Trump Unveils Plan To Win Back White House And Congress In Speech Before Key RNC Donors

Ground Zero for the GOP is Mar-a-Lago. President Trump will play a significant role in the Republican Party taking back Congress in 2022. However, President Trump must support the alternative social media platforms to counter the massive censorship from the mainstream social sites. President Trump must bring his 200 million social media followers to the alternative social sites, or the GOP may not be able to win anything. No matter who is running.

Trump Unveils Plan To Win Back White House And Congress In Speech Before Key RNC Donors

By Maga Conservatives, April 10, 2021

Former President Trump will make his first big political speech since leaving office and will give the keynote address to a critical Republican National Committee gathering tonight in Florida. The event will be held at Mar-a-Lago.

Fox News saw an advance copy of Trump’s prepared remarks and are reporting he will lay out a plan to big GOP donors on how to take back the White House and Congress during the next two elections.

Trump will tell the donors that if Republicans stick to an “America First” agenda, one that proved so popular across all demographic groups over the last four years, the GOP will win back Congress in 2022 and take back the White House in 2024.

Trump will also take a few swipes at Joe and Kamala and will highlight other issues facing the country like cancel culture, proposed gun restrictions, and the record-breaking surge of migrants attempting to cross the southern border.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, told Fox News:

“Saturday’s speech will be welcomed words to the Republican donors visiting Mar-a-Lago to hear directly from President Trump.

“Palm Beach is the new political power center, and President Trump is the Republican Party’s best messenger.”

“I stand before you this evening filled with confidence that in 2022, we are going to take back the House and we are going to reclaim the Senate–and then in 2024, a Republican candidate is going to win the White House,” Trump will say according to Fox.

“Illegal Border crossings are now higher than at any point since 2006,” Trump says. “On this issue alone, we can win the House, the Senate, and the White House.

“It is one of the greatest self-inflicted disasters anywhere in the world.

“By putting radical open borders liberal Kamala Harris in charge of border security, Joe Biden sent a resounding message to every migrant on earth that America’s borders are now wide open for trespassing,” Trump will say.

Former President Trump will address a Republican National Committee soiree at Mar-a-Lago for hundreds of top donors Saturday night, sources said.

“These are all donors in the hundreds of thousands level” said the source, who is familiar with the event’s planning.

The party dropped more than $100,000 on the banquet, the Washington Post reported.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will deliver remarks during a cocktail hour, followed by RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. Trump, who has been living at his Florida resort since leaving the White House in January, will take the podium around 7 pm.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: Mark Meadows: ‘Better than 50-50’ chance Trump runs again

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Indiana Democrat Malik Muhammad Indicted for Attempted Murder During 2020 Summer Insurrection Riots In Portland

No media coverage from the Ministry of Propaganda, of course.

Indiana man indicted for attempted murder during 2020 Summer riots in downtown Portland

By: FOX 12 Staff, Apr 5, 2021

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – A 24-year-old Indiana man was indicted on Monday for attempting to murder Portland Police Bureau officers by using explosive devices during the 2020 riots in downtown Portland.

According to court documents, Malik Muhammed had allegedly traveled to Portland in September to engage “in multiple criminal acts” and then returned to Indiana.

The incidents include:

Sept. 5, Muhammed engaged in tumultuous and violent conduct near the Portland Police Bureau’s East Precinct, resulting in a grave risk of causing public alarm.

Sept. 21, Muhammed threw a “large burning object” toward a PPB sergeant’s patrol car during a protest near the Penumbra Kelly Building. Police described the object as a large yellow bottle similar to a beer growler filled with liquid and stuffed with a rag. The device didn’t explode. Officers found a price tag that helped them find out where the bottle was purchased. Surveillance video from the store shows Muhammed and another person buying a large number of bats and beer growlers, including two yellow ones.

On Sept. 23, Muhammed threw a large yellow bottle similar to the beer growler toward a group of officers outside the Multnomah County Justice Center. When the bottle landed, it exploded and a large fireball cascaded outward. One officer’s lower leg caught fire for a moment.

According to court documents, officers searched Muhammed’s cell phone and found a list of a shopping list that included common ingredients used to make a Molotov cocktail.

Oct. 11, Muhammed used a metal baton to smash out windows at the Oregon Historical Society, Portland State University, Sprint T-Mobile, Bank of America and Ben Bridge Jewelers. He was arrested, and a loaded pistol magazine was found in his pocket. The gun was found nearby. In total, the pistol and magazine contained 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

An indictment was filed on March 22 that charged Muhammed with:

Two counts of second-degree attempted aggravated murder
Two counts of first-degree attempted assault
Four counts of first-degree attempted murder
Two counts of second-degree attempted murder
Six counts of first-degree criminal mischief
Four counts of riot
Two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device
Two counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device
One count of unlawful possession of a firearm
One count of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm
Two counts of unlawful use of a weapon

On Friday, Muhammed was arrested in Indianapolis on multiple warrants, including attempted aggravated murder, first-degree attempted murder, second-degree attempted murder, unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in public.

He remains at an Indiana Jail.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Unveils Plan To Win Back White House And Congress In Speech Before Key RNC Donors

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

VIDEO: Mike Lindell Not Giving Up, New Documentary Shows How They Stole the Presidency

Mike Lindell TV Releases Irrefutable Election Theft Proof on New Television Special That Features World Renowned Physicist

Watch here.

If you watched Absolute Proof  back in February, you will be blown away with Lindell’s latest.

He is truly an amazing man because he continues to fight to prove that the 2020 Election Steal is the biggest cyber crime in world history, and in the face of lawsuits and efforts to kill his business, he fights on.

Everyone must take an hour today to watch his latest and spread it far and wide.

And, then your job is to be as brave as he is and figure out what you can do where you live to expose election fraud.

On election night President Trump was winning by a larger margin than the enemy had predicted. So they went to work changing computer algorithms that had been originally set to steal the election at a different number of ballots, thus the strange anomalies that we saw in key swing states.

But, it is important to note that Lindell and his guest believe the fraud was more widespread than in just the swing states.

I’m heading on over right now to My Pillow and do some shopping.

Use the TGP code and help Gateway Pundit which is exposing more voter fraud on an almost daily basis.

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

4 Reasons Gun Control Can’t Solve America’s Violence Problem

These 4 underlying sociological problems, not guns, are the key drivers of American violence.


The gun-control paradigm—the idea that the solution to American violence is more laws restricting guns—is unhelpful.

Gun control doesn’t work. Indeed, any statistical connection between gun policy and violence is tenuous. But even if gun control was effective, it would still be flawed.

Gun control burdens the free exercise of the constitutionally-protected Second Amendment right to bear arms, so it’s subject to compelling legal challenges and is flatly rejected by many Americans. In addition, the enforcement of stringent gun control invariably inflicts heavy burdens upon other civil liberties—especially in poorer communities and among marginalized populations.

Gun control’s coexistence with the values of a free society is, at best, an uneasy one. But it’s even less viable in the particular context of the United States. Consider the 400 million guns already in private circulation, plus the totally irreversible and ever-increasing ease of the self-manufacturing of firearms. No matter what laws are passed, widespread distribution and access to firearms are (and will remain) immutable facts of American life—especially for people who are willing to break laws.

In this context, it’s evident that gun control cannot solve the problem of violence in this country. The following four observations about American violence suggest some promising alternative paradigms.

If you visit the statistics page of the website for the anti-gun group Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, you’re immediately confronted with an enormous banner: “38,000 AMERICANS DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR—AN AVERAGE OF 100 PER DAY.” However, that banner omits the fact that most of those deaths are suicides. A report in the Harvard Political Review noted that suicides accounted for nearly two-thirds of 2019’s gun deaths.

If we meet gun control groups like Giffords on their own terms and accept the inclusive statistic of “gun deaths” as our metric, it’s clear that gun violence ought to be addressed primarily through a mental health and suicide-prevention paradigm.

Can gun control be part of a suicide prevention strategy?

It’s hard to see how. Virtually any sort of firearm would suffice to take one’s own life, as well as other means. So, there’s no hypothetical in which popular gun control proposals like an “assault weapons ban” or magazine capacity restriction would make a difference concerning suicide.

Moreover, gun control measures such as red flag laws that seek to deprive people of their guns on an ostensible mental-health basis can actually deter struggling people from seeking the help they need. In this sense, a gun-control approach to suicide prevention is not merely useless—it’s actually counterproductive.

There is an enormous literature on suicide prevention and the best ways to help people who are struggling with mental health issues. Discussions of different medications, cognitive therapies, wellness practices, and other measures are far beyond the scope of this article. But this is where our resources and efforts should be focused.

Attempting to stop suicide by imposing gun control is like trying to stop drunk driving by banning cars: it’s a completely implausible “solution” that elides the actual problem at hand.

The boogeyman of the gun control lobby is the proverbial “mass shooter,” some deranged, antisocial individual who carries a “military-style” rifle into an ostensibly safe place, like a school or grocery store, and indiscriminately slaughters innocent people. He often has hateful or bigoted motivations for this act.

