehement pro-Iran agenda and ties to pro-Iranian financial interests.

But Blaise, who was nurtured by the same Islamist-internationalist network, who served as a managing editor at the Journal of Middle East Studies and wrote his thesis on “Is a Left/Right Coalition on Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy Feasible” is just the latest incarnation of the Malley family which seems to have been bred to undermine America and support its enemies. It’s only a matter of time until Blaise rises through the think tanks and then into the government.

And Blaise is benefiting from some of the same connections that followed his father around.

A recent letter in defense of Robert Malley fumed that, “those who accuse Malley of sympathy for the Islamic Republic have no grasp of – or no interest in – true diplomacy”. It was signed by, among others, Trita Parsi’s brother, a board member at NIAC, Amir Handjani, a board member and two fellows at Quincy. How better to dispute the accusation that Malley is on Iran’s side.

The difference between father and son is that the elder Malley is embedded within the government and has to be a bit discreet, while the younger Malley is free to do his best Tokyo Rose impression in the virtual pages of any publication that will run his propaganda.

In The American Prospect, a leftist publication, Blaise Malley warned that “Iran’s leadership may also have lost trust in an American government”, suggested that the Islamic terror state might be “keeping the door open to improving relations with the United States”, but cautioned that “it would be a mistake to assume that Iran doesn’t have a say in the deal’s future as well.”

Iranian propaganda could hardly be any more clearly packaged.

In The New Republic, Blaise Malley claimed that sanctions on Iran had killed 13,000 people despite the fact that food and medicine are not sanctioned. Malley quoted a Quincy official complaining that America had sanctioned Iran and “we won’t guarantee to lift the sanctions if they go back to doing what we wanted.”

“No good has come of trying to isolate other authoritarian countries, such as Iran, North Korea, and others,” Blaise Malley whined at the Washington Examiner.

Forget isolating them abroad, the question is how do we isolate them at home.

Foreign agents for Iran, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood and the entire network around them have overrun D.C. and the media. And top government officials are complicit in the corruption.

As Iranians protest for freedom in the streets, Robert Malley and the pro-Iran influence networks have been caught up in the backlash. Malley was forced to apologize for a tweet that he described as “poorly worded”. And NIAC, Quincy and their circle have tried to reject allegations that they are part of an ‘Iran Lobby’ by offering some concerned noises about the protests.

The Malley family has come a long way since the French Interior Minister stated that Robert’s father and Blaise’s grandfather was issuing “genuine appeals to murder foreign chiefs of state”.

But while the presentation may have changed, the underlying content remains the same.

The Biden administration is maneuvering to appear to condemn the Islamist regime’s brutal crackdown on the protests while covertly supporting it. But it’s hard to maintain that illusion when the son of Biden’s envoy to Iran is pushing Iranian propaganda for the Iran Lobby.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi Arabia Welcomes China’s Xi as U.S. Snubs Allies, Courts Enemies

Far-Left Muslima who is member of Muslim Brotherhood group elected to Ohio state legislature

Sharia court top dog: ‘The pinnacle of Islam is jihad for the sake of Allah. They kill, they get killed.’

Australia: Premier of Victoria Spends Public Money to Spread Islam

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

Hackers Tied to China’s Government Steal $20 Mil in U.S. COVID Relief Funds

Nearly a year after Judicial Watch launched an investigation into the theft of U.S. COVID relief funds by foreign hackers, the Secret Service confirms that cyber criminals connected to China’s government stole $20 million in benefits. This includes Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and unemployment insurance money in multiple states, according to a national news story that identifies the perpetrators as a APT41, a hacking group based in Chengdu. The report cites U.S. law enforcement officials and cybersecurity experts who believe the multi-million-dollar theft of government pandemic funds by the Chinese faction “may just be the tip of the iceberg.”

Back in February Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the SBA as part of an ongoing investigation into the pervasive fraud associated with the government’s COVID-19 cash giveaway. Specifically, Judicial Watch requested memoranda, reports, email communications, investigative reports, and other communications or data concerning the following: COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) deposits originating from a foreign Internet Protocol (IP) address, account holders attempting to transfer funds to foreign accounts of any type and loans approved utilizing a fraudulent social security number. On February 23, the SBA acknowledged via electronic mail that it received Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and issued an official tracking number. So far no records have been provided to Judicial Watch and the SBA is in violation of the federal deadline—20 working days—to produce the information.

