“Dude, I don’t need your permission for that. I have a lot of AR-15s. And do you know why I have a lot of AR-15s? Because I’m a grown-ass woman, and I can.” —Dana Loesch
“Dude, I don’t need your permission for that. I have a lot of AR-15s. And do you know why I have a lot of AR-15s? Because I’m a grown-ass woman, and I can.” —Dana Loesch
How the establishment media’s distortion of the truth undermines America.
The Third Reich’s principle of the “Big Lie” involved the frequent repetition of lies until they became perceived as the truth by the masses.
George Orwell noted, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
In this era of “Fake News” those tactics are purposely wielded by “journalists” to mislead Americans.
On March 15, 2019, News Leader, a subsidiary of USA Today, published an infuriating opinion piece, “School owes apology for ICE agent talk at Kate Collins Middle: Our View.”
While the article noted that the ICE agent was invited to the school and limited his activities to simply addressing the students of that school to explain the mission of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the mere presence of that federal agent at a public school was enough to set off the editors who wrote their hit piece.
The editors of the publication then spewed utter lies and false “facts” from beginning to end to justify their vitriolic attack on the agency that is charged with enforcing federal immigration laws.
Here is the opening salvo they fired against ICE:
If you were born in 1968 or before, you’ve spent most of your adult life in American without any awareness of ICE. Because it didn’t exist. There was no entity called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was only created in 2003.
Before that time, we had immigrations officials who dealt with cases of people overstaying their visa or being in the country illegally. We had the FBI to investigate criminal issues related to terrorism as it relates to trade, travel and immigration.
ICE is a modern creation, an experiment. It’s one we should regret.
To begin with, ICE is not an “experiment” but was created as an element of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was itself created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
Prior to the creation of the DHS, the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was the domain of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was ultimately split into multiple components after 9/11. I have argued in my articles and in testimony I provided at several congressional hearings that breaking the former INS into multiple agencies actually impeded the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.
Nevertheless, arrests of illegal aliens were commonplace for INS agents long before DHS was created through the passage and enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
In fact, I began my career with the former INS in October 1971 as an Immigration Inspector and I became an INS agent in 1975. We frequently and routinely arrested illegal aliens for both administrative as well as for criminal law violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Administrative law violations were addressed through the immigration hearings which could result in an alien being stripped of any lawful status they may have acquired and then deported from the United States.
Criminal law violations of the INA would lead to those defendants being charged with crimes the same way that drug traffickers, tax evaders, counterfeiters and bank robbers would be charged in federal court. While most of the defendants in the immigration prosecutions were aliens, United States citizens who violated those laws by smuggling aliens, engaging in fraud conspiracies or otherwise violated criminal provisions of the INA could and were also charged criminally.
The notion that prior to the creation of ICE that there was no immigration law enforcement is a huge, flaming lie. The article complains about how ICE agents raid factories. I cannot remember how many such factory raids I participated in back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
The article then went on to detail several arrests by ICE agents of illegal aliens who were found with family members or in other such circumstances creating a false image to discredit and vilify the agents and turning criminal aliens into victims.
Those aliens were, in fact, wanted for involvement in felonies in the U.S. and Mexico.
Consider the case of Perla Morales-Luna, whose arrest by the Border Patrol was included in the editorial. The Washington Examiner posted an article about that arrest, “The ‘scandal’ of Perla Morales-Luna’s arrest is fake news” and included this tweet by the Border Patrol:
Perla Morales-Luna was identified as an organizer for a transnational criminal smuggling organization operating in East County, San Diego. She was arrested as a result of a targeted operation on March 3, 2018, in National City for being in the country illegally.
The editorial also included a breathless account of the arrest of Joel Arrona-Lara by ICE agents. At the time of his arrest he was purportedly driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
What the editorial failed to disclose is that Arrona-Lara is wanted in Mexico for his involvement in a homicide. Information about his situation was reported upon in a Los Angeles Times report, “Warrant confirms man detained while on way to hospital with pregnant wife is wanted for murder in Mexico.”
The editorial also referred to an outrageous ACLU piece, “Citizenship service conspired with ICE to ‘trap’ immigrants at visa interviews, ACLU says.”
This is yet another example of the application of “The Big Lie.” USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is the division of the DHS charged with adjudicating more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. Prior to the creation of the DHS it was a component of the former INS.
Aliens who have criminal convictions or who enter the United States illegally after deportation are not eligible for immigration benefits but may be subject to criminal prosecution for concealing material facts in their applications and/or for other crimes such as unlawful reentry which carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. These aliens are also subject to deportation from the United States.
The best and safest place to take criminals into custody is at a federal building where they are not likely to be carrying firearms or other weapons.
In 1973 I was given a one-year temporary assignment to the unit that adjudicated applications for residency based on marriage to U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants. I worked closely with INS agents to develop fraud cases and, in fact, one of those cases led to the arrest and conviction of an immigration lawyer for arranging sham marriages between citizens of China who had jumped ship and married American women who, for the most part, were of Puerto Rican ancestry and engaged in prostitution.
A wide variety of government agencies on all levels seek the arrest and prosecution of those who file false applications.
It is important to note that the official report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel warned, “Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud.”
The title of my recent article will serve as the summation for my commentary today: “The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans.”
RELATED VIDEO: Over $100 Billion Sent To Other Countries In Remittances Not Taxed, Tucker Carlson Commentary.
EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.
“If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
I have been watching the candidates for President of the United States of America. We know where President Trump stands on issues. We are learning more and more about the Democratic Party candidates policy positions as each day passes.