While such shootings do happen, they are incredibly rare and account for a vanishingly small proportion of the homicides that the U.S. experiences in a given year. Per 2019 FBI data, just 2.6% of homicides are carried out using a rifle. In fact, clubs and bare fists are used to kill more people annually than rifles. And of the mass shootings that we do see, many are gang-related; concerning, but not wholly aligned with the gun control narrative.

Now, consider these facts: almost two-thirds of child murder victims are killed by their own parents. Nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by their partners or ex-partners.

And while it’s common knowledge that most victims of homicide are killed by someone they know, a surprisingly large proportion—perhaps as low as 1 in 8, but possibly as high as 1 in 5—are killed by an actual family member. Conservatively, a given homicide victim is about five times more likely to have been killed by a family member than killed with any sort of rifle.

The gun-control movement’s resources and efforts are overwhelmingly guided and driven by the “mass shooter” scenario, hence their fixation on policies like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions. But, even if such policies could be meaningfully enforced and implemented (they can’t), it’s hard to imagine those sorts of policies having much bearing on partner and familial violence.

The mass shooter fixation, and the gun fixation more broadly, is utterly unable to curb violence of this kind. Instead, resources and efforts would be much better spent addressing partner and familial violence. Organizations that help women to escape dangerous relationships or address other aspects of domestic violence are poised to do much more good than organizations with broad and quixotic disarmament missions.

The failure of the United States’ 20th century experiment with alcohol prohibition has been well-documented. But one unintended consequence of Prohibition was a dramatic increase in violence. Without access to legal means of resolving conflicts, people involved in the illicit alcohol business—for which there was a massive consumer demand—handled their disputes and protected their interests with gunfire.

While romanticized depictions of bootleggers and mobsters have made for entertaining fictional fare, the true story hardly evokes nostalgia. The nation’s homicide rate increased over 40% during Prohibition. The violence was especially pronounced in large cities, which experienced a homicide rate increase of nearly 80%. Even as more resources were directed to law enforcement, the rate of serious crimes soared and prisons overflowed. Had Prohibition been allowed to continue, the already-disastrous situation would likely have deteriorated even further.

Fortunately, Americans realized that the costs of Prohibition were too high. Repealing Prohibition was the clear solution. With the ratification of the 21st Amendment, the nation’s homicide rate dropped precipitously, falling to well below pre-Prohibition levels within just a few years.

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten the lessons of Prohibition. The War on Drugs, ostensibly fought to make our communities safer, has in fact made them more violent.

Noah Smith (who’s certainly no champion of gun rights), writing for The Atlanticobserved:

Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

In short: it’s Prohibition all over again. But the effects of Prohibition’s modern-day incarnation are even more insidious. After waging the Drug War for decades, we must also consider its secondary and tertiary consequences. As Thomas Eckert points out, the Drug War contributes to family disintegration, poverty, and gang recruitment.

These underlying sociological problems, not guns, are the key drivers of American violence.

Poverty and lack of opportunity are strongly associated with violence.

That’s fairly obvious if you simply look at the geographic and demographic distributions of violence in America, which I have previously explained. Academic research on the subject has come to the same conclusion. (See here and here). Despite being gun control advocates, these researchers understand that there are underlying sociological drivers of violence that transcend “guns” and warrant our attention.

To be sure, most people will readily accept that poverty and despair are associated with violence—that’s unsurprising. However, they may see the problem of poverty as impossibly vexing and intractable. Implementing stricter gun laws might seem more feasible by comparison, even if it doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Part of the appeal of gun control is the simplicity of its narrative.

But that’s a mistake. You may refer back to this breakdown to see why the “get rid of the guns, get rid of the gun violence” narrative is simplistic, not simple.

Moreover, there’s actually a lot that we can do to reduce poverty and create greater opportunity, and many of these measures have—or could plausibly attain—broad-based, bipartisan support. There are sound steps to be taken that are both feasible and meaningful. Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute presents a compelling array of such policy reforms in his book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor.

But regardless of whether you favor Tanner’s approach or some other, the essential point to recognize is that violence is largely a symptom of underlying social conditions. Gun control not only fails to fix but actually aggravates those conditions. Any critic of the “War on Drugs” should be able to see how a “War on Guns” has similar effects on individuals, families, and communities.

When speaking of reducing violence by building prosperity, it’s encouraging to know that we’ve already done it, to a very large degree. That’s an inescapable conclusion of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature. Now it’s up to us to make sure that that progress continues, especially on the margins of society where it’s most needed.

Gun control can’t solve our problems. Especially with the widespread adoption of 3D printing and other means of self-manufacture, gun control will increasingly be relegated to irrelevance. Gun control policies will burden only the upstanding citizens who, in good faith, try to abide by them, and are nonetheless ensnared. If we want to get serious about addressing violence in America, there are many more promising areas to focus on.

COLUMN BY

Mark Houser

Mark Houser is an independent researcher who writes about the right to bear arms and firearm policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Bans Your Gun Ads But Spends Millions On Zuckerberg Security

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

Why the Push Is On To Make Pandemic Life ‘Permanent’

One year after Americans were ordered to close down society for “two weeks to flatten the curve,” Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth warned, “We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic.”

Because new variants of SARS-COV-2 are impervious to existing vaccines, says Kluth, and pharmaceutical companies will never be able to develop new vaccines fast enough to keep up, we will never be able to get “back to normal.”

“Get back to normal” means recovering the relative liberty we had in our already overregulated, pre-Covid lives. This is just the latest in a long series of crises that always seem to lead our wise rulers to the same conclusion: we just cannot afford freedom anymore.

Covid-19 certainly wasn’t the beginning. Americans were told “the world changed” after 9/11. Basic pillars of the American system, like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, were too antiquated to deal with the “new threat of terrorism.” Warrantless surveillance of our phone, e-mail, and financial records and physical searches of our persons without probable cause of a crime became the norm. A few principled civil libertarians dissented, but the public largely complied without protest.

“Keep us safe,” they told the government, no matter the cost in dollars or liberty.

Perhaps seeing how willingly the public rolled over for the political right during the “War on Terror,” authoritarians on the left turbocharged their own war on “climate change.” Previously interested in merely significantly raising taxes and heavily regulating industry, they now wish to ban all sorts of things, including air travelgasoline-powered cars, and even eating meat.

Since Covid-19, however, even the freedom to assemble and see each other’s faces may be permanently banned to help the government “keep us safe.”

Assaulting our liberty isn’t the only characteristic these crisis narratives have in common. They share at least two others: dire predictions that turn out to be false and proposed solutions that turn out to be ineffective.

George W. Bush warned Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” capable of hitting New York City within 45 minutes. He created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to prevent, among other things, a “mushroom cloud” over a major American city.

Twenty years later, we know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the terrorist threat was grossly exaggerated, and the TSA has still never caught a terrorist, not even the two people who tried to set off explosives concealed in their shoes and underwear, respectively.

The only effective deterrent of terrorism so far has been the relatively calmer foreign policy during the four years of the Trump administration, during which regime change operations ceased and major terrorist attacks in the United States virtually disappeared.

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have similarly proven false. Younger people may not remember that in the early 1970s, long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born, environmentalists were predicting worldwide disasters that subsequently failed to materialize. In 1989, the Associated Press reported, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The same official predicted the Earth’s temperature would rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.

Ocasio-Cortez is famous for predicting in 2019, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” But Al Gore had warned in 2006 that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” So, isn’t it too late anyway?

As with the war on terrorism, the war on climate change asks us to give up our freedom for solutions that don’t work. Assuming climate change proponents have diagnosed the problem correctly and haven’t exaggerated the threat—huge assumptions by themselves— implementing their proposed solution won’t solve the problem, even by their own standards.

Its proponents know this. The U.S. has already led the world in reducing carbon emissions without the draconian provisions of the Green New Deal. If you listen to them carefully, the Green New Deal’s proponents propose the U.S. give up what freedom and prosperity remain to them merely as an example to developing nations, whom they assume will forego the benefits of industrialization already enjoyed by developed countries because of the shining example of an America in chains and brought to its economic knees to “save the earth.”

Fat chance, that.

The latest remake of this horror movie is Covid-19. While undeniably a serious pathogen that has likely killed more people than even the worst flu epidemics of the past several decades (although this is hard to confirm since public health officials changed the methodology for determining a virus-caused death), the government and its minions have still managed to grossly exaggerate this threat.

Gone is any sense of proportion when discussing Covid-19. Yes, it is certainly possible to spread the virus after one has been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity. But how likely is it? Is it any more likely than spreading other pathogens after immunity?

If not, then why are we treating people with immunity differently than we have during more dangerous pandemics in the past? Similarly, it is likely possible for asymptomatic people to spread the virus—a key pillar of the lockdown argument—but again, how likely is it?

The theory Covid-19 could be spread by asymptomatic people was originally based on the case of a single woman who supposedly infected four other people while experiencing no symptoms. Anthony Fauci said this case “lays the question to rest.”

The only problem was no one had asked the woman in question if she had symptoms at the time. When it turned out she did, the study on her was retracted. A subsequent study “did not link any COVID-19 cases to asymptomatic carriers,” and yet another after that concluded transmission of the disease by asymptomatic carriers “is not a major driver of spread.” Yet, policies based on this falsehood, like lockdowns and forcing asymptomatic people to wear masks, remain in place.

