FASCIST Facebook ‘Prepares’ for ‘ELECTION UNREST’

/in , , , , /by

Ruh-roh.

Here we go……left-elite imposing lockouts, suspensions, shadowbans, banning, etc to advance Democrat misinformation.

We want our day in court against these despot Democrats.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1320577550238715905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320577550238715905%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F10%2Ffacebook-fascism-election.html%2F

Facebook Prepares Measures for Possible Election Unrest

Tools include slowing the spread of certain posts and tweaking users’ news feeds

Facebook Inc. FB -2.02% teams have planned for the possibility of trying to calm election-related conflict in the U.S. by deploying internal tools designed for what it calls “at-risk” countries, according to people familiar with the matter.

The emergency measures include slowing the spread of viral content and lowering the bar for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts, the people said. Previously used in countries including Sri Lanka and Myanmar, they are part of a larger tool kit developed by Facebook to prepare for the U.S. election.

Facebook executives have said they would only deploy the tools in dire circumstances, such as election-related violence, but that the company needs to be prepared for all possibilities, said the people familiar with the planning.

The potential moves include an across-the-board slowing of the spread of posts as they start to go viral and tweaking the news feed to change what types of content users see, the people said. The company could also lower the threshold for detecting the types of content its software views as dangerous.

Deployed together, the tools could alter what tens of millions of Americans see when they log onto the platform, diminishing their exposure to sensationalism, incitements to violence and misinformation, said the people familiar with the measures. But slowing down the spread of popular content could suppress some good-faith political discussion, a prospect that makes some Facebook employees uneasy, some of the people said.

“We’ve spent years building for safer, more secure elections,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said. “We’ve applied lessons from previous elections, hired experts, and built new teams with experience across different areas to prepare for various scenarios.”

Facebook already has critics from both political parties, and any widespread attempt to regulate content is likely to provoke further scrutiny.

Facebook earlier this month was criticized by many Republicans, including President Trump, after it slowed the spread of New York Post articles related to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. The company said the action was in keeping with rules it announced last year to prevent election interference. Democrats have complained that Facebook hasn’t done enough to prevent misinformation from spreading and has been overly deferential to the right.

Facebook regularly makes changes to its algorithms to increase engagement and penalize bad actors; those moves are seldom announced unless the company deems they are in the public interest.

Facebook executives have previously said the company was preparing for a range of possibilities related to the election but haven’t detailed those plans.

“We need to be doing everything that we can to reduce the chances of violence or civil unrest in the wake of this election,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Axios last month. Facebook’s global head of communications and policy, Nick Clegg, told USA Today that the company created “break-glass tools” in the event of a crisis, though he declined to discuss them “because it will no doubt elicit greater sense of anxiety than we hope will be warranted.”

The company also developed levers it could use to better control content ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, including turning off recommendations for Facebook groups. Most of these potential measures, which people familiar with the matter say were less concrete than those discussed this year, weren’t deployed.

At a companywide conference call last week, Mr. Zuckerberg said the coming election and the coronavirus pandemic have already led Facebook to limit speech more than it would like, according to a person who heard the remarks. Citing polls showing Mr. Biden with a lead, Mr. Zuckerberg said a decisive victory for either candidate “could be helpful” in averting the risk of violence or civil unrest in the election’s wake.

His comments were first reported by BuzzFeed News.

Efforts to study and mitigate alleged negative societal impacts of Facebook’s products in major markets are controversial. The company shuttered or watered down a series of efforts meant to reduce polarization, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year, in part because of fear that such initiatives would be perceived as biased.

Since 2018, the company has been taking more aggressive measures overseas, where Facebook has generally faced pressure to do more.

The company formalized procedures for humanitarian interventions after the United Nations blamed the company’s inaction on hate speech and incitements to violence for fueling the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think Facebook and other social-media companies are doing enough to reduce online disinformation surrounding the U.S. election? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

The company pledged to do better and formed teams that evaluate countries based on geopolitical analysis including the likelihood of atrocities as well as internal data such as Facebook’s market penetration, according to people familiar with the matter.

“It’s not an automated solution. It requires people to say, ‘This is something we need to handle,’” said one person familiar with the tools’ past application.

One such example was Sri Lanka, where a Facebook human-rights consultant concluded that the company’s inaction on hate speech and false rumors set the stage for 2018 atrocities.