Most government agencies practice similar stonewalling tactics and Judicial Watch has repeatedly been forced to file lawsuits to compel the release of records. Our goal as a nonpartisan educational foundation is to promote transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics, and the law. Pandemic relief has been a colossal multi-billion-dollar debacle rife with fraud and corruption. The problem is so bad that the Department of Justice (DOJ) created a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to “enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.” The special unit has been quite busy prosecuting a multitude of scams, false statements, and money laundering related to pandemic relief. Earlier this year House Republicans issued a report documenting 500 days of massive waste, fraud, and abuse in the American Rescue Plan. It includes more than $783 million in stimulus checks for convicted prisoners including the Boston Marathon bomber, $40 million to expand libraries in Delaware, $2 million for a Florida golf course and $16 million for electric vehicle charging stations in Maine and $20 million to modernize the state’s fish hatcheries. The list goes on and on.

The SBA got on Judicial Watch’s radar because it has disbursed approximately $390 billion to nearly four million small businesses and nonprofits under its COVID-19 EIDL. The program provides up to $2 million in financial assistance to help small businesses recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic. Like many of the other COVID relief initiatives, the government made it way too easy to obtain cash and failed miserably to implement adequate vetting protocols. Officials cited in the recent news article confirm that other federal investigations of pandemic fraud also seem to point back to foreign state-affiliated hackers. The Secret Service admits there are over 1,000 ongoing investigations involving transnational and domestic criminals defrauding public benefits programs and Chinese hackers are key among them. As if it were not serious enough that Chinese hacks are stealing American taxpayer funds, one senior Justice Department official points out the cybercrimes also have serious national security implications.

Besides the SBA’s EIDL, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed by Congress to provide over $2 trillion in “fast and direct economic aid” to Americans negatively impacted by the pandemic, also launched another fraud-infested initiative known as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). In addition to the DOJ’s special task force, federal prosecutors across the nation have charged dozens of individuals with crimes associated with PPP scams. A recent example includes a father and son convicted of illegally obtaining $1.7 in loans. A federal jury in North Carolina convicted the men of money laundering and other offenses with the father sentenced to four years in prison and the son three years. This month the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia revealed that in 2022 her office has charged more than 50 defendants in 26 cases of fraud schemes connected to COVID relief that defrauded the government out of nearly $125 million.

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

‘F*cking Insanity’: Massive Congressional Spending Bill Says Border Patrol Can’t Spend Funds On Border Security

The massive congressional spending bill released Tuesday would bar Customs and Border Protection (CBP) funding from going toward border security as the agency sees record numbers of illegal immigrants.

The bill states that the $1,563,143,000 in funds allocated to CBP for “Operations and Support” can’t be used “to acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to improve Border Patrol processing.” The bill was introduced in the Senate Tuesday and needs to be passed in order to avert a government shutdown.

Former CBP Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan called the funding restriction “fucking insanity,” in a statement to the DCNF.

“They finally put down in black and white what we’ve been saying for two years- they don’t care about securing our borders or stopping their deadly open border policies. Just throwing money at the crisis to get better and more effective at processing and releasing illegal aliens,” Morgan said.

The lack of funding for border security comes as illegal immigration, drug seizures and encounters of individuals on the terror watchlist are surging at the southern border.

CBP officers encountered a record of more than 2.3 million migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2022. During that time, CBP also caught a record of 98 individuals on the terror watchlist and seized more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl.

Federal border authorities have also encountered a surge in illegal immigrants of “special interest,” who come from countries of particular national security concern and “possibly have a nexus to terrorism.”

“At this point, they might as well change the name of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to U.S. Customs and Border Processing. Seriously, all the Biden administration wants CBP to do is process migrants or watch them come across with a drone or camera,” Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Head of Government Relations and Communications RJ Hauman told the DCNF. “Every border security funding stream in a spending bill needs firm conditions to use the money properly, rather than enabling a system that functions as a lawless, greased up turnstile into the United States.”

CBP didn’t respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Massive Omnibus Bill Earmarks DOJ Money To Prosecute Pro-Lifers

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Unacceptable’: Texas GOP Rep Demands Mayorkas Answer To Data ‘Miscalculations’ After DCNF Reports

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.

‘The Border Is Not Open,’ Says White House Press Secretary

Hours before the Supreme Court paused the end of Title 42 (scheduled for Wednesday) until the Tuesday after Christmas, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre achieved new levels of Orwellian Newspeak on Monday for insisting, repeatedly, that the southern border was not “open.” And further, she argued that anyone claiming the border was open was actually aiding the Mexican cartels who commit human trafficking.

“I want to be very clear here,” Jean-Pierre said, “The fact is that the removal of Title 42 does not mean the border is open. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply doing the work of these smugglers who, again, are spreading misinformation, and which are — which is very dangerous.” And, in case the preposterous comment could be mistaken for a flubbed sentence, she emphatically repeated the point four additional times.