Most importantly, none of the government-mandated Covid-19 mitigation policies work. No retrospective review conducted with any semblance of the scientific method has found a relationship between lockdowns, mask mandates, or social distancing and the spread of Covid-19. In fact, the most recent study suggests lockdowns may have increased Covid-19 infections, in addition to all the non-Covid excess deaths they caused.

Over and over, authoritarians overhype crises to scare the living daylights out of the public and propose solutions that have two things in common: they demand more of our freedom and they don’t work. It’s always all pain and no gain. One wonders how many repetitions of this crisis drill it will take before the citizens of the so-called “land of the free” finally think to ask:

Why is freedom always the problem?

This article was republished with permission.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

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

Epilogue to a Friendship

I had been invited to lunch with an old friend with whom there is no more common ground. Despite all my efforts to explain that I will no longer be censored, she extends yet another invitation, cannot address specific issues, uses words without substance, and remains in her “safe space.” Such is the mindset of the left.


I could not overlook the sincerity of her many overtures for lunch and renewed friendship, which is why I decided to write at length – not only as a courtesy but to lay bare our crucial differences. She believed we could maintain a friendship despite our ideas, and I didn’t see that possibility. She votes for the destruction of my country, for a sellout to China, to welcome losing our individual freedoms, and for the numerous hate-spewing antisemites that the democrats (Pelosi, et al) put into powerful positions, the most renowned being Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC.

Her actions changed our schools, encouraged the terribly divisive Critical Race Theory that boosts a deleterious racial divide, the over-sexualization of our kindergarteners, and a sickness of transgenderism whose consequences are horrific mutilation, regret, and increasing suicides. While I supposed her daughter’s son is secure in a special school (although I cautioned of past dangers to the disabled/handicapped), I was surprised to learn that her son’s children are homeschooled. Hence, she has no concerns about all other children in our country, their indoctrination against America and our founding principles. Did she know her grandchildren may face grave danger because of accusations of “white supremacy,” and today’s curricula, where students learn that inferior whites are the source of every affliction and inequity? The darker-skinned children are thus infused with a false sense of victimhood and rage, with a defeatism that actually decreases their morale, their motivation, and their chances to thrive. Hiring decisions are now based on skin color, not merit, and white farmers have just been banned from the federal COVID relief program because of their complexion; their toil, expenses, equal suffering due to blight, climate and coronavirus are annulled. The ideology of the left damages everyone.

I reminded her that her vote went to financing Antifa and the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement, so that they might loot businesses, damage private property, topple monuments, ruin entire neighborhoods, harm residents, and work to defund the police so that their destruction might continue unconstrained. Her vote is partly responsible for Biden’s increased taxation to provide for migrants’ care, food, clothing, and even one-on-one schooling by teachers who refused to teach our children in public schools! Her views are destroying our economy, and we will soon live and die as those in Russia, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. Rush Limbaugh said, “No nation has ever been taxed into prosperity.” My friend and her husband always seemed so bright, but how could I maintain a friendship with the enemy of my country? I had a lump in my throat now that my thoughts, once random, were taking shape in the printed word.

Although she said she respected my views, she invariably stifled them. She had a knack for deftly switching subjects before I knew what hit me. She alibied her views as complex and nuanced, but these are vagaries and evasion, not even euphemisms, but empty, meaningless syllables. I granted she was not a weapon-wielding radical, but she empowered others to do her dirty work. There is no middle ground: one is either for us or against us.

I believe that she never admitted her true allegiance because she subconsciously knew it was immoral – and anti-patriotic. Whatever she favors – socialism/communism, or fascism/Nazism, or globalism, or Islam – it is not Americanism but a totalitarian ideology that endangers us all. The common German who turned his Jewish neighbor over to the Gestapo also suffered during the war, if not by torture, then from fear, starvation, bombings and loss of loved ones. Even the American traitor will eventually succumb to America’s future.

Votes that put President Trump into office resulted in four years of increased freedom, the ability to thrive as far as our intellect and energy allowed, whereas Obama/Soros/Biden is already leading to our subjugation to despots. I could never look this woman in the eye amid our collapsing world. When the first illegal alien was permitted entry, raped and murdered one of our own, spread some disease among the population, I would recognize that her actions had contributed. When this administration continues to provide trillions of dollars to foreign entities while our own citizens live on the streets, I’ll understand that she bore no remorse. When AOC’s Green New Deal destroys a major food source – cattle for beef and dairy products – I would remember who put her into office. When our government again remunerates Palestinians to kill Israelis, I would remember who directed my income to kill my kin. When Bill Gates continues to buy and neglect agricultural land to thwart food production and depopulate the world (the way Stalin starved millions), I would wonder if she connected the dots. Those who starve and die would not be assuaged by her “nuances.” China also owned nearly 30 million acres of American farmland by mid-2019, then valued at more than $1.4 billion, with the help of her allegiance to the Democrat Party.

When once I assumed that she was so busy working, that she was really ignorant of the changes in our world, I now grasp she knew more than she alleged, that her vote would impact the end of our Republic.

Had this “friend” read my book, Confronting the Deception, Inflamed by 9/11, fired up by the Deep State, she’d have known that I spent two decades confronting the deception, in Islam, academia and the media. I had long been dealing with “complexities and nuance” – prepared for another such occasion. However, I do recommend to her and my readers, Hitler’s Nazism and our left, to face the similarities between fascism and our world; they are not coincidental.

There is a stunning video, a brief warning, by a Holocaust survivor who recognizes the commonalities between today’s world and the events of the 1930s, yet we still have neighbors, some quite learned and multi-degreed, who pretend to slumber for their own personal interests. Selling out one’s country for the sake of an exclusive “nuance” is not love of country, but love of self at the expense of one’s country. It’s a form of betrayal with a lame alibi to assuage one’s conscience. I was dim-witted and naïve – shocked to find that some of our acquaintances, who should have been eternally grateful for living in America, were underhandedly against Israel and our heritage. I remain baffled by the depth of their insidious philosophy.

I continued to write that we are controlled by those who won a fraudulent election, an almost bloodless coup, aided by the skills, wealth, and sheer power of High Tech. America’s children are being taught what to think, and our adults are being controlled on how to think and what to say. If their influence can obstruct the President of the United States from reaching out to his citizenry, then it could happen to anyone. Remember the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller. If there is only one who is not safe, we may rest assured that the second is not far behind. Thomas Jefferson warned us that, “A government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.”

The prime instigator of conflict is fear, and using the coronavirus as that fear has forced us into lockdowns, to not work or attend school, to not gather in groups or travel to family, to wear ineffective face masks and maintain distance from friends and family. Our “leaders” have frightened many into accepting injections not proven thoroughly effective and safe into the future, while also withholding statistics from us, and continuing to press us to surrender weapons that we might one day need for self-protection.

Recall that a non-academic Bill Gates instituted the damaging Common Core standards into our school systems; the non-medically trained Bill Gates wants to enforce his vaccinations on everyone for a national tracking system to monitor and control our buying, business, and travel activities, not to mention increasing his colossal profits (his depopulation statements have been removed from the Internet). The non-scientist Bill Gates is backing the development of sun-dimming technology to darken our planet and ruin our sources of food; and the bigoted, narcissistic Bill Gates has declared the science of math racist. The arrogant, fraudulent Dr. Antony Fauci, a ten-year associate who often collaborated on the Gates Foundation Vaccine Action Plan, including gene-based therapies, who stands to inflate his standard of living, has been caught on numerous lies.

As gasoline prices will soar because we are no longer self-sustaining (Biden closed many Trump accomplishments that grew our economy), unemployment increases while we must all support illegals, and agriculture becomes more limited (Gates and hyperinflation), it will be more expensive and difficult-to-impossible to get farmed produce to the cities. My “old friend” may still believe that her business will continue despite Biden’s promises of “affordable housing” throughout suburbia while her neighbors shop for food in the local dumpster.

With the southern border wall left unfinished, Biden is again increasing taxes (seen as the largest ever experienced in America) for Obama’s coveted redistribution of wealth, also known as outright theft from the working class to sustain the illegal and idle. News reports already announce the higher percentage of the criminal element – drug cartels, sex traffickers (of which children make up 27%), because happy, healthy, safe, and self-sufficient people do not emigrate. Our homeless sleep on the streets and the invaders are housed in hotels. The children who do make it here in safety will be followed by family members because of chain migration, and our grandchildren will never know the America we had.

In closing, I was wrong to think she lived in a bubble; she knew her repeated invitations included no compromise. In all her overtures, she offered only more of the same. Albert Einstein is oft credited with saying that insanity as doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. I regret to add that the promise of lunch and friendship with this “old friend,” on the same old terms, is just not in the cards.

©Tabitha Korol. All rights reserved.

BLM: The REAL Inconvenient Truth [Free Video Series]

At Christian Action Network, we don’t mind wallowing through liberal slime and muck to shine light on the REAL inconvenient truth.

For the past half year, our headlights have been focusing on the dark underbelly of the Black Lives Matter movement. Now for the first time, that truth can finally be seen.