The consultant, Chloe Poynton, said in an interview that the experience led Facebook to rethink how to act when dangers are high or the rule of law is weak. “There’s some content that needs to be removed, and there’s some content that needs to not have access to the Facebook tools that create virality,” she said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump surges in swing states according to new polling

Mayor Wilhelm de Blasio VOWS to Punish NYPD Officers Caught Praising Trump

Seven British Muslims arrested after “attempted homicide” on officer outside Israel Embassy in Paris

BLOODY CHICAGO: 24+ People Shot, 6 DEAD over the Weekend in Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s Chicago

29,000 Voters Received Incorrect Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania County

DEMOCRAT New Jersey Mayor Steals/Opens Trump Food Boxes, REMOVES President’s Letter, and Replaces It With His Own

Text Messages Show Joe and Jill Biden Colluded to Suppress HUNTER’S ACTIONS WITH A CERTAIN MINOR CHILD

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

Biden is Wrong: US Didn’t Have Good Relationship With Hitler — But the New York Times Did

/in , , , /by

Did the United States really have a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before he started World War II? Joe Biden made this bizarre claim during Thursday’s debate with President Trump. Trump said of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: “North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. People don’t understand. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.”

Biden shot back: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.”

Come on, Joe! The U.S. didn’t have a good relationship with Hitler before he “invaded Europe. The German dictator was, however, beloved in certain quarters, including the editorial offices of the New York Times.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t attack Hitler directly before the war began, but relations between the U.S. and Nazi Germany were by no means good. In September 1938, Roosevelt sent a telegram to Hitler lecturing him about the importance of keeping the peace and stating: “The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.” Implying that Hitler was a warmonger was hardly a hallmark of cordial relations between the two countries.

Failing to get a satisfactory response from Hitler, on October 11, 1938, Roosevelt announced that he was increasing national defense spending by $300 million (over $5 billion in today’s dollars). No one thought that money was going to build up our defenses against Britain and France.

Some in America, however, loved the Führer.

The historian Rafael Medoff recently noted that on July 9, 1933, just over five months after he became Chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become notorious worldwide, the New York Times published a fawning puff piece on Hitler that rivals even today’s media adulation of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi in its one-sidedness, myopia, and disdain for essential facts.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she was an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, as in the presence of this man whose name has become justly synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.”

As if that weren’t enough, she continues with a description of the Führer as outlandish and adulatory as likening the supremely zaftig Stacy Abrams to a supermodel: “His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”

McCormick labored to portray Hitler as more modest than his public persona might suggest: “In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.” He is also, she signaled to her readers, reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.

The intrepid New York Times reporter doesn’t seem to have asked Hitler if he had a significant other, but no one would have been surprised after reading all this if the two of them had become an item.

However, McCormick’s interview was not all about Hitler’s sun-browned face and blue larkspur eyes. In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.

Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would still be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs. And old Joe Biden, as he contemplates the approaching end of the presidential race from his Delaware basement, can rest secure in the certainty that no matter what outrageously false or crazy thing he says, that same New York Times will cover for him, too.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nikki Haley: Trump withheld a billion dollars in military aid to Pakistan because it harbors jihad terrorists

‘Boycott French products’ trending in eight Arab countries over Macron’s comments on Islam

France: Jihadi told students he wanted to ‘humiliate and strike’ teacher, they wait two hours to point teacher out

France: Beheaded teacher gets Legion d’Honneur for the same thing for which police interrogated him

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

The Triumph of Justice Amy Coney Barrett

/in , , , , , /by

“There is a tendency in our profession,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett declared at the outset of her Senate confirmation hearing, “to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else.”

But, Barrett added in her Oct. 12 opening statement, “I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.”

There is much to celebrate with Barrett’s successful elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States: her impeccable qualifications, her laudable record, her commitment to the Constitution, and the army of devoted family, friends, and colleagues who supported her.

But above all else, it is Amy Coney Barrett the person whom we celebrate, because everything we’ve learned through this process has only strengthened our conclusion that she will be a superlative justice.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The confirmation process is a grueling examination of a nominee’s life.  When President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the high court, Gorsuch said that he regretted putting his family through it.