It appears that each candidate is outdoing the other by making promises.
Question: Can, or will, Democrats deliver on those promises?
Here is a list of promises made by candidates that could directly impact Americans, and non-Americans, to date:
We are sure that some, if not all, of these proposals will be debated during the Democratic Presidential primary. The question is how many of these, and perhaps other policy proposals, will be added to the Democratic Party platform?
As American politician John Fleming wrote, “I think always, when you have a candidate promising free stuff, and another promising less stuff or nothing, the one who promises more is always going to have the advantage.”
Joseph Goebbels wrote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Free stuff is the “big lie” because eventually the political, economic and military consequences will appear as they have in Venezuela.
The Democratic Party candidates are rushing to promise free everything to voters, but can they deliver anything?
The familiar acronym KISS, “keep it simple stupid,” began as a design principle noted by the U.S. Navy in the 1960s according to Wikipedia. “The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.
The current maelstrom created by Fox News suspending Judge Jeanine Pirro over a question she posed concerning the symbolism of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s hijab can best be understood using the KISS principle.
Mohammed, the 7th century prophet and founder of Islam, believed himself to be the messenger of the one and only god Allah. Mohammed believed that all people should honor Allah and only Allah. This was and continues to be the foundational premise of Islamic expansionism and its desire to establish a worldwide caliphate to make the whole world Muslim – including the United States. Islam is a replacement theology.
Islam has been at war with competing ideologies since the time of Mohammed but war is expensive. The Islamic movement’s fortunes waxed and waned over the centuries until oil was discovered in commercial quantities in Saudi Arabia in 1938. A seismic shift in geopolitical power took place and the oil rich Muslim nations were able to pursue their expansionist dreams of an Islamic caliphate once again.
The Muslim Brotherhood was already 10 years old in Egypt. According to its founder Hassan Al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law (Sharia) on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” There is no separation of church and state in Islam, all life is ordered by Islamic supremacist religious sharia law which does not recognize any other authority including the United States Constitution.
At that time in history Saudi Arabia supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia went into the oil business with the United States of America. The ambitious religious ideology of Islam met the ambitious material greed of the West. Western greed was easily exploited by Islamic expansionists using the rules of the game established by Al-Banna and documented in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum which outlines its strategic goals for North America. Here are some highlights:
“Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.” (p.4)
The movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process in carry out this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility. (p.5)
The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers.” (p.7)
The Explanatory Memorandum lists its organizations and chief among them are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Explanatory Memorandum was discovered in the home of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijra mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. Elbarasse was a member of the Palestine Committee, which the Muslim Brotherhood created to support Hamas in the United States.
The war on America being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots including ISNA and CAIR is being facilitated by American greed and by the most anti-American pro-Muslim president in American history – Barack Hussein Obama. For eight years Obama facilitated the Memorandum’s seditious goals by seeding the American government with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and by embracing CAIR as its voice.
A stunning 12/22/17 article by Mark Hewitt, “Stopping the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan to Infiltrate America” lists many pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of Barack Obama including:
Judge Jeanine Pirro was entirely justified in her 3.11.19 opening statement to say about Ilhan Omar:
“Think about this, she’s (Omar) not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party, so if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab which according to the Quran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”
Ilhan Omar’s district is the #1 terrorist recruitment area of the United States. Omar is a sharia compliant Muslim who represents the hostile norms and antisemitism of her sharia compliant district. Sharia law is completely incompatible with the cultural norms and freedoms of the United States and our Constitution.
Instead, Judge Jeanine was suspended by Fox News and lost several sponsors. Political correctness has silenced the crucial debate about sharia law in America that would expose how sharia compliance is a threat to the safety and stability of the United States.
The winds of change are blowing against free speech in America. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood into America and now the Muslim Brotherhood and its anti-American goals are in Congress.
With the suspension of Judge Jeanine Pirro, Fox News has taken one giant leap toward dhimmitude and embraced creeping religious sharia law that prohibits criticism of Islam or even questioning its tenets. The judge’s reputation and career are being destroyed because her question exposed an inconvenient truth about the antisemitism inherent in hijab wearing sharia compliant Ilhan Omar.
The corrupt Democrats refuse to condemn Omar’s antisemitic Muslim Brotherhood statements. It appears that CAIR is running Congress and that Obama has finally achieved the change he hoped for. CAIR is now demanding that Judge Jeanine Pirro be permanently removed.
It is time for pro-America Americans to apply the KISS principle to Washington politics. Islamic supremacist sharia law cannot be allowed to have the last word in Congress.
The Muslim Brotherhood and its seditious member organizations must be declared terrorist organizations.
The current Muslim Brotherhood effort to make America Muslim is a religious war started in the 7th century and reignited in the 20th century. Islam is not a religion like any other – it is a replacement religion that must be defeated in America in the 21st century.
EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.
In a bothersome case of political correctness gone amok, a professor at a highly ranked public university in the United States has been suspended for suggesting a foreign student “learn English.”
The egregious incident occurred this month at the University of Kansas (UK), a taxpayer-funded institution with an enrollment of 28,500 that ranks among the nation’s top public universities. Situated in the northeast Kansas town of Lawrence, the school is the state’s flagship university and a premier research institution.
The “offending” professor, Gary Minden, teaches electrical engineering and computer science in the highly regarded school of engineering. Minden, an acclaimed academic, is a UK alum who received undergraduate and doctorate degrees in electrical engineering at the school.