We bring real interviews and undercover video that spotlights the shady and violent underpinnings of BLM, exposing their ideology, strategies, methodologies and Marxist plans for America. For BLM, there’s no escape, no cover and nowhere for them to run. We have them in our sites…with the high-beams on!

Are You Ready for that Spotlight of Truth?


Watch The Series Now!


Transcript

Let’s get right down to the bottom line here. What is the purpose of Black Lives Matter, their riots, their violence, their setting fires to buildings, attacking police and threatening ordinary folks who are simply trying to get on with their day, do their business, perhaps enjoy a little food and entertainment and then go home?

The question is, is Black Lives Matter now trying to create their own brand of Islamic-styled No-go zones, where the Zones are not created through the hands of radical islamists but through violent left-wing mobs, anti-American anarchists, and socialist revolutionaries who want to establish Marxist zones of control in the United States?

To announce itself as an Autonomous Zone, organizers of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, better known as C.H.O.P., brazenly placed a sign leading into the sealed-off area that read: You are now leaving the USA. Well, if that doesn’t tell you they are anti-American I do not know what will. And we have seen Black Lives Matter attempt to create such no-go autonomous zones inside of other cities of the United States: Atlanta, Nashville, Denver and Washington DC to name but a few.

Now listen. Though there will be brief pauses in attempting to establish these zones, they will return as the strategy improves, because the tactics and purpose, and I want to emphasize purpose, for creating these no-go zones are strikingly similar to those used to create Islamic No-Go Zones in Europe.

I want you to picture this so you better understand the Black Lives Matter riots and their war against police.

By luring police and rescue workers into an area and then using violence to force them to leave, they are sending a clear message to law enforcement that Muslims now rule the area and that traditional law enforcement authorities need to stay out. Watch as Black Lives Matter in London attack police and force them to flee for their lives. Now having forced police to essentially vacate the area, these No-Go Zones become safe havens for their criminal elements when they commit crimes of aggression, bullying and carnage on the outskirts of their communities.

If Black Lives Matter ever becomes successful in establishing these zones we can count on them becoming sanctuaries for criminal elements as well; much in the same way we see liberal cities that are providing safe haven for illegal immigrants. Without question, Black Lives Matter is simply following the European Islamic model for creating autonomous zones.

The foremost strategy of that Islamic model is to first get rid of the police, not because the police are brutal or racist thugs that’s a red herring, but because police represent State Authority. Police are the symbol of the country’s politics, history, beliefs, laws and heritage. They are representative of everything hated by anti western zealots. So the first thing that must go in creating autonomous zones are the police.

Now you know why Black Lives Matter want to defund the police, abolish police departments, and carry signs about killing cops. This wall also tagged with this anti-police message: Kill a cop. Save a life. Like, what are you thinking?

It’s a rallying message that not only attracts radical elements, but also gives them the means to create autonomous zones through violence as they march toward their ultimate goal of establishing separatist Marxist zones inside the United States.

Learn more to get free access to all three episodes of Black Lives Matter the real Inconvenient Truth, click the link below.

Watch The Series Now!

©Christian Action Network. All rights reserved.

Anti-Free Speech Muslim Group Sues Facebook for Not Removing Sites Opposing Jihad Violence

The tech site Engadget reported Thursday that the far-left legal group Muslim Advocates has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Facebook for allowing “anti-Muslim hate to spread on the platform, leading to real-world harm.” The organization provided a list of what it claimed were 26 “anti-Muslim hate groups,” including organizations that are dedicated simply to opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, including my own news site Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Center for Security Policy, and other groups whose main crime is opposing leftist Islamopandering and the left’s tendency to turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses sanctioned by Islamic law.

Engadget quoted a Facebook spokesperson in full defense mode: “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook and regularly work with experts, nonprofits, and stakeholders to help make sure Facebook is a safe place for everyone, recognizing anti-Muslim rhetoric can take different forms. We have invested in AI technologies to take down hate speech, and we proactively detect 97 percent of what we remove.”

Anyone who has been paying attention can see what is coming. Jihad Watch and the others targeted will disappear from Facebook and ultimately from the Internet altogether, whether as a result of this suit or some other. This suit itself has a very good chance of succeeding, as Muslim Advocates is extremely powerful and influential.

Back in October, Old Joe Biden gave an address filled with cringeworthy pandering to Muslim Advocates, the group that has brought this suit. Nor is Muslim Advocates’ clout something new: back on October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the assistant to the president on national security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, denouncing what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” It criticized “the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.”

Khera complained that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a PowerPoint presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; and that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia,” and “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”

These were supposed to be terrible things because I was bigoted and hateful. But many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate. Nonetheless, Brennan immediately complied. In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan promised that the government would “ensure that federal officials and state, local and tribal partners receive accurate, evidence-based information in these crucial areas.” That led to the erasure of all mention of Islam and jihad from government counterterror materials, and the birth of the Countering Violent Extremism program, which ignores jihad violence and focuses on a largely imaginary “right-wing extremism.”

So Muslim Advocates has connections that go up to the very top, and likely knows where to find a compliant judge who will rule in its favor in this suit.

Also note how the group, with help from the establishment media, has already moved the conversation away from where it should be. Engadget takes for granted that the 26 groups Muslim Advocates is targeting really are “anti-Muslim hate groups.” Engadget never even for a moment considers the possibility that some or all of these groups have been unfairly characterized, and neither does any other media story I have seen on this suit. Neither Engadget nor any other “news site” reached out to me for comment, or, apparently, to anyone else involved with the targeted groups, as none of the stories about this suit contain a single quote from anyone except Muslim Advocates and Facebook.

Yet that is really the point that should be at issue here. Is my work and that of the others targeted in this suit going to be banned as “hate speech” without any opportunity for discussion, explanation, or appeal, but simply on the word of far-left hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a long record of smearing legitimate groups that dissent from the far-left agenda by lumping them in with the KKK and neo-Nazis? The answer to that question appears to be yes. Is the American court system going to take for granted and validate with legal precedent the claim that opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others constitutes “anti-Muslim hate”? The answer to that question appears to be yes as well.

So any day now could be the last day for Jihad Watch and other sites that oppose jihad terror. The U.S. will, possibly even before the end of this year, enter a marvelous new world free of “anti-Muslim hate,” that is, free of any criticism of Islam, jihad, or Sharia. Will that bring an end to jihad violence and the human rights abuses sanctioned by Sharia? Unfortunately, no.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Psaki: ‘Encounters of known and suspect terrorists’ at the border are ‘very uncommon’

Biden’s handlers fund Palestinian Authority, which funds magazine that teaches children Hitler was heroic, ‘daring’

UN applauds Biden administration gift of $250,000,000 in ‘aid’ to Palestinians

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

BLM Activist Threatens Cities ‘on Fire’ if Chauvin Not Convicted

In a now-deleted video on social media, prominent Black Lives Matter (BLM) activist Maya Echols threatened that cities will be “on fire” if Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer on trial for the murder of George Floyd, is not convicted.

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just saying,” Echols threatened.

There is no question that an acquittal in the Floyd case will spark nationwide rioting by the “mostly peaceful” domestic terrorists of BLM and the violent anarchists of Antifa, because that’s how the left rolls when trials and elections don’t go their way. They burn cities and loot businesses and assault innocents, and the supportive activists of the news media give them a pass.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration demonizes Trump supporters as the real domestic terrorist threat.


Black Lives MATTER

119 Known Connections

BLM Activist Says Looting Is a Form of Reparations

In August 2020, BLM activists in Chicago held a rally to express their solidarity with the 100+ individuals who had recently been arrested after a night of mass looting and criminal activity. One BLM organizer who spoke at the rally, Ariel Atkins, said: “I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes.” “That is reparations,” she continued. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.” In a similar spirit, In a similar spirit, a social media post for the rally encouraged people to come out and “support the people arrested last night for protesting another police shooting & taking reparations from corporations.”

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here for their profile link.

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

VIDEO: Vaccine Is Trojan Horse For Totalitarian Takeover

CANTERBURY, England (ChurchMilitant.com) – The former vice president of Pfizer is raising the alarm over a coercive regime of mass gene-based vaccinations resulting in a global digital database that will “provide the perfect tool for totalitarian control” over every human being on earth.

In a lengthy interview Friday with British journalist James Delingpole, distinguished biochemist and pharmacologist Dr. Mike Yeadon described the COVID-19 vaccine as a Trojan horse that would be used to build “a common platform database” at a “supranational level.”

Not Really ‘Vaccines’: Purpose Questioned

Yeadon, who worked as Chief Scientific Officer for Allergy and Respiratory Research at the pharma giant Pfizer, said he couldn’t think of any “arguable medical reason whatsoever” for coercing entire populations from infants to the elderly to take the jab.

“Our government is lying to us in a way that is frightening,” Yeadon repeated throughout the interview, warning listeners of the deception of the government’s scientific advisers saying, “every single number put out is unreliable, untrustworthy and scientifically meaningless.”

The scientist explained that the new technology was a radical departure from traditional vaccines and “should be called gene-based vaccines just to emphasize there’s something quite different about them.”