Something like a door is open when it is possible to pass through. Something is closed when it isn’t possible to pass through. Border Patrol is encountering around 200,000 migrants per month (2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2022). They apprehend them (except for criminals, the migrants usually surrender themselves), process them, and then release them into the U.S. Over the weekend of December 9-11, border patrol encountered more than 7,000 migrants in the El Paso sector alone, and was forced to release hundreds into the streets of El Paso to clear out room in the processing facility for new arrivals. For these migrants, passing through the border (from the Mexico side to the U.S. side) was possible. For these migrants the border was open.

The Biden administration doesn’t deny that migrants cross the border. As the state attorneys general, who requested a stay from the Supreme Court, wrote in their filing, “DHS [The Department of Homeland Security] estimates that daily illegal crossings may more than double from around 7,000/day to 15,000/day once Title 42 is terminated.” DHS divisions such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) collect and respond to real-time data proving that the border is open.

I don’t know for certain what Jean-Pierre meant by saying, “the border is not open,” as she never explained what she meant by the term. Based on the context, Jean-Pierre seems to argue 1) if potential migrants hear that the border is open, they will be more likely to come; 2) if migrants come, smugglers are likely to exploit them; therefore 3) migrants must not hear that the border is open. She never argues that calling the border open is factually incorrect. Rather, she claims that calling the border open is morally wrong because it will put migrants in harm’s way.

Jean-Pierre’s claim that “the border is not open” is based upon a worldview assumption that telling the truth can sometimes be wrong if it leads to bad effects.

That same assumption underlies much of the rationale for “transgender-affirming” care. The oft-repeated argument goes, persons questioning their biological sex should be affirmed in making the transition because if they experience opposition or “hate” (any form of non-affirmation or less-than-effusive affirmation) they will be driven to commit suicide. But that claim is unsubstantiated, and frequent repetition is not proof.

Similarly, Jean-Pierre’s effects-based argument for lying about the border does a poor job calculating the effects. One might ask, why do potential migrants hear that the border is open? Because, in fact, it is. This is confirmed by all sorts of official and media reporting, first- and second-hand experiences, and the various effects an open border causes (the opioid epidemic, for example). We live in the information age and have a free press, after all. If the border were closed, would potential migrants hear that it is open? Perhaps smugglers might spread such misinformation, as Jean-Pierre suggests. But those reports would lack credibility in the absence of corroborating evidence. Reports about the openness of the border rely on the underlying facts of the situation.

In other words, the best way to persuade migrants that “the border is not open” is to close the border. Trying to shame everyone into pretending something is true that isn’t won’t accomplish anything.

Christians should be cautious about ever rationalizing a lie because of the effects it produces. If “on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36), how much more weighty are the lies we are tempted to tell? God always tells the truth. In fact, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18), whereas the devil “is a liar and the father of lies,” and those who lie are his children (John 8:44). Our corrupted hearts might deceive us into believing that a lie is justified because it might get us out of a scrape, or sooth another’s feelings, or otherwise produce a good effect. But Jesus tells those who are truly his disciples, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

So, if the Biden administration wants us to say that “the border is not open,” they should make it so.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden Reinstates Security Clearance of Physicist Who Passed Nuke Secrets to USSR

“Without the intelligence contribution, there could have been no Soviet bomb that quickly.”


You’ve got to give the Left credit. It has an extensive agenda, a long memory and when it seizes power, it rolls as many of its agenda items, even the ancient ones, through the gate. Compare that to how little conservatives get done when in office. And how little of the things the Left does they reverse.

This is a seemingly unimportant example, but also a reminder of how comprehensive the Left’s agenda is, how it encompasses the past, present and the future. Lefties never let anything go.

And never pass up an opportunity to rewrite history.

The Biden administration has reversed a decades-old decision to revoke the security clearance of Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist called the father of the atomic bomb for his leading role in World War II’s Manhattan Project.

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the 1954 decision by the Atomic Energy Commission was made using a “flawed process” that violated the commission’s own regulations.

“As time has passed, more evidence has come to light of the bias and unfairness of the process that Dr. Oppenheimer was subjected to while the evidence of his loyalty and love of country have only been further affirmed,” Granholm said in a statement on Friday.

The actual evidence that came out was that Oppenheimer did it.

A Soviet spy chief’s memoirs published here today claim that the late J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the U.S. atomic bomb project during and after World War II, passed nuclear secrets to Soviet agents.

The allegations were made by Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, who was in charge of efforts to obtain atomic secrets from the West, and excerpts of them ran in the Sunday Telegraph. Time magazine will print excerpts in today’s issue.

The memoirs charge that Oppenheimer, a University of California physicist known as “the father of the atomic bomb,” condoned and assisted in the flow of vital nuclear secrets.

Sudoplatov charges that Elizabeth Zarubina, wife of the Soviet intelligence head in Washington, cultivated Oppenheimer socially.