In the 1990s he served as information technology program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon agency with a $3 billion budget dedicated to developing technologies for the military. “DARPA goes to great lengths to identify, recruit and support excellent program managers—extraordinary individuals who are at the top of their fields and are hungry for the opportunity to push the limits of their disciplines,” according to the agency’s website. “These leaders, who are at the very heart of DARPA’s history of success, come from academia, industry and government agencies for limited stints, generally three to five years.”
During a recent class, Minden told a foreign student who was using an online translation system on a cell phone that the student should “learn English,” according to a local newspaper report. The unidentified student evidently was not bothered over the suggestion, but others in the class were offended and an “hourlong discussion” ensued in the engineering class which focuses on embedded systems.
During the discussion things apparently got heated and many students in the class became very upset. The professor told the local newspaper that he’s “frustrated” over the incident but refused to comment further for obvious reasons. In the article a university spokeswoman said “a number of students have raised concerns about events that occurred in their engineering class. In response to these concerns, the university has assigned a different instructor to teach the course while the matter is reviewed.”
This is hardly an isolated case of political correctness at taxpayer-funded schools in the United States. Public elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges have taken an extreme leftist turn on several issues over the years and Judicial Watch has reported or taken legal action in several of the cases.
This includes exposing a Mexican separatist school that pushes Marxism and Anti-Americanism in Los Angeles, pervasive corruption in Chicago public schools and an after school Satan club in Washington State that received speedy tax-exempt approval from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Judicial Watch is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the Berkeley Unified School District in California to obtain the records of a middle school teacher who is a national organizer for a radical leftist group.
The teacher, Yvette Felarca, works at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School and is a prominent figure in By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), an organized militant group founded by the Marxist Revolutionary Workers League that uses raucous militant tactics to protest conservative speaking engagements. Felarca has been charged with several crimes, including felony assault, for inciting a riot in Sacramento.
A few years ago, Judicial Watch wrote about professors at a 54,000-student public university in south Florida that demanded the school protect illegal aliens by creating a “sanctuary campus.” The professors compared immigration enforcement to “fugitive slave laws.”
At the time students at colleges around the nation requested their undocumented classmates be protected, but the Florida professors blazed the trail as the first faculty members of an American taxpayer-funded establishment to officially call for campus-wide sanctuary in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidential election.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission.
The brutal, hate-filled slaughter of 50 Muslims in mosques in New Zealand garnered worldwide news coverage for days as the outrage was real and visceral. But the reaction belies a broader issue that is generally buried for ill-fitting the narrative: Muslims are not only extraordinarily safe in the United States, they are thriving.
First, it’s worth noting what some conservative sites have pointed out: While the world was rightly indignant over the New Zealand killings, the world and media seemed largely indifferent to the slaughter of three times that many Christians in one Africa country in a three-week period, or the 23 Christians killed by the Fulani, or the ongoing killing of Christians for being Christians around the globe — particularly by extremist Muslims. Here is an extensive example of that from The New American.
That is all true. Christianity is the most persecuted religion worldwide. Pretty much all agencies agree on that. There just isn’t much outrage as it is largely Islamist extremists doing the killing. Islamists kill even more fellow Muslims.
But there is another element to the difference in the coverage in New Zealand and in Africa, and some ears will not want to hear this: Killing people, particularly over religion or ideology, is wildly unacceptable in Christian and post-Christian countries in the West. It is far more accepted as just part of life in many other cultures, particularly Islamic countries. A lot of violent death can and does create a hardened acceptance.
Dutiful disclaimer: Islamists slaughtering the “wrong” kind of Muslims, along with any Christians and non-Muslims readily available to be killed, are not the majority of Muslims. In the West and particularly in the United States, violent Muslim extremists are a very, very small minority — perhaps the lowest in the world. But in some countries, from the Palestinian territories stretching through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and back to Egypt and Libya, extremists and Islamists are very sizable minorities by their own self-professed opinions.
So in those countries where attacks against civilians are accepted by between 8 percent and 20 percent of the population (and between 90 percent and 100 percent of the population is Muslim) the violence is more common and more accepted, if not actually desired.
That is not the case in the United States or New Zealand or other western Christian or post-Christian countries. And it is far more rare. Despite all the blather about the rise of Islamophobia in the United States, more mass attacks are carried out by Islamists in the name of Islam than against Muslims. Far more.
Further, the United States is one of the safest countries, perhaps the absolute safest country, in the world to be Muslim and practice Islam.
In a report that came out last September by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change tracking the roots, spread and effects of violent Islamist extremism, researchers found that 121 terrorist groups sharing portions of an ideological form of Islam are now operating around the globe. Their deadly actions in 2017 alone resulted in the deaths of 84,000 people — about 22,000 of them civilians — in 66 countries.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in September that Islamist extremism is “global and growing,” adding that it “didn’t begin with al Qaeda; nor will it end with the defeat of ISIS.”
The “Global Extremist Monitor,” which was produced by Blair’s non-profit, used hundreds of news sources that reported on incidents of violent extremism in 2017. According to a CBS News report from the time:
“There were a total of 7,841 attacks – an average of 21 per day –in 48 countries, it said, with war-torn Syria topping the list of countries most affected by violent extremism. Overall, Muslims were the most frequent victims of deadly attacks. Twenty-nine violent Islamist groups were actively engaged in conflict in Syria in 2017, the report said, with ISIS responsible for 44 percent of all attacks. Half of all civilian fatalities recorded globally were documented in Syria.”