“The fact that we’ve got this little word ‘vaccine’ at the end does not mean any of the things you think you understand about vaccines will apply to this one,” he emphasized.


Every single number put out by the government and its scientific advisors is unreliable, untrustworthy and scientifically meaningless.GabTweet


“These are either mRNA technologies or DNA with a viral vector,” Yeadon noted. “I’ve always found it an amazing coincidence that you didn’t have any coronavirus vaccine at all and then suddenly we end up with more or less three similar ones, and they all came through within the space of a few weeks.”

The expert, who has spent 32 years in the area of respiratory infections, explained how “the gene-based vaccines cause the body to manufacture the spike protein or a piece of it,” causing cells to stick together and initiate blood coagulation — which is why a number of people taking the AstraZeneca shots were dying of cerebral vein thrombosis.

“Not everyone is getting blood clots. But it’s Russian roulette. We do not know which people will develop blood clots,” Yeadon clarified.

Real Aim is Passports, Control

The scientist asked why governments were so insistent that everyone take a COVID shot.

“Why would you want to take the risk of a new technology that is a few months old and give it to millions of children? The answer cannot be to save them from coronavirus because they don’t catch it or they don’t get ill, so there must be another reason.”


If you allow the government to get away with this, they’ll gradually tighten the screws to effectively coerce the last few percent refusing the vaccine.GabTweet


 

But he urged: “I think I know what the answer is. Vaccine passports!” The identity documents, he explained, will have “your name, a unique digital identity number and at least one flag which will say you have been vaccinated.”

“And they are going to change your privileges according to whether or not your flag is up or it is down, and the reason they’ll do it is to coerce the other people who haven’t had vaccination to come on to the platform,” Yeadon added.

The passport could then be used for banking through a smartphone and spending would be permitted only through this unique ID on the common platform, “so you could live a bare life outside the system, or you could enjoy yourself in society,” he warned.

‘Variant’ Fear: Ruse to Depopulate?

Yeadon explained how governments were taking citizens down a “rabbit hole” by using the fear of Brazilian, South African, Kent and other variants or mutants to create new top-up vaccines and reinforce their goal of a global database.

The fear of variants was entirely spurious since the variants were just three-tenths of a percent different from the original virus, Yeadon explained, describing how a person who put on a baseball cap and then turned it the other way would still be easily recognizable by family and friends.

The top-up shots could then be used to introduce new genes — which could be either beneficial or harmful.

Yeadon elaborated:

If you wanted to depopulate a significant proportion of the world and wanted to do it in a way that wouldn’t require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons or poisoning everyone with anthrax and you wanted plausible deniability whilst you had an ongoing infectious disease crisis, I don’t think you could come up with a better plan.

“I won’t be able to sleep properly until someone comes up with a benign explanation,” the scientist exclaimed.

When asked by Delingpole if it was theoretically possible to exterminate some races using this technology, Yeadon replied: “People have already been saying it would be difficult to keep planet Earth in good order and maintaining a good standard of living while protecting biodiversity and not running out of non-renewable resources.”

Urgent Warning: Resist Now

Yeadon pleaded with listeners not to take the shots for “trivial reasons” like going on holiday or entering a pub, because “if you allow the government to get away with this, they’ll gradually tighten the screws to effectively coerce and mandate the last few percent refusing the vaccine.”


I think they’ll put the rest of us in a prison camp. I am not going to stop until I tell this to as many people as possible.GabTweet


“I think they’ll put the rest of us in a prison camp,” he said, noting that the elite controlling the game won’t be taking the vaccines.

“I am not going to stop until I tell this to as many people as possible,” Yeadon said, calling upon the medical fraternity to stand against the vaccination regime.

“Where is your medical ethics? Stop giving these experimental vaccines to people when you don’t know what the side effects will be. Stop giving them to people who are not at risk of dying from the virus. Just stop! People are dying,” he pleaded.

The mainstream media and government spokespersons have attempted to discredit Dr. Yeadon’s earlier interviews and statements by dismissing them as “false, dangerous and deeply irresponsible.”

“Why Yeadon transformed from mainstream scientist to COVID-19 vaccine skeptic remains a mystery. Thousands of his tweets stretching back to the start of the pandemic document a dramatic shift in his views — early on, he supported a vaccine strategy. But they offer few clues to explain his radical turnabout,” the left-wing news agency Reuters notes in an extended hit piece on Yeadon.

When Pfizer announced the closure of its research operations in Sandwich, England, Yeadon pioneered his own start-up company with several former colleagues. His company, Ziarco, licensed several former Pfizer compounds and secured £16.8 million in venture funding.

In December 2016, the pharma company Novartis bought Ziarco for an estimated $1 billion in a combination of upfront payments, milestones and royalties.

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

Biden Infrastructure Plan Would Hurt Economy in 3 Ways over Long Run, Ivy League Analysis Finds

The president’s rhetoric is optimistic—but these new long-term projections aren’t. 


President Biden is pitching his $2.7 trillion+ “infrastructure” plan, chock full of items unrelated to traditional transportation infrastructure, as key to restoring the economy and putting Americans back to work. It’s right in the name: the “American Jobs Plan.”

“This is the moment to reimagine and rebuild a new economy,” Biden said in introducing his plan. “The American Jobs Plan is an investment in America that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China.”

The president’s rhetoric is quite optimistic—but his plan’s long-term prospects are not. A new Ivy League analysis concludes that Biden’s plan would actually shrink the economy in the long run.

Analysts at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania weighed the potential benefits the proposed spending would have against the costs incurred by higher government debt and higher business tax rates. They find that while sending piles of cash flying out the door might seem stimulative at first, the long-term effects would all be net negative.

By 2031, Wharton projects that the size of the economy’s total output will have shrunk by 0.9 percent as a result of the “jobs plan.” The analysts also predict a 3 percent decrease in the “capital stock,” a measure of the nation’s productive resources such as machinery, buildings, etc.

Why will the massive government spending reduce the capital stock? Because the proposal is financed by raising corporate taxes, which directly reduces private sector investment, and because it involves incurring massive amounts of government debt, which “crowds out” private sector investment.

Here’s where things get ugly for workers under this “jobs plan.”

Reduced capital, aka productive tools, means lower worker productivity. Investments in improved machinery, for example, allow assembly-line workers to produce more in output per hour worked. And productivity is inextricably linked to worker wages.

“More investment of capital means: to give to the laborer more effi­cient tools,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises lucidly explained. “With the aid of better tools and machines, the quantity of the products increases and their quality improves. As the employer consequently will be in a position to obtain from the consumers more for what the em­ployee has produced in one hour of work, he is able—and, by the competition of other employers, forced—to pay a higher price for the man’s work.”

Of course, if capital—and hence productivity—is decreased, the opposite effect occurs and workers earn less over time. So, it’s not surprising that Wharton concluded the massive multi-trillion “jobs plan” will, by 2031, actually lead to a 0.7 percent decrease in average hourly wages. The analysts also note that there will be almost no increase in employment, as measured by total hours worked.

Similar negative effects play out over an even longer time frame, Wharton projects, with net negative results from the “jobs plan” in 2040 and 2050.

Image Credit: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 

President Biden’s sweeping “infrastructure” proposal is just the latest example in a long history of ambitious political rhetoric masking mediocre results. Politicians often point to the proposed benefits of their policies, often tangible and easy to see, and make their case for big government spending based on the benefits alone.

But while rhetoric can be rosy, real-life involves trade-offs; the weighing of benefits and costs. And when we do this honestly for Biden’s infrastructure proposal, the results are grim indeed.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Is Loaded With Corporate Welfare

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

Tennessee lawyer files free speech lawsuit after being fired for ‘anti-Islam’ and pro-Trump tweets

Jerry Morgan gave the details of this case in an exclusive Jihad Watch article HERE. Get more background on this case HERE, where Robert Spencer stated:

What disparaging remarks did Morgan make? Did he say that Muslims were “the most vile of created beings”? No, that’s what the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, calls non-Muslims (98:6). Did he call Muslims “apes and pigs”? No, that’s what the Qur’an calls Jews (2:63-65, 5:59-60, 7:166). Did he say Muslims were “unclean”? No, that’s what the Qur’an says of non-Muslims (9:28).

So what egregious statements did Morgan actually make?

As it turned out, he has been forced to resign for “praising President Donald Trump for ‘stopping Muslims’ and ‘talking big against Muslims,’” and “said Islam was not a peaceful religion and made comments linking the faith with violence and ‘Muslim terrorists.’”

To our dhimmi overlords, however, all that matters is that anything offensive to Islam/Muslims, even if it is true, must be shut down in accordance with Sharia blasphemy laws, which are well on the way to becoming mainstream in American society, despite the First Amendment. Jerry Morgan is one of the few who have had the courage to fight back, and we wish him well.

“Tennessee: State Lawyer Fired for ‘Anti-Islam’ Tweets Files Speech Suit,” 

Bloomberg Law, April 6, 2021:

An attorney alleges the Tennessee Supreme Court’s board of professional responsibility unlawfully fired him for posting Tweets that an opposing party said displayed anti-Muslim bias, arguing his social media posts were constitutionally protected political speech similar to that of former president Donald Trump.