Zarubina persuaded Oppenheimer to share atomic secrets with “anti-fascists of German origin,” Sudoplatov says.

The memoir, “Special Tasks,” declares: “We received reports on the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on.

“In all there were five classified reports made available by Oppenheimer describing the progress of work on the atomic bomb.”

The Russians also received photos of the facilities at Oak Ridge, the book says.

“The Soviet bomb was constructed in three years,” Sudoplatov says. “Without the intelligence contribution, there could have been no Soviet bomb that quickly.”

Oppenheimer’s actions could have led to the deaths of millions of people and eventually far more than that.

Long before that, Edward Teller put his career on the line to denounce Oppenheimer. That helped marginalize Teller, the father of the H-bomb, and made him a pariah among lefties to whom the highest possible honor was helping the USSR and the highest possible disgrace was informing on Communists.

And then there’s the Merkulov letter which also revealed Oppenheimer’s complicity with the USSR.

In short, all of the “new evidence” actually makes it clear that Oppenheimer was collaborating with the USSR.

And all of this will also be ignored by the Biden administration and the media who don’t actually know any of the history or care.

And watch for some media fact checkers to issue a ruling of ‘false’ or ‘lacks context’ on this post to block it from Facebook and Google.

We live in a new leftist empire. An empire of lies.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden apologizes to African leaders for the ‘unimaginable cruelty’ of slavery, pledges $55 billion for Africa

ems Complain About Qatar Gay Ban Without Ever Saying ‘Islam’

Islamic Republic of Iran arrested famous actress after she said execution of protester was ‘disgrace to humanity’

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

FBI’s Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Goes Woke?

I just received the latest edition of the The Combating Terrorism Center’s CTC Sentinel magazine. There is an article titled The Terrorist Threats and Trends to Watch Out for in 2023 and Beyond. This article is written by Bruce Hoffman, and Jacob Ware.

NOTE: Since September 11th, 2001 the Combating Terrorism Center has been working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to the FBI website:

It’s a partnership that makes sense in the post-9/11 world: the FBI working closely with the prestigious Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, on a variety of training initiatives.

Established five years ago, the Center provides in-depth research, policy analysis, and education in matters relating to terrorism, counterterrorism, homeland security, and weapons of mass destruction. Its “clients” include representatives from all levels of government, undergraduate students, non-profit groups, and private enterprise.

We now know that the FBI has been involved in multiple acts that could themselves, taken together, be considered domestic terrorism, including the FBI’s involvement with social media sites to monitor Americans and control their narratives.

It should also be noted that among the Distinguished Chair & Senior Fellows at The Combating Terrorism Center West Point include:

  1. CTC Executive Director Brian Dodwell who was the Operations Branch Chief at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Exercise Division, which assesses interagency counterterrorism strategy and policy at senior levels across the U.S. government. He previously served as a counter-proliferation analyst supporting the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
  2. CTC Senior Fellow Elizabeth Kimber who served more than 37 years in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including as Deputy Director of CIA for Operations (DDO). As DDO, Kimber was responsible for overseeing the CIA’s worldwide human intelligence operations and networks, as well as CIA’s foreign intelligence collection and covert action missions.

  3. Managing Editor, CTC Sentinel Kristina Hummel who worked previously as a producer for Al-Arabiya News and covered the Middle East from the United Nations headquarters in New York. She also worked as a magazine writer and editor.

The article was spot on on the on going Islamic jihadi threats of Iran, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Taliban, al-Qa`ida, al-Shabaab, Hurras al-Din and the Islamic State.

But Hoffman and Ware went woke when they discussed domestic terrorism.

Domestic Terrorists in America

According to Hoffman and Ware,

The most significant terrorist threat to the homeland today comes from domestic terrorism connected to the violent far-right, broadly defined here to include both white supremacist and white nationalist networks as well as anti-government extremists.

To come to this conclusion Hoffman and Ware used only one primary source a report titled “Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021,” by the Anti-Defamation League published in February 2022.

We decided to look at the history of domestic terrorist groups in the United States of America. Here’s a short list of what we discovered as left-wing terrorist groups in the USA:

  1. Symbionese Liberation Army United States – The United Federated Forces of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) was an active terrorist group operating in the United States from 1973 to 1975. The group idealized itself as an inclusive organization of all left-wing movements in the US at the height of its operation. They adopted their movement from the rhetoric of Communists and the revolutionaries of South America. Combining the ideals of feminism, anti-racism, and anti-capitalism among others, the group failed to practice what it preached and carried out numerous bank robberies and murders. The group is probably most well known for its kidnapping and subsequent brainwashing of Patty Hearst in 1974.
  2. Black Liberation Army United States – The Civil Rights movement in the United States gained ground with leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who inspired the people to nonviolent protest, but that didn’t stop many from taking up arms as urban guerrillas in the late 1960s and 70s. The Black Liberation Army (BLA) was such a group of anti-capitalists who pushed for a socialist agenda where “Black people have total and absolute control over their own destiny as people.” The group existed from 1970 until 1981 and carried out bombings, murders, prison breaks, and robberies. Their stated goal was to “take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States.”
  3. Antifa – A revolutionary Marxist/anarchist militia movement that seeks to bring down the United States by means of violence and intimidation. As a September 2017 report in The Atlantic notes, Antifa is responsible for “a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s.” The name “Antifa” (pronounced on’-tee-fah) is a shortened form of the term “antifacist,” and its adherents are commonly seen waving the red-and-black flag of anarcho-communism. The website ItsGoingDown.org, which serves as a newsblog for Antifa, says that “in the U.S., most [anti-fascist] activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists” ― while “in other countries, the movement is predominately Marxist.” The U.S.-based anarchists of Antifa typically denounce not only the capitalist economic system, but the institution of government itself. And they explicitly advocate and encourage the use of violence to undermine and destroy both. The long-term objective is to establish a communist world order.
  4. Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (RAM)Formed in May 2017 and based in New York City, the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a contingent of the Marxist/anarchist movement known as Antifa. RAM describes itself as “a political movement” of “revolutionary anarchists” who are committed to waging “armed” warfare against American “fascism” ― the term by which RAM refers to conservatism ― in “solidarity with the international antifascist and anarchist struggle.” Rooted in what it calls “the context of the abolitionist struggle against slavery” ― and “dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States” ― RAM contends not only that America was “built on slavery and genocide,” but also that “modern slavery and mass brutality” against black people “persist unchecked” to this day. Because “the Civil War was never resolved,” RAM elaborates, “the system of slavery transitioned into the prison industrial complex” where blacks are inarcerated in disproportionately high numbers. On the premise that the United States government has conspired “with white supremacist organizations” to “ensure that the relations of slavery [remain] entrenched in U.S. political, social, and economic life,” RAM claims that “the [slave] ships” of yesteryear have been replaced by the “correctional buses” that transport African Americans en masse to prison cells across the country; that “the [slave] auction blocks [of the 1800s] are now the courtrooms” in American cities; and that black people today “are indelibly marked with prison numbers that remain etched on their records till they die.”
  5. Black Lives Matter (BLM) – Founded by Marxist revolutionaries in 2013, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a movement that depicts the United States as a nation awash in racism, sexism, and homophobia. Demonstrators at BLM events have been known to: smear white police as trigger-happy bigots who are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males; taunt, and direct obscenities at, uniformed police officers who are on duty; throw rocks at police and threaten to kill them; and celebrate in the streets when a police officer is killed. Some examples of BLM’s racist and incendiary rhetoric: At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now”; At a BLM march in August 2015, protesters chanted : “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” (“Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and “blanket” was a reference to body bags.); On a radio program the following month, the BLM-affiliated host laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; happily predicted that “we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before”; and declared that “It’s open season on killing white people and crackas.”; In November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting “Black Lives Matter,” stormed Dartmouth University’s library, screaming, “Fu** you, you filthy white fu**s!,” “Fu** you and your comfort!,” and “Fu** you, you racist sh**!” ; In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: “The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill ’em all right now! Kill ’em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!”

The CTC report does not mention the following Islamist terrorist groups in America:

  1. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
  2. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)
  3. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

The Bottom Line

Given the information above how much confidence to you have in the Hoffman and Ware report on who are the domestic terrorists in America?

Here’s the the political myth followed by the truth:

Our question are:

  1. Do you believe that the greatest domestic terrorist threat is from white supremacists?
  2. Do you believe the CTC at West Point analysis by Hoffman and Ware given the CTC’s close links with the FBI and CIA?
  3. Do you believe that the CTC at West Point is following the Biden narrative and is therefore woke?

If you think not then please leave a comment below and tell us why.

We report you decide.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

‘Palestine’—Two Countervailing Hypotheses

Do the Palestinian-Arabs genuinely wish to establish a state for themselves?  Or do they really wish to dismantle the state of the Jews?


To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees – Former PM Ehud Olmert, Washington Post, July 17, 2009

Lamentably, the international debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in particular the Israeli-Palestinian component thereof, has utterly lost its direction, swerving haphazardly off course into the realm of the politically correct, shrouded as it is, by a fog of malicious, mendacious myths.

Inevitably, this has had a corrosive effect on the discourse, suppressing historical truths while sustaining heinous untruths. Of course, the overarching fiction that casts its distortive shadow over much, if not all, of the discussion of the clash between Jew and Arab for control over the Holy Land is the fatally flawed notion of a separate state for Palestinian-Arabs.