In a National Geographic article by a Muslim who is an NPR correspondent covering race and diversity (politics are more than obvious) we see that despite the best attempts to paint America as bigoted, Muslims that are not activists largely don’t think it is a big problem. The article, “How Muslims, Often Misunderstood, Are Thriving in America,” talked to a lot of Muslims around the country. Here is a tidbit:
“That’s what Musa loves about being Muslim in America: The rights of expression and worship are protected. Here, he says, he can choose to be the kind of person, the kind of American, the kind of Muslim he wants to be. He points to his shelves at his rustic home on a sheep farm. They’re filled with books written by Shiite and Sunni scholars, reflecting the many schools of thought under those two main Islamic sects. “This is the place to be a Muslim, scholarship without intervention,” he says. “In Malaysia I could go to jail because I have Shiite literature in my house, and in Malaysia that’s the equivalent of being a commie in America.””
So despite the hand-wringing by the media, Democrats and some Muslim activists, such as CAIR, the U.S. is not only one of the safest countries in the world to be a Muslim, but Muslims may also thrive here more than any other place when including overall freedoms and economic opportunities — all of which probably explains why the percentage of Islamists among American Muslims is so low.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.
Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considering suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time.
Like other mainstream publications, Roll Call regularly stoops to citing the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for labeling “hate” groups. One recent such article was titled “Among the ‘Jewish groups’ Trump cites, one with neo-Nazi ties.” The author had worked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and this was clearly part of Democrats’ effort to cover Pelosi and derail criticisms of Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitism.
I work with both of the “hate” groups named in the article, the Center for Security Policy and ACT for America. SPLC’s characterization of them is fraudulent, like most of what it does. It is thus little surprise to anyone who knows anything that SPLC recently jettisoned founder Morris Dees over accusations of racism and sexual assault.
Despite years of takedowns of SPLC’s business model from both sides of the aisle, major media companies such as Amazon, PayPal, Twitter, the Washington Post, Facebook, Google, The New York Times, and more cite them and use their determinations for business decisions such as Amazon’s nonprofit donations program. When will this ever end? How many lawsuits and lies will it take?
ACT does not now, nor did it ever have, ties to any “neo-Nazi.” Both ACT and the Center are long-established organizations whose leaders and scholars seek to inform and warn America about the subversive goals of Islamic radical groups in the United States, not everyday Muslims. Everyday Muslims are often as much the victims as others.
Most of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are either Muslim Brotherhood (MB) fronts or tied to the Deobandi movement of South Asia (which also has ties to MB). Both are aggressive, subversive organizations that engage in terrorism throughout the world.
In the United States they generally use subversion as a more effective strategy, and have insinuated their allies and agendas into the U.S. government, media, Hollywood, public schools and universities. This is helping encourage the recent rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.
They also engage in terrorism. The 2015 San Bernardino, California attack that killed 14 and wounded 22 was carried out by followers of Deobandi. Terrorists of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas attack and murder Israeli Jews and even Arabs on an almost daily basis in the West Bank, and—note to border wall opponents—in Israel proper before Israel built its wall.
CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, and only avoided trouble because the Obama Justice Department under Eric Holder discontinued prosecutions of organizations named in the case. CAIR is also a subversive wrecking bar against the U.S. Constitution, conducting nonstop lawfare against America. CAIR’s Chicago branch—one of 27 in the United States—brags a tally of more than 5,200 lawsuits against U.S. governments.
Many of the “hate” groups on SPLC’s list are simply those it disagrees with politically. Rather than engage in legitimate debate, the SPLC seeks to destroy its political enemies with defamatory smear tactics. The Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin advocated this strategy, saying, “We must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion and scorn among the working class toward those who disagree with us.”
Frankfurt School Communist Herbert Marcuse developed that idea into what came to be known as “partisan tolerance”: tolerance only of leftist ideas, individuals, and groups, and a wholesale effort to discredit and silence opponents. Marcuse and other Communists worked closely for years with SPLC co-founder Julian Bond.
The SPLC regularly consorts with Communist organizations. In his pamphlet, “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky advocated the tactic of accusing opponents of hate, but SPLC was the first to institutionalize it. It has since spread far and wide, in media, universities, Hollywood, and in mindless chants of leftist protesters. Apparently now it reaches even into the editorial staff of Roll Call.
The SPLC never criticizes even the vilest leftist groups. For example, Antifa, which uses violence and increasingly expresses vitriolic, obscenity-laced hate and anti-Semitism, earns no criticism or “hate” designation from SPLC. Instead, the SPLC defends groups like Antifa against the big, bad Proud Boys!
When Occupy Wall Street Black Bloc activists attempted to bomb a bridge in Ohio and blow up the GOP convention in 2012, SPLC was asked why Black Bloc was not listed among its “hate” groups. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left” was the lame response.
The oldest Muslim Brotherhood front is the Muslim Students Association. It is responsible (along with the left) for the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It never gets a mention by the SPLC.
There are countless other examples. The SPLC has singled out and destroyed numerous individuals and organizations using these smear tactics. It is a form of political terrorism.
SPLC lost a $3.5 million lawsuit last year against Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim the SPLC labeled an “extremist,” because he spoke out against Islamic extremism and terrorism. You literally can’t make this stuff up.
Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considered suing the SPLC for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time. Thousands more could join in. It should be stripped of its 501(c)3 “nonpartisan” tax-exempt status and sued into penury. A dedicated prosecutor could easily make a claim that they are a continuing criminal enterprise and seize their assets under racketeering statutes.