When it was Barrett’s turn, her opponents distorted her record, launched bad-faith attacks against her religious views, and even attacked her family and her decision to adopt children from Haiti.

Nevertheless, each time the scrutiny intensified, Barrett came out looking better.

For starters, we saw a devoted mother whose family was the first thing she talked about at her confirmation hearing. We saw her compassion as she recounted struggling through the death of George Floyd with her black daughter.

Barrett also showed us how this compassion affects the way she decides cases. In explaining her approach, she said:

I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law?

We saw a role model for women, someone who rose to the top in school and in her career while choosing to have the husband, family, and spiritual life she dreamed of.

Just as Barrett thanked the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “for the path she marked and the life she led,” so too will future generations thank Barrett for the example she sets.

We also got a glimpse of Amy Coney Barrett the mentor who went out of her way to take care of her students and help them launch impressive careers of their own.

And of course, her intellect was on full display both at the Senate confirmation hearing and in the many examinations of her scholarly work and her judicial opinions (see, for example, these reviews of her work on criminal law, civil rights, the First Amendment, administrative law, immigration law, and federal jurisdiction).

Taken altogether, what we got over these past several weeks was a portrait of a woman who will be an extraordinary justice even though—or perhaps because—she breaks the mold.

Barrett will be the only mother of young children ever to serve on the high court.  She will be the only Midwesterner on the court. And she will be the only member of the court who did not graduate law school from either Harvard or Yale.

Still, her qualifications are above reproach. This is a fact perhaps best proved by the dearth of attacks against those qualifications from Democrats.

Instead, Democrats tried to say that Barrett would not decide cases based on the law, but on some other priority such as her religious views, political views, or perhaps out of loyalty to the president.

But Barrett batted away these attacks, reminding senators and the American people time and time again: “I have never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on [others], and the same is true professionally. I apply the law.”

The Senate voted 52-48 to confirm her Monday night. After taking the ceremonial oath of office not long after, Barrett declared:

The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means, at its core, that I will do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it.

We couldn’t ask for more.

COMMENTARY BY

GianCarlo Canaparo

GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amy Coney Barrett Joins Supreme Court After 52-48 Senate Vote

Using COVID-19 to Attack Barrett’s Nomination Is Beyond Absurd

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.”

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

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

PODCAST: And the Winner is . . .

/in , , , , /by

You might be interested to know, the winner of the 2020 presidential race will not be one of the declared candidates, but rather the news media. It doesn’t seem that long ago we had our first $1 Billion campaign, shocking everyone, but we are now well past this point. In fact, according to Opensecrets.org, which tracks campaign donations, 2020 will likely end up costing a whopping $11 Billion, thereby smashing all prior records, the last being 2016 where candidates spent up to $6.5 Billion. In the presidential campaigns alone, Opensecrets estimates approximately $5.2 Billion will have been spent, easily beating the 2008 election record of $2.8 Billion.

No matter how you slice it, it is an obscene amount of money to elect our government officials. Shouldn’t we be spending this money on something more useful?

Two reasons for the dramatic increase; first, the Democrats’ desperate attempt to re-take the White House and Congress (forcing the Republicans to respond in kind), and; Two, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the uptick. Because people felt house-bound, the candidates were impelled to reach out to voters through television, radio, Internet, print publications, and direct mail. Not surprising, Democrats are outspending Republicans considerably.

In this country, political campaigns fuel the media. Without such campaigns, the media would be crippled, and this is really what I want to discuss. Trust in journalism in this country continues to abate. According to a 2019 Gallup Poll, trust in the mass media has fallen from a high of 68% in 1972 to 41% in 2019 (I suspect it is even lower today). More and more people are going elsewhere for information rather than trusting the “Fake News.” It is a sad day when we trust social media over trained journalists, but such are the times we live in. In other words, despite the billions made by the Media Industrial Complex, the American public doesn’t feel they are getting their money’s worth.

The animosity dividing the country is less due to ideology, and more attributed to the main stream media. Instead of honest journalism in this country, we are offered up a plate of intrigue and anger by the media, which divides the country further. Consider this, put two groups of people in two separate rooms, one with news (with whatever form of media you prefer), and one without. The group exposed to the news will likely show signs of angst and frustration, the other will not.