Puzzling and persistent failure

Indeed, anyone still advocating the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River—despite decades of failed attempts—must confront a decidedly irksome question:

Why have the Palestinian-Arabs failed consistently and continuously to attain such a state, when many other national movements, with far less moral and material support, have succeeded–even when this involved casting off the rule of imperial powers far more powerful than tiny Israel?

Indeed, how can we account for the blatant failure of the Palestinians to meet the test of history? One should keep in mind that the Palestinians have enjoyed conditions far more benign than those experienced by almost any other movement of national freedom since WW-II. These include widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of one of the two superpowers during the decades of the Cold War—the USSR, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations, and over a decade of Israeli administrations, who have not only acknowledged (but at times even identified with) their declared national aspirations.

Challenging conventional wisdom?

However, despite all these advantages, the Palestinian-Arabs have failed to produce even a semblance of a stable, productive society. Indeed, quite the opposite is true.  Well over a decade after having the benevolent Oslo Accords virtually thrust upon them by an unprecedentedly accommodative Israeli administration (whose entire political platform was indeed built on such accommodation), the Palestinian leadership has done nothing but provide a repressive and regressive interim regime that produced little but the pillage of the Palestinian people.

Neither is this dismal reality the result of a lack of adequate funds. Quite the opposite is true. The unprecedented scale of the Palestinian-Arabs’ failure is underscored by the remarkable – if little publicized fact – that in the post-Oslo years, the international community poured upward of five billion dollars into the Palestinian economy- making the Palestinian Authority then the highest per-capita recipient of development aid in the world!Thus, arguably, the putative Palestinian state has perhaps the unique—if dubious—distinction of attaining “failed state” status before its actual establishment.

Clearly then, there is room for the “heretical” postulation that the real underlying Palestinian-Arab desire is, in fact, not the establishment of a state. Indeed, perhaps the time has come to suggest that most of the prevailing conventional wisdom regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is totally unfounded–even misguided and misleading.

Two countervailing hypotheses

In principle, there are two countervailing hypotheses by which to account for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to prevailing conventional wisdom, the fuel of the conflict is the lack of Palestinian self-determination, and all the Palestinians aspire to, is to establish a state for themselves. There is however an alternative proposition, diametrically opposed to the former – and which in light of the deeds and declarations of the Palestinians themselves – appears the more plausible.

According to this alternative explanation, the fuel of the conflict is not the lack of Palestinian self-determination, but the existence of Jewish self-determination and as long as Jewish self-determination continues, so will the conflict. Moreover, according to the alternative explanation, the goal of the Palestinians is not to establish a state for themselves but to dismantle a state for others –the Jews.

The question which now must be addressed is: Which of these two alternative hypotheses has the greater explanatory power?

The answer seems to be unequivocally in favor of the latter – for it provides eminently plausible explanations for a range of events that the former is totally unable to account for.

For example:

  • It explains why every territorial proposal, which would have allowed the Palestinians to create a state of their own (from the 1947 partition plan, through Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000, to Ehud Olmert’s far-reaching—some might say irresponsible—proposal in 2006), never satisfied them and why all were rejected by them.
  • It explains why only the total negation of Jewish independence appears acceptable to the Palestinians, as evidenced not only by their abovementioned rejection of any viable offer of a “two-state solution”, but also by much of Palestinian rhetoric and symbolism, which invariably portrays the whole the Land of Israel, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, as constituting part of Arab Palestine.
  • It explains why the Palestinians originally eschewed any claims for national sovereignty over the pre-1967 “West Bank” and Gaza—as evidenced by the explicit text of their original National Charter. Formulated in 1964, years before Israel had any presence in the “West Bank”, the Charter (in Article 24) explicitly refrains from any aspirations on the part of the Palestinians to “exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip… “—which they now claim as their historic homeland.
  • It also explains why the millions of Palestinians, the largest demographic group in Jordan, resign themselves to the non-Palestinian rule by a Hashemite Bedouin monarch, who belongs to the non-Palestinian minority in the land –clearly indicating that Palestinians are not averse to non-Palestinian rule, only to Jewish rule.
  • It explains not only why the Palestinian-Arabs rejected the far-reaching generosity of the 2000 Barak proposals, but also the violent manner in which they rejected it. For although these proposals did include a proviso insisting on “end of conflict“, they were unprecedented in the concessions offered towards making a Palestinian state a feasible prospect. However, the ferocity of the repudiation by the Palestinians seems to indicate that even these were far short of their real demands. After all, if they were only marginally inadequate, it would be reasonable to expect that the Palestinians would have preferred to negotiate the details of issues in contention, rather than launch such an extensive wave of fierce and destructive violence. This is a response that seems explicable if, and only if, “end of conflict” is an unacceptable concept for them.
  • It explains why the Palestinian-Arabs rejected the expansive—some might venture “excessive”—largesse of the 2006 proposal put forward by Ehud Olmert, addressing virtually all the Palestinian-Arabs’ demands—see here. Significantly, Olmert’s expression of frustration, astonishment, and puzzlement, which he conveyed in a lengthy Washington Post Op-Ed, starkly underline the inadequacy of the assumption that the Palestinian-Arabs genuinely wish to negotiate the establishment of their own state with Israel. He wrote: “To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them” and suggested “It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer. ” Indeed, it would!!!
  • It explains why the Palestinian-Arabs stubbornly insist on the “right of return”, which would imply placing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and possibly even more), now living in Arab countries, under Israeli jurisdiction. This is a demand that really tears the mask off Palestinian intentions for it is a position hardly consistent with an alleged desire to be free of “oppressive” Israeli control… or with an equitable two-state solution.