The SPLC shows its extreme partisanship every day. Even liberals like Dana Milbank, Alexander Cockburn, and Stephen Bright have labeled the SPLC a fraud. It spends more than 20 percent of its income on fundraising and has amassed almost half a billion dollars in assets, some of which is squirreled away in overseas accounts.
Less than half of its revenues last year were needed to cover expenses, while its overtly socialist executives earn very capitalist salaries, and live like kings. Must be nice to be such conscious-free hypocrites.
The Roll Call article cast both ACT and the Center as “hawks” on national defense, as if that were somehow further evidence of bigotry or some other evil. That is idiotic, but “hawks” isn’t even applicable.
The Center for Security Policy staff, for example, includes former CIA officers, military and law enforcement specialists, and other national defense experts. These people take positions based on a careful evaluation of each situation, not some knee jerk “hawk” response to everything. The only knee-jerk reactions seem to be coming from the pages of Roll Call and other mainstream outlets that continue to give the SPLC credibility, like Facebook and The New York Times.
It is tragic that large outlets like these have joined the ranks of leftist smear merchants who have reduced political discourse in the United States to little more than infantile name-calling. The SPLC is one of the nastiest hate groups on the planet. It deliberately provokes division and anger in America on a daily basis to advance its extreme left agenda and rake in millions in donations.
Roll Call, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the others need to drop the SPLC as a consultant on “hate” groups, but since they are all of the same stripe, they probably won’t.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist. It is republished with permission.
After losing the 2016 Presidential Election, the inner circle of the United States government known as ‘Deep State’ has been pursuing a disinformation campaign at the highest level in order to take down, at any cost, the current duly elected President of the United States.
The premise is built around the allegation that Trump, and those surrounding him, colluded with Russia to win the election.
At an estimated cost of $25 million, the Special Prosecutor has mulled over millions of pages of documents, investigated hundreds of key people and is about to wind up its investigation. There is much speculation that Robert Mueller’s team will come up empty handed on Russian collusion, unless they look at the Democratic side of the political divide in America.
But undoubtedly the Russians, or more precisely the former Soviet Union, have impacted the American psyche and are winning the disinformation campaign they launched over fifty years ago against both the United States and Israel.
Unfortunately, this disinformation campaign is being conducted by Americans against Americans. In doing so, they are doing the Soviet’s bidding.
When you hear the new radicals of the Democratic Party bang on against their own country and its leaders, when they adopt the propaganda of radical regimes, when we hear allegations against Israel couched in anti-Semitic terms, you can be sure that they are ideologically colluding with the ghost of the old Soviet KGB.
To quote former KGB chairman, Yuri Andropov, in a conversation he had with General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the former Soviet Union to the United States in 1978.
“We could nurture a virulent strain of American-hatred, grown from the bacteria of Marxist-Leninist thought…We have only to keep repeating our themes that the United States and Israel were ‘fascist, Imperial-Zionist countries bankrolled by rich Jews.”
Andropov went on to say, “Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel’s occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our characterization of the US Congress as a rapacious Zionist body aiming to turn the world into a Jewish fiefdom.”
Who can say that what we are hearing from Ilhan Omar and others do not accurately reflect the KGB playbook from way back in the 1960’s?
This is the emerging dialogue being heard in the US Congress.
This is the indoctrination coming out of American campuses. It is the language we are beginning to hear from the new graduates of the campus industry of Soviet-style indoctrination, graduates that are emerging as the new generation influence and opinion makers.
It began in the early 1960’s after the Arab armies failed to destroy Israel. The Communist Soviet Union entrusted the KGB to embark on a global campaign to destabilize the United States and Israel through propaganda and terrorism.
The KGB was heavily involved in support of wars of national liberation in the Third World in order to disrupt the influence of the United States. The KGB relied heavily of their intelligence service not only to spy on their adversaries, but also to train their selected candidates in the arts of destabilization through disinformation and the skills of terrorism.
Many leading Cuban, African, and Palestinian revolutionaries were brought to the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This ivy league campus was the finishing school for top terrorists, including Arabs who would promote the Palestinian agenda to chip away at the legitimacy of Israel and eventually replace it. Yasser Arafat was there. He came as an Egyptian from Cairo and left as a Palestinian revolutionary. Mahmoud Abbas was trained in Moscow and left as a KGB spy, known as ‘Krotov” in Damascus. The notorious Ali Hassan Salameh graduated from the KGB school at Patrice Lumumba University as head of the Black September Palestinian terror group to supervise the Olympic Games massacre of the Israeli athletes. Overly ambitious, Salameh, with the strategic help of the KGB, almost succeeded in bringing down the plane carrying Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, over Rome Airport. He was eventually tracked down and killed by the Israeli Mossad in Beirut.
An integral part of the Soviet disinformation campaign in support of the Palestinian cause was to use language against Israel that we are familiar with today.
As part of the Cold War between the United States and Russia, the Soviet Union brought a 1965 United Nations resolution condemning Zionism as “colonialist and racist” to deflect from the international attention it was getting over the plight of Soviet Jews who wished to leave for Israel. At that time, the Soviet Union was under pressure from the United States in the UN Security Council over their support for Syrian border clashes with Israel.
The Soviet resolution failed, but the KGB persisted and, with the help of the Arab and Islamic bloc then under the Soviet influence, the United Nations General Assembly proposed a second anti-Israel resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. UN Resolution 3379 was passed in November 1975. It took until December 1991 for this fraudulent resolution to be revoked.
The Palestinians were well trained by the Soviet KGB. In every conflict, the Palestinians have sided with America’s enemies.