Also, consider network news such as CNN, Fox, and MSNBC would likely be gone if it wasn’t for the money they receive from elections. So, it is in their best interests to “stir the pot” and keep their audiences on edge. By doing so, they develop addicts who tune in to get their daily fix of anger.

This is why I have long touted the need for electoral reform. The fact we find ourselves in a constant election cycle is not healthy for the candidates or the country. Our process is way too long and should be shortened radically, such as to 60 or 90 days, as is done in other countries. By doing so, politicians no longer have to be obsessed with canvassing for campaign donations and spend more time serving their constituents (which is why we elected them in the first place). It would also finally put some of these “Fake News” hacks out to pasture.

Don’t like shortening the cycle? How about for every dollar paid to the media, another dollar must be paid to a special fund for improving our infrastructure. This should cause politicians to rethink their campaign finances and, at the same time, would do some good for the country.

Just remember, the news media is the real winner of elections, not politicians. With the passing of each election, the news media becomes more massive and uncontrollable. It is long overdue for us to tame the beast that is dividing us.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: The New Cold War — The Chinese money machine.

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Chinese money machine.

WATCH:

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Says He Will Collaborate With China If Elected

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

Spontaneous Grassroots MAGA Rallies Overwhelm Big Tech

/in , , , /by

This will brighten your day!  And, maybe best to re-read and re-watch the videos at the Conservative Tree House (aka The Last Refuge) every day for the next week!

I don’t know about you, but I have been using Twitter to smile and laugh almost daily for the last few weeks as grassroots activists post their videos of massive pro-Trump rallies, car, truck, motorcycle and boat parades, and I especially liked the Trump brigades surrounding Biden’s pathetic pumpkin stage in Pennsylvania on Sunday.

Editors note on the picture of Biden arriving on that pumpkin stage:  I found a picture on Twitter, apparently taken from a distance by a Biden fan, and I cropped it and blew it up to reveal Biden being supported by Jill. Is she is using both hands to steady him as he walks to the podium? Astounding!

Have you heard anything about Biden planning to make no more public appearances now to election day?  Wasn’t sure if that is a rumor.

Big Tech Panicking – Trump’s Grassroots MAGA Army Working Around Platform Controls…

A diverse and patriotic MAGA movement is overwhelming the mechanisms of narrative control; and they are doing it by flooding the zones with a combination of “old school” and “modern tech” workarounds.  It’s quite honestly the most remarkable political dynamic since the organic Tea Party erupted in 2009.

[….]

“A right-wing offensive” is the 2020 narrative equivalent to Clinton’s vast Russian conspiracy theory.  The truth is Big Tech is getting their ass kicked by the American electorate and they are freaking out about how visible, in-your-face, unapologetic and dramatic the MAGA activism has become.

[….]

Here’s what is happening… really just an affirmation of what everyone is noticing and talking about…. and it is wonderful.

A combination of what I would call “old school” activism is taking place everywhere.  Car parades, boat parades, marches, rallies and massive swarms of American MAGA supporters are literally flooding the political space in a scale that makes it impossible to ignore.

Trump happy warriors even in Beverly Hills, California!

See many more videos of spontaneous rallies.

Then Sundance wraps with this,

The American people are all-in, right now when it matters most; the Monster Vote is also clearly evident.   Spontaneous acts of patriotism are now considered representative of the counter-culture; people of all colors, races, creeds and orientations are united under the Red, White and Blue MAGA banner; and all of this was initiated organically by an American President who just transparently loves this country.

MAGA bitches, this is just awesome.

Go to the Conservative Treehouse, see the videos and come back to it often to get your daily laugh!  See the comments too!

Don’t miss the videos of the Trump fans who attended the pathetic pumpkin stage rally (uninvited).

RELATED TWEET: 

RELATED ARTICLE: Money Laundering! Learn how a Crook Finds the Best Hidey-Hole for Ill-gotten Payola

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

Unseen and Unsaid: The MOST Telling Character Difference Between Trump and Biden

/in , , , , /by

Something occurred to me recently while watching a post-debate Frank Luntz focus group. Comprising undecided voters who liked neither Trump nor Biden, the participants nonetheless believed the president won the debate and most said they’d probably vote for him as “the lesser of two evils.” Their preference for him on policy overrode their higher estimation of Biden’s character.