By contrast, none of the above phenomena can be reconciled with the explanation propounded by the advocates of the conventional wisdom hypothesis.

Accordingly, one can but wonder on which of these hypotheses it would be prudent for Israel to base its future policies: The hypothesis which can account for all these phenomena; or the hypothesis which accounts for none of them…???

©Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

Decorated Veteran and FBI Analyst Sues FBI after Being Falsely Accused of Disloyalty to the United States

Multiple whistleblowers have called it a “purge” of FBI employees holding conservative views’ – Rep. Jim Jordan


Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on behalf of FBI analyst Marcus Allen in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating Allen’s constitutional rights by falsely accusing him of holding “conspiratorial views,” stripping his security clearance, and suspending him from duty without pay (Marcus O. Allen v Christopher Wray (No. 22-cv-4536)).The FBI revoked his security clearance because apparently the FBI believes that any views contrary to its own regarding what occurred on January 6 constitutes disloyalty to the United States.

The new lawsuit details Allen’s outstanding military and FBI service:

Because of his outstanding military service, [Allen] was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. In 2004, [Allen] was designated the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Runner-Up for Intelligence NCO of the year. 

[ *** ]

In 2015, [Allen] joined the FBI as a staff operations specialist. Among other tasks, he has provided ad hoc all-source analytical support to the FBI Charlotte Field Office Joint Terrorism Task Force. He has consistently been rated “Exceeds Fully Successful” on his FBI performance evaluations. He received the FBI Charlotte Field Office Employee of the Year Award in 2019.

[Allen] first received a Top Secret security clearance in early 2001.

Despite Allen’s exemplary service, in a January 10, 2022, letter the FBI asserted:

The Security Division has learned you have espoused conspiratorial views both orally and in writing and promoted unreliable information which indicates support for the events of January 6th. These allegations raise sufficient concerns about your allegiance to the United States and your judgment to warrant a suspension of your clearance pending further investigation.

In a February 17, 2022, letter the FBI further notified Allen that he was being placed on administrative leave without pay due to the suspension of his security clearance. 

The lawsuit states: 

[Allen’s] allegiance is to the United States, as he has demonstrated during his years of exemplary military and law enforcement service to his country.

[Allen] was not involved in the events of January 6 and did not support them in any material way.  The FBI has made no allegation or offered any evidence to the contrary.

 [Allen] has expressed no view that could be reasonably interpreted as personally expressing support or sympathy for any unlawful activity that occurred on January 6. 

 The FBI has not identified any specific statements or actions supporting its contention that Plaintiff has done otherwise.   

Judicial Watch contends that the FBI did not give Allen a chance to clear himself, despite his repeated inquiries. In early May 2022, however, the FBI requested that Allen appear for an interview. He promptly complied. The interview request came only days after FBI Director Wray was confronted by members of Congress over concerns that the FBI was weaponizing the security clearance process to target politically conservative employees. Since that time, Allen has received no further word on the status of the FBI’s investigation.    

On June 7, 2022, Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Wray regarding the firing of FBI employees, noting that, “Multiple whistleblowers have called it a ‘purge’ of FBI employees holding conservative views.”

The lawsuit alleges several violations of Allen’s First and Fifth Amendment rights and asks that Allen’s security clearance and employment be restored.

“The FBI can’t purge employees based on political smears. Judicial Watch seeks to remind the FBI that it is not above the law with this civil rights lawsuit for Mr. Allen, a decorated Marine veteran and highly regarded FBI employee,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”

Ruth C. Smith of the Elmore and Smith Law Firm in Asheville, N.C., is assisting with the suit. Allen is being represented in his administrative security clearance case by Sean Bigley and Jeffrey Billett of Bigley Ranish, LLP.   