The board of professional responsibility regulates licensed Tennessee attorneys. Jerry Morgan handled appeals to the state supreme court regarding attorney discipline, according to his complaint filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Attorney Brian Manookian, who was undergoing disciplinary proceedings, filed a motion to disqualify Morgan, claiming he was an anti-Muslim bigot. Manookian cited multiple Tweets Morgan had posted that, among other things, praised then-candidate Trump for “talking about the #1 issue of our time—stopping Muslims” and disparaged Muslims and Democrats.

Manookian claimed Morgan had an anti-Islam bias that could prejudice him, because his wife was Muslim and his children were being raised in a Muslim household.

Morgan says his posts were “indisputably political in nature,” concerning matters that were controversial but part of the national debate. “Many were views publicly expressed by Trump” and agreed to by the Tennessee voters who “overwhelmingly” voted for him in 2016, Morgan says. There were no accusations against him of biased conduct in the Manookian case or any other, Morgan claims.

Morgan was fired in December. He sued the board and chief disciplinary counsel Sandra Garrett, alleging he was unconstitutionally punished for Tweets that were made in his private capacity and were about matters of public importance.

Cause of Action: First Amendment.

Relief Requested: Damages, injunctive relief….

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Dept: April Is ‘Arab American Heritage Month,’ Arab Contributions ‘Are as Old As America Itself’

France: In Trappes, Sharia police intervene against drinkers and unveiled women, all Jews have fled except two

India: Muslim leader says Muslims will eradicate Covid-19 during Ramadan ‘by regular and devoted prayers to Allah’

Israel: Biden position on Iran ‘troubling,’ ‘if this is American policy, we are concerned’

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

America’s Vaccine Passports and China’s Social Credit System

“No one should suffer from the great delusion that any form of communism or socialism which promotes the dictatorship of the few instead of the initiative of the millions can produce a happier or more prosperous society.” – Charles E. Wilson, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense

“God is on your side? Is he a conservative? The Devil is on my side, he’s a good communist.” – Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader, to Winston Churchill at Tehran, November 1943

“If you don’t like us then don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.” – Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader, November 1956


Do you love freedom?  Do you love liberty?  Do you love owning property?  Do you love your privacy?  Do you love being able to speak freely?  Do you love going to synagogue or church?  Do you love medical freedom?  And do you love being able to associate with whomever you choose?  Do you love our Constitution and our God-Given freedoms explicitly spelled out in the first ten unalienable amendments in our Bill of Rights?

We are about to lose all those freedoms, and far more.  George Orwell wrote 1984 in 1949.  Seventy-two years later we are living his dystopian tale, and patriotic, conservative and knowledgeable Americans are distraught that the majority of American citizens are docile and acquiescent.

That same majority of Americans, and the world, bought the fake fear, went along with the unnecessary lockdowns, stayed in their homes, donned their masks – which they’re still wearing, sometimes even two, and fell for the lies. Now our compliant and submissive citizens are lining up to receive the most evil experimental vaccine for a virus that has never even been isolated and has a 99.75 percent recovery.  I want to scream!

Krispy Crème is offering their sweet fattening donuts, one a day, if you only show your vaccine passport!  What unbelievable chutzpah…promoting sweets for your obedience to the evil of our federal government, the CDC, the NIH, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, WHO, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, ModeRNA, Johnson and Johnson and countless others, sadly including our former president.  I pray that his entire family has not taken this jab!

Naomi Wolf

The following video by Naomi Wolf, a Democrat and feminist, has exposed exactly what will happen if the American public accepts vaccine passports.  We will have locked into China’s communist control via social credits for every American citizen who once believed our country was the land of the free and the home of the brave.  If you haven’t listened to Naomi’s 15 min. presentation about these evil covid passports, please do…what she explains is the total control of every American.  The fact that she is a democrat makes what she is saying even more important.  There is however, a caveat.

Naomi is uninformed regarding Israeli vaccine passports and should have done more research before claiming she knew about what was happening in Israel.  A friend who lives in Israel listened to the video and clarified their situation, which is nothing like what is being reported by so many.  She rightly blasts those who are repeating the false reports. Here’s what she wrote…

We just now went to a Jerusalem Bagel Restaurant, without any passport and no one said or asked for any ID. The only question they asked was “What would you like?” As I’ve said before, Israel follows the Nuremberg Laws which forbid businesses and govts from forcing people to get vaccines. Naomi is just copying what someone else said, and it’s not true reporting. It’s propaganda spreading fear.

The only scenario in Israel which allegedly has been allowed by our Labor Court is for an employer’s right to require employees to get the vaccine. It’s possible that will be appealed to a higher court. But regardless, restaurants so far, and malls and grocery stores etc., have not asked to see any green card.

The rule here for the airlines and some private clubs is you either need a green card or a test result saying you are negative for Corona, taken within the last 72 hours. Naomi just blew any cred she may have had, which she didn’t in my book, since she’s such a lefty.

The journalists claiming the totalitarian actions via vaccine passports in Israel either haven’t done their homework or any actual research. Sadly enough, they are spreading disgusting information that blackens a country that long ago moved away from socialism toward a capitalist society.

That doesn’t mean that what Naomi Wolfe reported about social credits cannot happen in America.  The despotic and totalitarian actions of the democratic socialists, and many of their comrades on the right, were exposed with their open hatred and hostility of President Trump.

Remember Claire Wolf’s statement from 1996… “America is at that awkward stage where it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”  She made this statement a quarter of a century ago…where do you believe we are now?

Social Credit Systems

China’s plan for a social credit system is much like our financial credit system, but this system is about analyzing your character and trustworthiness toward the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  It’s an idea straight out of Orwell’s 1984.  The original Chinese proposal for the system, titled “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System is ungodly control. Unfortunately, the second half of the paper is in Chinese, but the point is…every Chinese citizen must be a good little communist or else there are consequences.

Here is just one paragraph from this evil and obnoxious system.

Accelerating the construction of a social credit system is an important basis for comprehensively implementing the scientific development view and building a harmonious Socialist society, it is an important method to perfect the Socialist market economy system, accelerating and innovating social governance, and it has an important significance for strengthening the sincerity consciousness of the members of society, forging a desirable credit environment, raising the overall competitiveness of the country and stimulating the development of society and the progress of civilization.

Naomi Wolfe talks about the CCP’s social credit system coming to America via vaccine passports.  She believes social credit systems are part of the passport plans!

All three branches of our government are held today by hardcore Democratic Socialists, who are extremely fond of Marx and Engels.  Their followers immigrated to America in 1848 after the failure of socialism in Europe and have assiduously worked to change America into a communist state, one that too closely resembles the massive citizen control in the CCP.   In America, the parasite elements of the ruling elite want total control of all citizens and the entire plan was fomented and engineered via the “pandemic” of Covid-19.

Mainland China’s “social credit” system is the most extensive program of government surveillance the world has ever seen—one that should caution not only Hong Kong but also America and the West against further intrusions on privacy, but those in charge of our government today are thrilled with the constant surveillance and wish to implement China’s policies as soon as possible.

A Wall Street Journal article estimated that 10% of East Germans were Stasi spies, but that’s nothing compared with China’s oversight on their people.  In 2020, an additional 600 million cameras were installed in China … one for every two citizens.  Through facial recognition software, Beijing will be able to identify everyone within three seconds of anything happening.  Chinese citizens do not own their lives, their government, run by Xi Jinping, knows their every move, and monitors people they believe may go against the ideological beliefs of the CCP.  In Taiwan, the people tear down the hated spy cameras, longing to keep their freedom from the mainland.

Falun Gong members, and dissident Christians are closely watched and tracked and this is where this social credit system steps in.  The Muslim Uyghurs are recognized as native to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwest China and their population has felt the heavy hand of Xi Jinping. In 2017, China began a massive political reeducation program, with more than one million Uyghurs from all walks of life taken into 85 identified detention camps in Xinjiang.

The government nips any democracy movement in the bud and knows your every move via their social credit system.  Chinese citizens are ranked via merits and demerits regarding their behavior towards their masters.  Should they too often criticize their leaders, put their garbage in the wrong bin, or go against the rules of their masters, they will incur sanctions to discourage their improper and bad behavior.  The totalitarian state controls them completely…they’re denied good jobs, internet speed is cut, they’re kept out of prestigious schools and their pets can even be taken from them…thus the citizenry must be submissive to the state or they will pay dearly and that can mean imprisonment.

A recent Western Journal article exposed the cries for help from Chinese prisoners.  Notes from prisoners found hidden in decorations within holiday products made for Americans told of their imprisonment resulting from actions against the state.  Many of the prisoners are Falun Gong members and suffer more punishment than others because of their beliefs.

According to the New York Post, the letters read, “Please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right[s] Organization. Thousands [of] people here who are under the persecution of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever.”

Libertarians

Although I’m not a libertarian, our Tennessee Libertarians, unlike our democrats and republicans, stand firmly against vaccination passports and reject their implementation by the government at every level. They are right in saying passports are antithetical to individual liberty and they will erode our inherent rights.