In the early 70’s, the KGB launched Operation SIG, an international smearing campaign to fan the flames of Arab resentment against the United States and Jews represented by Israel. It was launched in the Arab world to falsely portray America as an imperialist Jewish fiefdom financed by Jewish money and run by Jewish politicians with the aim of America and the Zionists subordinating the Islamic world. The KGB sent four thousand agents into Middle East to spread their anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda campaign.
All this was disclosed by Ion Mihai Pacepa. Pacepa recalls a conversation in which the KGB chief, Andropov, said,
“We need to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world and turn this weapon of emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American-Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe”
Surely the echoes of this threat are alive and growing on the campuses of America, on the streets of America in pro-Palestinian (read ‘anti-Israel’) rallies, and, more worryingly, in the halls of Congress where CAIR, the NGO with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, have been emboldened by the introduction of their candidates to positions of power as high as the US Foreign Affairs Committee.
You can hear it in statements such as “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
The old Soviet KGB campaign is alive and revived in the current US Congress.
Nothing effective has been done to counter this surge of anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ideology which is wrapped up and protected under the brand of intersectionality politics making it impenetrable to any form of criticism by intimidation campaigns that carry the same Soviet-style accusations of racism and oppression of minorities.
One thing is certain. The enemies of traditional American values and Israel feel they have the tailwind to progress their agenda and to fundamentally change political thinking and policy within the United States government.
And it will be done by following the old Soviet-KGB propaganda playbook.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The View From Israel. It is republished with permission.
The Center for Security Policy hosted a panel at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) titled “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security.”
Speakers included Center President Fred Fleitz, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz of the National Council of Young Israel, Dan Pollak of the Zionist Organization of America and investigative journalist and author James Simpson.
During his opening remarks Fleitz noted that, “There is an effort right now to dress up supposed criticisms of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu as just criticisms of their policies, that there’s nothing against the state of Israel. This is not right. This is repackaged anti-Semitism. It is repackaged Israel hatred to delegitimize the state of Israel and the state of Israel’s very right to exist.”
He said that, “The point that I want this panel to make is that anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel is soaring on the left and this is a real danger for this country.”
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) noted that the U.S. reaps tangible benefits from its relationship with Israel. Citing an example from his own experience, he said that when he served as an Apache helicopter pilot he utilized Israeli-developed technology.
The Pennsylvania Congressman said that “there’s one democratic nation in the Middle East that believes in Western values, and it’s Israel.” He described the Jewish State as a “little oasis of freedom” in the region.
During his remarks, Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz stated:
From my perspective the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people in this country is the liberal progressive Jewish community. I think that what they’ve done is that they’ve replaced Judaism with liberal progressivism. It’s become practically speaking a religion for them,” he explained, saying that “in order to push forward their liberal progressive agenda, they are willing to throw Israel under the bus.
Watch a recording of the event below:
Suit alleges Bp. Michael Bransfield knowingly employed ‘credibly accused pedophiles’
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (ChurchMilitant.com) – In an unprecedented legal move, the state of West Virginia has filed suit against Catholic authorities over sex abuse cover-up.
On Tuesday, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a civil action against the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and its disgraced former bishop, Michael J. Bransfield, for allegedly “deceiving consumers and claiming their schools were safe when they were employing credibly accused pedophiles.”
Diocesan officials are accused of violating West Virginia consumer protection laws by marketing Catholic schools as safe for children even as they “chose to cover up and conceal arguably criminal behavior of child sexual abuse.”
The announcement follows six months of investigation into whether “Catholic priests who were active or had been employed in West Virginia had been accused of sexually abusing children.”
Morrisey launched the inquiry in September after the Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that 301 priests — including one who had worked in Wheeling-Charleston — were responsible for abusing more than 1,000 children across the Keystone State.
The suit notes that “although the state has not fully completed its investigation” — which it blamed in part on “the lack of cooperation from the Diocese” — justice officials have learned that Wheeling-Charleston “has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose to consumers of its educational and recreational services that it employed priests and laity who have sexually abused children, including an admitted abuser who the Diocese nevertheless allowed to work in a Catholic elementary school.”
According to the lawsuit, Wheeling-Charleston officials “knew of sexual abuse complaints against priests of the Diocese, but, did not disclose the conduct to criminal law authorities or to parents paying for educational or recreational services.”
The complaint alleges, for example, that after confessing to homosexually abusing a student at St. Joseph Preparatory Seminary High School in Vienna, Fr. Patrick Condron was sent away for “evaluation and treatment” at two different facilities. After these stints away, without notifying parents, the diocese reassigned Fr. Condron to Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, where he worked from 1998 to 2001.
“Parents who pay and entrust the Wheeling-Charleston Diocese and its schools to educate and care for their children deserve full transparency,” Morrisey said Tuesday. “Our investigation reveals a serious need for the diocese to enact policy changes that will better protect children, just as this lawsuit demonstrates our resolve to pursue every avenue to effectuate change as no one is above the law.”
Observers are suggesting West Virginia’s action could set a new precedent for combating clerical sex abuse.
“This is the most that we’ve seen so far in terms of prosecution, in terms of someone in the higher levels of the hierarchy,” said Marci Hamilton of CHILD USA. “This is the first time we’ve seen a comprehensive claim against a whole diocese and a bishop.”
Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in a barrage of bad news for Bp. Bransfield, who in September resigned in disgrace amid credible allegations he sexually harassed adult males.