If they were to read what follows, however, I think they might change that estimation. No, this won’t be about Burisma and the Ukraine and China and Russia and Hunter. It’s about something almost universally missed.

It was mentioned in Thursday’s debate how Trump called Flip-flop King Anthony Fauci an “idiot.” The president is known for sometimes hurling names (just ask Rosie O’Donnell), and perhaps those undecided voters and some others view him as being the bull in a china shop of human relations. But let’s talk about personal attacks.

Biden, “Lunch-bucket Joe,” has this “Aw, shucks!” image as a nice guy. But the 84-year-old retired farmer who questioned him at an event last year may not agree. He’s the guy Biden immediately got aggressive with, called a “damn liar,” appeared to call “fat” and — being the Izzy Mandelbaum of politics — challenged to a strength contest (video below).

Then there was the time, earlier this year, when Biden told a worker who questioned him on the Second Amendment, “You’re full of s***” (video below). Once again, instead of trying to explain why he thought the man was misinformed, Lunch-bucket Joe’s first instinct was to get nasty — really nasty.

Just in case you think such belligerence is explained by Biden’s early-stage dementia, know that it’s nothing new for him. Just consider how he challenged a man to an IQ contest at a 1987 rally after the fellow didn’t swallow hook, line and sinker Biden’s Walter Mitty-version portrayal of his accomplishments. It’s classic Biden: When the “little people” don’t show the expected obeisance, he slaps them down hard.

This is the point: Trump does launch personal attacks at times, and they’re not always prudent. Yet they do always have one thing in common:

Trump attacks the powerful.

Biden aims his fire downwards. As for the powerful, he’s like most politicians: He panders to them. This is why even Tucker Carlson, normally a discerning fellow, has praised Biden as a nice guy.

This speaks volumes. The true measure of a man is how he treats the powerless, those who, as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe put it, “can do nothing for him.”

It also is a metaphor for the larger picture and helps explain Trumpism. While the president is fabulously wealthy, he’s more Main Street than Wall Street. He has taken up the cudgels for the little guy, combating the big-money interests, establishment vultures and foreign predators that have been raping the middle class and crushing the American dream.

In contrast, the Democrats claim to be the “party of the common man,” but, if anything, are the party of the uncommon man. They, and the establishment in general, would open our borders to empower the Left with new voters and further enrich big business, would sacrifice American manufacturing on the altar of trade deals benefiting the 0.01 percent and would rather keep their donors than the people happy. Heck, to many of them, as Biden has put it, America is just an “idea.” And why wouldn’t you sell out an idea for riches and power?

That Trump takes on with words those who can hurt him — and are trying mightily to do so — just reflects how he takes them on with deeds. How Biden sometimes attacks the powerless with words reflects how he has attacked them with deeds, and how he would in the future. There’s a reason why, after all, Forbes wrote last summer that “Joe Biden Is The Only Man Who Can Save China In 2020.” (And you don’t save the American middle class by saving China.)

Of course, neither Biden nor Trump is ready for beatification. But in the character department here, I’ll make my choice on how these men treat “the least among us.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Biden calls Pennsylvanians ‘CHUMPS’ for supporting Trump

/in , , , /by

Slow Joe speaking in Bristol Penn to a small group of “drive-in” supporters about needing to maintain “decency” in campaign and then turned right around and stated unlike “those Chumps on Microphone out there” (name-calling the Trump supporters blowing car horns in back).

WATCH: Joe Biden insults Pennsylvanians who don’t support him as “chumps”

Biden calls Trump supporters ‘chumps’ at Pennsylvania drive-in rally

By Mary Kay Linge

An irritated Joe Biden lashed out at a group of Trump supporters who tried to crash his campaign appearance in Pennsylvania.

“We don’t do things like those chumps out there with the microphones, those Trump guys,” he told supporters ensconced in about 130 cars at a drive-in rally at Bucks County Community College in Newtown.

He was referring to scores of fans of President Trump, driving pickup trucks and SUVs draped with American flags and campaign banners, who invaded a nearby parking lot — within earshot of the candidate — to honk horns and try to shout the Democrat down.

Biden spoke for 25 minutes in the crucial swing county just north of Philadelphia, which Hillary Clinton won by less than 1 percent in 2016 — and which Democrats hope to win more resoundingly this year, with the help of suburbanites turned off by Trump.