We have God given sovereignty over our bodies, our property and our privacy. Our founders included those unalienable rights in the first ten amendments of our constitution.  We the people are not the servants of those elected to represent us who have shown their true totalitarian and dictatorial colors.  Their passport proposals are antithetical to individual freedoms and an infringement on liberty in a free society.

Passports will empower the state should we fail to comply.  This includes business licenses, tracking technologies that violate privacy and possibly HIPAA violations. Federal, state and local governments will increase their control and powers, none of which are enumerated under their respective constitutions.  Individual liberty will be lost.

Conclusion

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced a proposal on April 1st that would ban COVID-19 vaccination mandates as well as so-called vaccine passports. I am afraid few will sign onto her “We Will Not Comply Act.”  We must act now…and that means telling your elected officials you want this bill passed.  State legislatures need to be heavily encouraged to write the same kinds of bills, and strongly urge their governors to sign them.

Projects like China’s Social Credit System should worry people for a number of reasons. But just like Orwell’s 1984 dystopian hell it’s being likened to, it scares us because we innately understand that it is a world we’re familiar with — only with the control and surveillance massively cranked up.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Jordan’s ‘House of Cards’–The implications for Israel

Israel could face a situation, where along its lengthiest border, there would no longer be a conservative, pro-Western monarchy, but an extreme Muslim regime, with incandescent hostility towards the Jewish state


There is nothing certain, but the uncertain. ~ Traditional Proverb.

Incoming media reports from Jordan indicate that the clash within the royal family earlier this week has now been resolved…or quashed.

Swirling shrouds of suspicion & uncertainty

However, much uncertainty still shrouds the recent events in the Hashemite monarchy as to whether there was a genuine attempt at a coup, led by King Abdallah’s half-brother and former crown prince, Hamzah bin Hussein; or a pre-emptive power play by the king himself against his recalcitrant sibling.

Prince Hamzah was Jordan’s heir apparent for five years after his father, King Hussein, died in 1999. But in 2004, King Abdullah stripped him of his title, later appointing his then-teenage son, Prince Hussein bin Abdullah, as crown prince.

Amid conflicting reports that Hamzah had been placed under house arrest—and following a number of high-level arrests allegedly linked to a coup attempt– he accused the Jordanian leadership of corruption, incompetence and harassment in a video conveyed to the BBC.

Hamzah denied that he was part of any initiative to undermine the regime, and although the military had claimed that he was not under house arrest, it did disclose that he had been ordered to stop actions that could be used to harm Jordan’s “security and stability“.

Lingering tensions in the palace & in the streets

Jordan’s deputy prime minister, Ayman Safadi, accused the prince of liaising with foreign parties regarding the destabilization of the country, claiming that he had been under surveillance for some time.

Significantly, whatever truly transpired, it was serious enough for other regional states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as the United States, to pledge their support for the king.

Although it seems that for the moment matters have been smoothed over, with Hamzah signing a letter, stating: “I place myself in the hands of his majesty the king… I will remain committed to the constitution of the dear Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan“, tensions —designated by some as “unprecedented”—still remain.

Indeed, the affair is considered so sensitive that a ban, imposed on all news outlets and social media platforms, has been placed on any public discussion of it, as well as on all images and video clips related to the inquiry.

With few natural resources, Jordan is a country beset by a myriad of domestic problems, crumbling infrastructure, a hopelessly overloaded welfare system, inundated by refugees fleeing war-torn neighbors, widespread civil discontent and frequent protests, all exacerbated by a raging COVID-19 pandemic.

According to CNN, poverty and unemployment are at record levels and have driven Jordanians to the streets. However, “tolerance for protests has diminished significantly”—increasing the likelihood of further instability and disaffection with the leadership.

Topographical barriers and security

All of this throws—or at least should throw—into sharp relief one factor, often overlooked in the press reports covering the developments there—with far-reaching security implications for Israel and the feasibility of a prospective Palestinian state.

This is the crucial importance for Israel of the possibility—the more austere some might say, the probability—of a regime change in its eastern neighbor, and the attendant significance of the territory usually allotted for a future Palestinian state—namely, the highlands of Judea and Samaria (aka the “West Bank”).

This territory towers above Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, controls the approaches to Greater Tel Aviv, dominates crucial infrastructure installations and systems—including Israel’s only international airport, Ben Gurion, sits atop vital water resources, and abuts the Trans-Israel Highway, the major thoroughfare connecting the North of the country with the South.

These highlands are the sole topographical barrier between Jordan and Israel’s crowded coastal megalopolis. Any forces—regular or renegade—deployed on them will have complete topographical command and control over all of central Israel, with the ability to disrupt daily life at will—making it impossible to maintain any semblance of social and commercial routine.

Topography & security (cont.)

Accordingly, as any prospective Palestinian state will be sandwiched between Israel in the West and Jordan in the East, it matters greatly whether Jordan is ruled by a government that strives to rein in forces hostile to Israel or one that is indifferent to their aggressive intent—or worse, is willingly complicit with it.

If the monarchy falls, or is even sufficiently weakened, so as to become a mere puppet regime of more powerful radical forces, Israel could find itself in a dire situation.

For along its Eastern border, there may no longer be a conservative, relatively moderate pro-Western monarchy but in all likelihood, an extreme Muslim regime with an incandescent hostility towards the Jewish state. This will make the highlands of Judea & Samaria (“West Bank”) even more crucial for Israel’s security.

Avoiding the nightmare

The underlying lesson for Israeli policymakers is that the country’s working assumption must be that the Hashemite Kingdom has a limited shelf-life and it would be wildly imprudent to base any long-term strategic planning on its long-term durability.

Consequently, Israeli strategic planners must prepare blueprints for the country to contend with a daunting situation in which—along its longest frontier and narrowest dimension—it is confronted with a huge expanse of hostile territory, stretching from the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv to the border of Iraq—and perhaps beyond.

As Israel has little to no ability to determine who will—and who will not—rule Jordan, the only way it can avoid this potential nightmare scenario is to ensure continued its own control of these highlands—which ipso facto—precludes the establishment of a future Palestinian state on them.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

Photographic evidence shows Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini at Nazi concentration camp

As The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS details, for years before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, fought strenuously against Jewish settlement in the Holy Land, which had accelerated after Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.

Beginning in 1919, al-Husseini began organizing jihad attacks against Jews, as well as riots in Jerusalem in 1920 during which six Jews were killed and two hundred injured. The following year, British high commissioner Herbert Samuel responded to al-Husseini’s instigation of jihad violence by appointing him mufti of Jerusalem, hoping that this gift would lead al-Husseini to be “devoted to tranquility.”

Instead, al-Husseini continued to incite violence, including riots in Petach Tikvah and Jaffa just weeks after he became mufti; forty-three Jews were killed. A British government report stated that “the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties.”

This continued to be true as Muslim Arabs attacked Jews over the next two decades, largely at al-Husseini’s instigation. Instead of confronting its mufti, in May 1939 the British government limited Jewish settlement in Palestine to seventy-five thousand over the next five years, thereby rewarding jihad violence by giving the mufti part of what he wanted (if it had been up to him, Jewish entry into the Holy Land would have been halted entirely, and the Jews there expelled) and condemning to death in the Holocaust untold numbers of Jews who might have escaped.

From 1941 to 1945, al-Husseini lived in Berlin, where he became close friends with Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler, and met with Adolf Hitler. Eichmann’s assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that the mufti had been a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews:

The Grand Mufti has repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities—including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler—the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this a comfortable solution to the Palestine problem….The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Eichmann denied this, but in any case, there is no doubt of the fact that the mufti was openly calling for the mass murder of Jews. In a broadcast on July 7, 1942, the mufti exhorted Muslims in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Palestine to kill Jews, basing his exhortation on a flagrant lie:

A large number of Jews residing in Egypt and a number of Poles, Greeks, Armenians and Free French, have been issued with revolvers and ammunition in order to help them against the Egyptians at the last moment, when Britain is forced to evacuate Egypt….

You must kill the Jews, before they open fire on you. Kill the Jews, who have appropriated your wealth and who are plotting against your security. Arabs of Syria, Iraq and Palestine, what are you waiting for? The Jews are planning to violate your women, to kill your children and to destroy you. According to the Muslim religion, the defense of your life is a duty which can only be fulfilled by annihilating the Jews. This is your best opportunity to get rid of this dirty race, which has usurped your rights and brought misfortune and destruction on your countries. Kill the Jews, burn their property, destroy their stores, annihilate these base supporters of British imperialism. Your sole hope of salvation lies in annihilating the Jews before they annihilate you.

Al-Husseini also actively intervened on numerous occasions to ensure that Jews were not deported from Europe—thereby ensuring that extermination was the only option left for the fanatical Nazi Jew-haters. As late as July 25, 1944, al-Husseini wrote to Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German minister for foreign affairs:

I have previously called the attention of your Excellency to the constant attempts of the Jews to emigrate from Europe in order to reach Palestine and asked your Excellency to undertake the necessary steps so as to prevent the Jews from emigrating. I had also sent you a letter, under date of June 5, 1944, in regard to the plan for an exchange of Egyptians living in Germany with Palestinian Germans, in which I asked you to exclude the Jews from this plan of exchange. I have, however, learned that the Jews did depart on July 2, 1944, and I am afraid that further groups of Jews will leave for Palestine from Germany and France to be exchanged for Palestinian Germans….It is for this reason that I ask your Excellency to do all that is necessary to prohibit the emigration of Jews to Palestine, and in this way your Excellency would give a new practical example of the policy of the naturally allied and friendly Germany towards the Arab Nation.