After investigating the accusations, last week, Baltimore Abp. William Lori, apostolic administrator of Wheeling-Charleston, declared that Bransfield can no longer exercise his priestly function.
Bransfield is also being scrutinized over his close association with serial sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. The former West Virginia bishop was consecrated by McCarrick in 2005 and later served as president of the board of trustees for the Papal Foundation, a multi-million-dollar enterprise co-founded by McCarrick and wracked by scandal over its questionable grant making practices.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission.
It appears that in “tolerant” England there is a serious clash of cultures arising. Multicultural Great Britain created and funded the No Outsiders Project. According to the UK’s Economic and Research Council:
This [No Outsiders project] is a 28-month project (September 2006 to December 2008), supporting primary teachers in developing strategies to address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in their own schools and classrooms.
The goals of the No Outsiders project are:
The No Outsiders “inclusion” classes are now being taught throughout Great Britain.
The three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all believe sodomy is a sin. Ash-Shura 25:165-166 states:
Do you approach males among the worlds (165). And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing.”(166)
Quran 4:16 reads, “And the two who commit it [sodomy] among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful.”
Who will win this argument in the end? The followers of Mohammed or those UK teachers of No Outsiders “inclusion”?
Intersectionality always hits a road block when two self-identified “oppressed minority groups” get into who’s the greater victim fight. So it is with the Muslim ummah and the LGBT community in Great Britain. In a BBC column titled “LGBT lessons row: More Birmingham schools stop classes“
Four more schools in Birmingham have stopped teaching about LGBT rights following complaints by parents.
Leigh Trust said it was suspending the No Outsiders programme until an agreement with parents was reached.
Earlier this month the city’s Parkfield Community School suspended the lessons after protests were held.
Campaigner Amir Ahmed said some Muslims felt “victimised” but an LGBT group leader said No Outsiders helped pupils understand it is OK to be different.
Watch this YouTube video “Muslim Parents Livid over LGBT Sex Education Lessons at their Children’s School“:
As parents begin to understand that their children are being indoctrinated on values that they find abhorrent we will see more of these kinds of programs dismantled. Religious beliefs trump sin every time.
At least 120 killed in recent attacks as deadly violence continues for over a year.
ABUJA, Nigeria (ChurchMilitant.com) – International news is nearly silent as Muslim militants continue killing Christians in Nigeria.
On March 11 alone, a string of attacks left 53 dead and 143 homes destroyed in the villages of Inkirimi and Dogonnoma in the Kajuru Local Government Area in Kaduna State, Nigeria.
Just a day before that, an attack on the village of Ungwan Barde killed 17 people and destroyed dozens of homes. One month prior, about 16 people had been killed in Ungwan Barde village in a series of attacks on Feb. 9 and 10.
The governor of Kaduna State imposed a curfew last week on the local government area owing to the deadly outbreak of violence.
On Feb. 26, some 32 Nigerian Christians were killed in the Maro district of the Kaduna State. The attackers burned down an evangelical church and shot people fleeing. This violence was also suspected to be the work of Fulani militants.
Local lawmakers say the recent attacks have displaced at least 3,000 locals, with many people’s homes destroyed and many others fleeing for safety.
In Benue State, Fulani attacks on several villages on March 4 left 23 dead.
Violence by Fulani militants in Nigeria exploded over a year ago. The Fulani are a majority-Muslim ethnic group, and many Fulani live as semi-nomadic herdsmen.
Christian communities in rural parts of Nigeria are commonly the victims of violence by Fulani militants.
In addition to the ethnic and religious differences, some trace the violence to changes in Nigerian law that made it harder for Fulani herdsmen to find land for their herds.
In November 2017, the Nigerian government banned herdsmen from having their livestock graze on other people’s property. The law was aimed at avoiding clashes between the Muslim herdsmen and Christian villagers — but the explosion of violence seems to prove that the policy change only escalated tensions.
Fulani gunmen in Benue State shot up a Catholic church during an early morning Mass in April 2018, killing two priests and about 15 laity. The priests’ deaths sparked protests in the weeks that followed, with Catholic clergy calling on the Nigerian government to better protect its citizens.
In May 2018, suspected Fulani militants attacked a Catholic seminary. Gunmen assailed two priests and a handful of seminarians at Sacred Heart Minor Seminary in Jalingo, the capital city of Taraba State in Nigeria. The attackers beat the priests with rods, shooting one of them in the leg, and did damage to an automobile and other property.
In June 2018, some Christians farmers allegedly attacked Fulani herdsmen. In the series of retaliatory attacks that followed, Fulani gunmen killed about 120 people in Plateau State in central Nigeria. There were apparently disputes regarding the exact body count; it could be as low as 86 people or as high as 200.
The outbreak of violent clashes with Fulani militants came just as Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram was on the decline in Nigeria. Government forces beat back the terror organization with significant help from overseas powers — including the United States.
Amid the Fulani violence, some Nigerians have laid blame on President Muhammadu Buhari, who is of Fulani descent.
Bishop William Amove Avenya of the diocese of Gboko in Benue State warned last year that Fulani violence could quickly become a full-fledged genocide against Christians in central Nigeria.
“Please don’t make the same mistake as was made with the genocide in Rwanda,” Bp. Avenya told Aid to the Church in Need in June last year. “It happened under our noses, but no one stopped it. And we know well how that ended.”
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission.
This meeting makes it clear that the Democrats are not going to be able to remove anti-Semitism from the party. Hatred of Jews and Israel, and uncritical acceptance of “Palestinian” jihad propaganda, is shared among too much of their base. And whenever they’re challenged, Omar and Tlaib claim victim status and cry “Islamophobia.” It has worked well for them so far, so expect much more of it.