The former vice president attacked Trump as “the only guy any of us have known as president who’s making money from foreign sources” — but did not otherwise refer to the ongoing controversy over his son Hunter and the younger Biden’s foreign business entanglements.

Read more.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

VIDEO: Watch the Town Hall That You Never Saw — President Trump with Eric Bolling

/in , , , , /by

The media never carried this town hall hosted by Eric Bolling. The media never published this insightful and in-depth town hall with a focus on the truth and hard questions.

WATCH: President Trump – Town Hall, with Eric Bolling: 10/21/2020 | Full

©All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

How Critical Race Theory and Identity Politics Teaches Them to Hate

/in , , , , /by

How Critical Theory and Identity Politics are used to foment intense loathing of the Republican Party and its voters.

With white hot hatred oozing from every fibre of her being, a crazed Democrat bellows into her cell phone, “Wake up, Republicans! They warned us about people like you!”

“Critical theory” is a stratagem through which communist warriors subvert western democracies by constantly challenging the traditional principles, values and institutions that enable those societies to function.

In its most basic form, critical theory calls for tearing away at the social fabric of free nations by relentlessly stigmatizing political opponents as selfish beneficiaries of an evil and oppressive status quo. Under critical theory, opponents are targeted with never-ending criticism of everything they do, and assigned exclusive blame for every real or imagined societal wrong.

The goal of critical theory is to create a constant state of political chaos, to make society so deeply divided, so roiled with bitter controversy that frightened, demoralized citizens will agree to support calls for an entirely new system that is “fair for all.” Critical theory explains the unbridled hatred today’s rank and file Democrats have for Republicans in general, and the current Republican president in particular.

In a free society, socialists can avoid having to sell their failed utopian ideas to a skeptical electorate, provided they can convince enough voters that their opponents are morally abhorrent people. Voters convinced of that will summarily reject 100% of what they hear from the other side. Lenin referred to such easily influenced voters as “useful idiots.”

When asked how the Bolsheviks planned to keep the Russian people from listening to counterrevolutionaries, the father of Soviet Communism said in so many words, “We must speak in a language that teaches our followers to direct hate and revulsion toward those who oppose us.”

Half-a-century later, a Marxist community organizer in Chicago named Saul Alinsky incorporated Lenin’s teach-them-to-hate strategy in his revolutionary book, “Rules for Radicals.” When “Rules” was published in 1971, the post-1960s Democratic Party adopted the book as its political bible.

Believing that communism is so morally and intellectually superior that its advocates must prevail at all costs, Alinsky taught Democrats that the most effective way to defeat Republicans is to relentlessly accuse them of being racists.

Sensing that Alinsky’s tactics could be the means to fulfill her insatiable thirst for political power, a young Goldwater Republican became so infatuated with Alinsky that she switched her party affiliation. As the Democrat presidential nominee five decades later, Hillary Clinton would put Alinsky’s teach-them-to-hate strategy to practice by demonizing millions of Trump supporters as morally disgusting people: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”

Like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is one of Alinsky’s most loyal disciples. Having taught classes about the Marxist community organizer at the University of Chicago, Obama used Alinsky’s “ends justify the means” tactics in ascending to the most powerful job in the world.

Identity politics: How Democrats win elections

To overthrow a capitalist society, The Communist Manifesto calls for inciting a titanic class struggle by pitting a victim class against an oppressor class. In the bloody Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks rose to power by pitting the proletariat against the bourgeois. Over the last half-century, the post-JFK Democratic Party has refined the concept of Marxist/Leninist class struggle into a polarizing political weapon known as identity politics.

The term refers to politically subdividing the electorate into multiple factions (voting blocs), the members of which are indoctrinated to believe they’ve been singled out for oppression due to societal prejudice against the identity group to which they belong. To wit: People of color are oppressed by “systemic racism,” women by sexists and misogynists, refugees and illegal immigrants by xenophobes, Muslims by Islamophobes; gays and lesbians by religious bigots, and so on. The self-serving narrative of identity politics is that tolerant, inclusive and morally virtuous Democrats will righteously defend the members (voters) of each identity group from constant outrages intentionally inflicted on them by intolerant and morally bereft Republicans.