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

Here Are The Republicans Who Voted Against Reinstating Troops Who Refused The Vaccine

Four Republican senators joined Democrats in shooting down an amendment to a massive defense authorization package that would have reinstated troops discharged for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the Senate 83-11 Thursday night, and along with it a provision overturning the Biden administration’s service-wide vaccine requirement. Republican Senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Rounds of South Dakota voted no on a last-minute amendment to the bill re-enlisting thousands of troops separated for refusing the vaccine mandate, collapsing the proposal 54 to 40.

“These were direct orders from commanding officers,” Cassidy said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation, referring to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who announced the vaccine mandate. “I voted to end the COVID vaccine mandate in the military, but it is not Congress’s place to intervene in the chain of command and set a precedent for military personnel to ignore direct orders.”

The Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have separated at least 8,400 active duty and reserve troops for spurning the Department of Defense’s (DOD) August 2021 requirement that all servicemembers receive the COVID-19 vaccine, according to information the DOD provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation. While the bicameral defense bill released late Tuesday directs the Pentagon to rescind the mandate, it stopped short of requiring the military to restore discharged troops to their prior positions or provide reparations.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas reintroduced a portion of the AMERICANS Act, which revoked the Department of Defense’s vaccination mandate, that was left out of the final NDAA text ahead of the vote Thursday.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that the Biden administration is trying to coerce our men and women in uniform to violate their conscience and religious beliefs, let alone on an issue as polarizing as the COVID-19 vaccine. The AMERICANS Act will ensure that these and similar efforts to politicize our military on this issue are blocked,” Cruz said in a statement after introducing the act with his Republican co-sponsors in May.

Defense leaders continue to maintain that ensuring the overall health of individual servicemembers, including by receiving complete doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, is a “readiness issue.” The White House reiterated support for the vaccination mandate on Dec. 5, Fox News reported.

Romney, Collins and Rounds did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN Host Presses White House Covid Czar On Military Vax Mandate: ‘Do You Think It’s A Mistake?’

Japan Reverses Course, Announces Largest Military Buildup Since WWII Amid Rising China Threat

The US Is Preparing For The Possibility Of War With China — In Space

The Army Has Approved Just 20 Permanent Religious Vaccine Exemptions Out Of Thousands Of Requests

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.

Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s Push To Scrap Trump-Era Border Policy

A federal judge in Texas blocked the Biden administration from scrapping the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a pause on the Biden administration’s decision to end the program, according to the judge’s order. The policy forces certain illegal immigrants to return to Mexico as they await court proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruled  in June that the Biden administration can terminate the policy, which was formally lifted in August.

“As Secretary Mayorkas has said, MPP has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority efforts to secure our border,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said at the time.

The Biden administration initially tried to end the policy on the president’s first day in office, but was quickly met lawsuits led by Republican states.

The decision comes as federal border authorities encounter overwhelming levels of illegal immigration, with a record more than 2.3 million migrants encountered in fiscal year 2022 and even more expected with the end of another Trump-era expulsion policy, Title 42, expected on Dec. 21.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Border Patrol Agents Confronted Mayorkas In El Paso. Here’s What Was Said

Biden Regime Sues Arizona For Building Border Wall

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.

Ex-Twitter Manager Slapped With Three-Year Prison Sentence For Spying For Saudi Arabia

A former manager at Twitter, convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia, was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison on Wednesday, U.S. prosecutors said.

Ahmad Abouammo, who provided a Saudi official with user information in exchange for a $42,000 watch and a pair of $100,000 wire transfers, received 3.5 years in prison despite prosecutors originally pushing for seven years, according to Reuters. Abouammo was found guilty of spying and money laundering on behalf of the Saudi Arabian government, and using his position at Twitter to acquire information about Twitter users for the Saudi Royal Family in August.

The max sentencing was up to “decades” in prison, but prosecutors were pushing for seven years to “deter others in the technology and social media industry from selling out the data of vulnerable users,” according to Reuters. Abouammo’s attorneys requested a probationary sentence at his home in Seattle with no prison time.

During the August trial, prosecutor Eric Cheng said “they paid for a mole” during his closing argument, noting that Abouammo was paid in bribes three times his salary. “We all know that kind of money is not for nothing,” he said.

Abuoammo managed media for high-profile users in the Middle East and North Africa for Twitter. Abuoammo was arrested in 2019 in Seattle, but was set free on bail until the trial in San Francisco.

Abuoammo’s attorneys noted that he was dealing with financial trouble while at Twitter, saying that he had been “struggling to pay for and deal with serious upheavals in his sister’s life,” which included medical care for her newborn daughter, according to Reuters.

AUTHOR

BRONSON WINSLOW

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: REPORT: Twitter Temporarily Suspends Employee Access, Closes Offices

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.