Al-Husseini was a committed collaborator with the Nazis, traveling from Berlin to Bosnia in 1943 to raise up a Muslim SS company, which was responsible for killing ninety percent of the Jews in Bosnia, as well as for the burning of numerous Serbian churches. He noted the convergence of the goals of Islamic jihad and those of the Nazis. “It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to…drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries…. Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.”

In a 1944 broadcast, he made that “definitive solution” explicit: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion.” His call was an echo of the Qur’an’s call to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191, 4:89) and to “kill the idolaters wherever you find them.” (9:5)

Al-Husseini was arrested by French troops in May 1945, but the French refused requests from the British to turn him over to their custody. The British may have wanted to put him on trial, as he was a British citizen (of their Palestinian mandate) and a collaborator with the Nazis. Instead, the French put him on a plane to Cairo, where he resumed his jihad against the Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood successfully prevailed upon the Egyptian government to grant him asylum. He died peacefully in 1974.

“Photographic Evidence Shows Palestinian Leader Amin al-Husseini at a Nazi Concentration Camp,” by Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, Tablet, April 7, 2021:

In 2017, Jerusalem’s Kedem auction house posted three of six previously unknown photos on the internet, in which the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, inspects a Nazi concentration camp along with Nazi senior officials and government figures. According to the auctioneers, an expert was of the opinion that these inmates performed forced labor at the Trebbin camp near Berlin, which was, from 1942 to 1945, an SS artillery training place with a branch of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg. Built after World War I as a Christian “City of Peace,” it was taken over by the SS in 1935. Among the prisoners were Jews from Hungary. Forced labor, terror and violence characterized their daily lives. Kedem hoped viewers would help identify men in the photos.

As it turns out, I can now shed light on five of the foreign guests in the pictures—global leaders whose presence reflects the transregional history between Europe, the Middle East, India, and America. The photographs also provide irrefutable proof that all of the men present had precise knowledge of the fate of Jews in Hitler’s Germany—and of the likely fate of Jews in their own home countries under Nazi rule. According to Kedem, the photos are stamped “Photo-Gerhards Trebbin.” This stamp indicates that they were probably photographed in Trebbin, 30 kilometers south of Berlin, “around 1943.” The six photos were auctioned for $12,300 to a private individual who, I would argue, should post the remaining three images on the internet as a humanitarian gesture to families of the prisoners.

Only three of the seven men pictured survived World War II and its immediate aftermath. The two German officials in uniform were both directly involved in the Holocaust. Before and after their trip to the camp, Adolf Hitler met separately with each of the foreign guests, who included the Palestinian leader al-Husseini, the former Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Kailani, the Croatian Ustasha ideologue Mile Budak, and the Indian Hindu leader Subhas Chandra Bose. So who were they?

Mile Budak was the ideologue of Croatia’s ethno-radical, anti-Semitic Ustasha party, which ran a Nazi satellite state formed in 1941. On the left is Dr. Fritz Grobba, a former envoy to Kabul, Baghdad, and Jidda. He was a Protestant and not a member of the Nazi Party. He had been in charge of the Middle East in the German Foreign Office since early 1942.

Grobba and the two Arab leaders pictured had supported the anti-British coup in Iraq, which was followed by the al-Farhud pogrom in mid-1941. In it, 179 Jews were killed and many stores looted. Masterminds like al-Kailani and al-Husseini wanted to signal, there in a 2,500-year-old community, how Arabia’s Jews should be treated.

In the second photo is the politician Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who presided over Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria in 1938 and two years later served as commissioner for the occupied Netherlands. In the process, he oversaw the deportation of 100,000 Jews to death camps and the enslavement of half a million Dutch people, half of whom were forced to go to Germany as slave laborers.

After the Nuremberg trials in 1946, Seyss-Inquart ended up on the gallows for his crimes against humanity. Budak shared this fate a year earlier in Zagreb, where he was hanged as a war criminal for his policy of sending Jews, Serbs, Sinti, and Roma to death camps.

On the other hand, both Arab leaders continued their anti-Jewish and Islamist policies unimpeded after the end of the war: al-Kailani until 1965 and al-Husseini until 1974. Outside of Israel, Nazism had hardly been delegitimized in the Middle East, and its adherents often came to power after the war ended. The Iraqi al-Kailani staged a coup in Baghdad but failed. He was sentenced to death, then exiled to Beirut.

Al-Husseini also found himself in Beirut, where he was active in the World Islamic Congress, which he founded in Jerusalem in 1931 (he opened a Berlin branch a year later). With robust backing, he rose to become the first “Global Grand Mufti.” A mufti is a religious and legal authority who hands down rulings on everyday issues to believers in his jurisdiction. His late half-brother Kamil was the previous grand mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini received the title in 1921, and in order to preserve and expand his transregional “Mideast-Europe” legacy after 1945, he chose as his representatives Said Ramadan for Europe, in Switzerland, and Yasser Arafat in the Middle East. The Mufti advised Arafat in 1968 to take over the Palestine Liberation Organization (which he headed until 2004) and “to liberate Palestine,” operating out of Gaza with Fatah troops.

Unmentioned, but visible in photo 1—though the angle and quality mar it—is almost certainly Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose. Also called Netaji, Hindi for “The Respected Leader,” he probably died in a mid-1945 plane crash near Taiwan. Controversy over his role diminished in 1997 when he was given his place in the Indian pantheon of liberation leaders. However, questions linger about his close Nazi contacts and meetings in 1942 in Berlin with Hitler and SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Since the first photo shows flowering plants, it probably dates from the second half of 1942, when Bose was still in Berlin—making the identification all the more likely….

Born in 1886, Fritz Grobba survived WWII and 10 subsequent years in the Soviet gulag. After his release in 1955, he advised Bonn on Middle East policy as a retiree until 1973. Another German diplomat who appears in the pictures but is not mentioned in the Kedem catalog is Martin Luther, who served as undersecretary of state in the Foreign Office. He conspired against his boss, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and as a result was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in early 1943. He died shortly after the end of the war.

During WWI, Luther served with an army railroad regiment up to the Balkans, where he heard about the Armenian genocide. Two decades later, as head of the German Department of the Foreign Office, he was one of 15 Nazis at the Wannsee Conference who coordinated the “logistics of mass murder.” About 100 “Asia fighters” who served alongside Germany’s Ottoman allies during WWI rose to Nazi leadership after 1933, many of whom served the West German government in Bonn after 1950.

The auction text mentions al-Husseini, the other key figure in this group. Some see al-Husseini’s Nazi contacts as reflecting a pragmatic interest in obtaining a strong foreign ally for Arab national goals. Others link the mufti’s enthusiasm for Nazi plans for the Final Solution to his additional desire to bring genocide to Palestine and the Middle East. The new pictures are important evidence in this debate.

What is certain is that al-Husseini rose to become the primary non-European aide and activist for Hitler’s Middle East. Interrogated by the Soviets in 1946, Grobba confirmed Hitler’s and von Ribbentrop’s plans for genocide in the Middle East. Some say the mufti embodied the Palestinian national consensus, a claim that rests on the supposition that a Palestinian “nation” existed prior to WWII. Surely, not all Palestinian Arabs should be associated with al-Husseini, whatever his titles and ambitions; some of them worked against the Axis powers.

As officers, Grobba and al-Husseini were brothers-in-arms in 1915, including in areas where Armenians were deported. Both men spoke Turkish. They met during the 1930s in Iraq, where the German envoy Grobba dealt with Iraqi state representatives and grew to dislike al-Husseini. In his eyes, a cleric without a state styling himself the “grand mufti” should not act as a politician. Their mutual dislike increased after the failed Baghdad coup against the British in mid-1941.

A British adviser in Iraq, Archibald McDougall defended Grobba in The Times, saying he was not a “Nazi Lawrence of Arabia” stirring up Muslims but rather a hard-nosed career diplomat. Berlin then grew suspicious of Grobba. Rumors circulated that he had invited Jews to his receptions, that he was a Freemason, and that he preferred al-Kailani to the mufti. His career faltered, as he was caught between the two Arabs frequently arguing over “who would be the real leader.”

Hitler’s choice was clear: al-Husseini. He saw in the mufti a principal actor in the Middle East, and a “realist.” Benito Mussolini followed Hitler’s lead and recognized the mufti as the most competent spokesman for the Arabs who could help the Fascist-Nazi alliance in reshaping North Africa.

It was against this political backdrop that SS chief Heinrich Himmler invited select Nazis and their guests to visit his concentration camp system. At the end of June, Grobba noted, the two Arabs each instructed two of their aides to join an SS training course that included a visit to a concentration camp. Al-Kailani wanted to go along to see if this system could be a model for Iraq, where there was a large Jewish community. Grobba agreed: The assistants were going anyway, so there was nothing wrong with it. Still, the SS asked the German Foreign Office to sign on….

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