Through the use of identity politics vilification campaigns, the post-JFK Democratic Party has religiously adhered to Alinsky’s teach-them-to-hate strategy by indoctrinating its followers to not just disagree with Republicans, but to loathe them as well.

How free nations are felled from within

Generating political hatred is how totalitarians take over a country. That’s what happened in 1930s Germany, where a cheerleading press helped Hitler convince the German people that Jews were the cause of the country’s problems. By the time decent Germans realized what was happening, it was too late.

Political hatred is un-American in the most poisonous meaning of the term. When an entire party self-righteously wraps itself in a delusional cloak of moral superiority, there’s not much it won’t do to obliterate its opposition; when that party teaches its followers to direct seething hatred toward the opposition, things are unlikely to end well.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

America Is Drowning in the Lies of the Left

/in , , , /by

There are conservatives who lie, and there are liberals who lie, but both conservatism and liberalism hold truth to be a supreme value.

This is not true for leftism.

Truth is simply not a left-wing value.

Lying is to the left what breathing is to biological life. That is why the father of modern leftism, Vladimir Lenin, named the Soviet communist newspaper “Pravda,” the Russian word for “truth.” Truth is what a leftist says it is. It is not an objective reality.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The left has always relied on lies to gain and retain power. This is as true today in the United States as it was in the Soviet Union.

Here are examples of lies Americans are told they must hold lest they be removed from social media, shamed, ostracized, and even fired from their jobs.

In no order of importance:

Men menstruate. American Civil Liberties Union tweet, Nov. 19, 2019: “Men who get their periods are men. Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.” If this is not a lie, the word has no meaning.

It is fair when males who identify as females compete in girls’ and women’s sports. In Connecticut, two biological men who are trans women have combined to win 15 girls state indoor or outdoor championship races since 2017. According to The Wall Street Journal, “19 state athletic conferences … allow athletes to compete based solely on their expressed gender identity.” No one with a passing acquaintance with truth could say this is fair.

To be colorblind is to be racist. This left-wing assertion is the opposite of the basic liberal ideal to end racism: to have everyone colorblind, meaning we are all to view and judge people solely as individuals irrespective of race.

“Colorblind is racist” is not just a lie; it is an Orwellian lie. But it is actually normative on the left. See, for example, “Color-Blindness Is Counterproductive” (The Atlantic, Sept. 13, 2015) or the book “Colorblind Racism” by Meghan Burke, associate professor of sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University.

The 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election. This lie has permeated the American media for more than three years. There was never any truth to it. But those on the left–the Democratic Party and the mainstream media–found it a very useful claim, and they are doing so again in the 2020 campaign.

President Donald Trump said there were “very fine” Nazis. This is “the Charlottesville lie.” First, the media spread it, and now Joe Biden has run with it, claiming repeatedly that this was the reason he decided to run for president. Of course, what Biden said is a lie; he has wanted to run for president all his life.

At Trump’s press conference on Aug. 15, 2017, right after the Charlottesville march and demonstrations, Trump made it clear he wasn’t referring to the neo-Nazis when he said there were “very fine people on both sides.” He told the press, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” He was referring to the two sides at the protest over statues. See the video “The Charlottesville Lie” by former CNN reporter Steve Cortes at PragerU.com.

Donald Trump is a dictator. This lie has been told since before Trump was elected. It is repeated by virtually every left-wing commentator and politician. See, for example, “10 Ways Trump Is Becoming a Dictator, Election Edition” by Harvard professor Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy, Sept. 8, 2020) or “Donald Trump Wants To Be a Dictator” by Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland (The Guardian, July 5, 2019). It is a lie.

The fact is no conservative American politician is a likely dictator because one of the fundamental goals of American conservatives is to shrink the power of the government. A dictatorship in America is far more likely to come from the left, which seeks to massively increase government power.

For example, as reported in Politico on Aug. 21, Biden has already pledged, “I would shut it down,” referring to the American economy and Americans’ freedom of movement to combat the COVID-19 virus.

>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.

America is a racist society. This is the greatest national lie since the medieval blood libel, in which Christians accused Jews of slaughtering Christian children to use their blood to bake matzo for Passover. America is, in fact, the least racist country in history. That’s why, for example, there are so many race hoaxes; the real thing is so hard to find. Jews didn’t need to concoct anti-Jewish hoaxes to prove there was widespread anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1930s.