“Dem Lawmakers Admit During Private Meeting They Don’t Know What Anti-Semitism Looks Like,” by Mikhael Smits, Washington Free Beacon, March 18, 2019:
A meeting of Democratic lawmakers about anti-Semitism in the party included anti-Semitic jokes and unapologetic members of Congress, the Washington Post reports.
In the wake of anti-Semitic comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and several closed-door conferences by Democrats to discuss related issues within the party, Rep. Andy Levin (D., Mich.), a former synagogue president, organized a meeting as “a more formal event that would focus on anti-Semitism.” The March 5 meeting of Muslim and Jewish lawmakers was a “moment meant to be about listening and learning” about the “raw experiences” of the elected officials, according to the Post….
During the meeting, some Democratic members “admitted they didn’t know what anti-Semitism looks like,” according to the Post.
To help manage the conversation, which was previously unreported, Levin invited Bend the Arc, a left-wing organization deeply critical of Israel and Republicans. In a recent tweet, the group called for Americans to “reject the Islamophobic policies our government is built on.”
When a Bend the Arc organizer in the room made a joke “about Jews and money,” Rep. Jahana Hayes (D., Conn.) questioned why the facilitator could talk like that when someone like Hayes could not. She later told the Post no one should be making comments of the sort.
“It’s not okay,” Hayes said when asked about the specific exchange. “These [sorts of jokes] are off-limits. It’s confusing for someone like me who is trying to learn.”
It took nearly two hours before a Democrat brought up the repeated anti-Semitism of Omar, the impetus for the entire conversation. The congresswoman, a member of the Progressive Caucus, has drawn scrutiny and condemnation since taking office in January for a series of anti-Semitic remarks.
Rep. Dean Phillips (D., Minn.), a Jew who represents a district neighboring Omar’s, told the room he considered her comments to be “tips of the arrow” of Jew hatred in America. According to “several participants” who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, Phillips asked Omar to apologize and “publicly affirm Israel’s right to exist and protect itself.”
Phillips’s request that Omar support the right of Jews to exist in the Jewish state and in the United States “stunned the three Muslim Democrats in the room.”
Omar did not reply to the Jewish member’s request. Instead, one of her allies responded by changing the subject to the Palestinians. Tlaib “grew emotional and started to cry as she spoke of her grandmother’s suffering in the West Bank at the hands of Israelis,” according to the Post….
Tlaib defended Omar then, too. She claimed calls for Omar to leave the House Foreign Affairs Committee were a form of “Islamophobia,” not a proper response to anti-Semitism. Likewise, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) defended Omar, claiming the outrage, much of it voiced by American Jews, was really a scheme “designed to prevent us from taking on the question of our foreign policy toward Israel.”…
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.
“We’re at war,” one frustrated Californian wrote to her local paper. “Not with another country, not with terrible diseases and plagues, not with ruthless dictators. We are at war with ourselves.” Red, blue, purple — America is a tangle of ideologies all pulling in different directions. These days, as the debates rage on, the map no longer seems to show state lines — but ideological battle lines.
It’s not as if Americans have always seen eye to eye on every issue. But the days of even general consensus seem lost. Things that we used to take for granted — values like common decency and civility — are suddenly rare. Issues that were once uncontested — the value of a fully born human life — are suddenly grounds for fierce debate. In the states, the see-saw battles are even more pronounced.
In Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island, locals have watched leaders fight to make newborn killing legal — while Missouri, North Carolina, and Arkansas try to stop doctors from dismembering babies in the womb. In one state, legal infanticide is a street party. In another, it’s a cause for community mourning. And it’s not just abortion. On education, sexuality, gender identity, immigration, and counseling, the gulfs are growing.
But how people think about the issues is just one part of the divide. “According to Pew Research, there are no issues that are widely considered top priorities by both Democrats and Republicans today. The average partisan gap between the parties’ rankings of priority issues in 2019 is 19 points, representing a 36 percent increase over the last two decades… Even as recently as 2014, the top priorities of Democrats and Republicans were much more aligned than they are today.”
There are profound differences in how the two sides view the world today. Not since slavery has there been such a stark contrast between the ideologies of the states. America survived, but barely. Of course, the silver lining is that things can shift quickly. We’ve seen entire scripts flip on abortion after the New York law. In a matter of weeks, the number of people calling themselves “pro-life” jumped by 17 points. Change is possible — but it’s also up to us.
As William Penn once said, “Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them… and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too… Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad.”
If we want good government, we need good people in it. We can’t have morally strong policies if the character of our leaders is weak. It’s time for Americans — and the church in particular — to step up in ways they haven’t before. One view is ultimately going to prevail. If we want it to be the view that our founders held, that we “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then we have to step forward and advance those core American and biblical values.
We can’t put the nation on cruise control or think someone else will take care of it. We have to be engaged — from the school board and city council right up to Congress. Make sure you’re supporting solid candidates — or prayerfully consider becoming one. The future of the country depends on it.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.
Readers will recall that several weeks ago, I began a series of comparative analyses between our hard-pressed IISS and the well-heeled INSS, highlighting the huge imbalance in the resources that we each have at our disposal to advance our respective agendas.
But the difference is not only in the massive imbalance in resources but in the substance of the countervailing policy paradigms that each institute endorses.
To help redress this imbalance, click HERE to make a donation.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with The Israel Connexion podcast is republished with permission.