Ferguson was an example of racist police brutality. The Ferguson lie is frequently cited by the left as an example of police racism, including by figures as prominent as Barack Obama. Yet, a grand jury, which included black jurors, declined to indict the white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, a black man, because Brown had attacked the officer, sought to steal his gun, and was in the process of a second attack when he was killed.

The claim that Brown had said, “Hands up, don’t shoot” was also a left-wing lie. Brown never said it. See the PragerU video with Larry Elder.

America was founded in 1619, not 1776. This is the infamous New York Times lie for which the Times was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. This is the same prize awarded to the same newspaper in 1932 for its horrific lie that there was no famine in Ukraine when, in fact, Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving about 5 million Ukrainians to death.

Leading liberal scholars of American history have condemned the Times’ rewriting of American history—that the American Revolution was fought in order to preserve slavery—as a lie.

These are just some of the left-wing lies increasing numbers of Americans believe. America’s survival depends on Americans—especially young Americans—recognizing them as such.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Electoral College Didn’t Protect Slavery

The Left-Wing Con of Black Americans

Trump Sparks Coyote Conundrum by Citing Smuggling of Illegal Aliens

‘Eternal Vigilance’ Required to Maintain Freedom, Author Says

America’s Teenagers Are Losing Their Religion

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.”

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

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

PENNSYLVANIA: GOP Candidates Win Concessions From Allegheny County on Mailed Ballot Fiasco

/in , , , , , /by

PITTSBURGH, PA /PRNewswire/ — GOP congressional candidates Sean Parnell and Luke Negron announced today that their plan to resolve the ballot fiasco will be adopted by Allegheny County, Pennsylvania officials to ensure that every vote will be properly counted for the election. Following the agreement, a consent motion was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania outlining the solution conceived by Parnell and Negron.

Consent Motion and Proposed Consent Order
VIEW PDF
Consent Motion and Proposed Consent Order

“This is an important accomplishment for the people of Allegheny County,” said GOP congressional candidate for the 17th District of Pennsylvania, Sean Parnell. “We are grateful that every vote will be properly counted in this critical election. It’s gratifying to be part of a real solution to resolve this ballot fiasco,” he concluded.

GOP congressional candidate for the 18th District of Pennsylvania, Luke Negron, said, “We got absolutely everything we sought in our marathon negotiations with Allegheny County. The integrity of every ballot will now be ensured by guaranteeing the integrity of every ballot.”

Lead counsel for the GOP candidates, Thomas W. King III, said, “My clients demonstrated true leadership in challenging this mailed ballot problem and pursuing a solution to ensure that every vote will count in Allegheny County.”

Adding his praise for the agreement, Phill Kline, the Director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society which supported the litigation, said, “The ballots for this year’s elections are integral to our fundamental rights as U.S. citizens and their integrity are essential. We applaud the candidates for proposing the solution to ensure that every vote is properly counted and Allegheny County for agreeing to the plan.”

The candidates originally filed their complaint on behalf of the citizens of Allegheny County to ensure that their ballots are safeguarded, and their votes are protected following revelations that erroneous ballots were mailed to registered voters with a second round of corrected ballots mailed thereafter.

The agreement includes a detailed plan for ensuring that every vote will count, including counting the corrected ballots for each voter and “counting only those portions of an Initial Ballot for those public offices that the individual voting that Initial Ballot would have been eligible to vote for in the individual’s proper election district.” Also, “the current practice of maintaining the Initial and Corrected Ballots within separately designated portions of the locked ballot room shall also be maintained.”

For more information on this and related issues, go to got-freedom.org.

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Presided Over the Largest Manufacturing Boom in a First Term Since the 1970s

/in , , , , /by

But many of America’s unions are supporting Joe Biden, who would gift American manufacturing to China and Mexico. The choice could not be clearer on November 3rd. Vote for President Trump.

The American worker is being betrayed by criminal Union leadership who have endorsed Biden.

Revealed: President Trump Presided Over the Largest Manufacturing Boom in a First Term Since the 1970s

By Breitbart, October 24, 2020

The following is an excerpt from 50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know About Trump, the new book by Breitbart News Entertainment Editor Jerome Hudson.

50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know About Trump is due out October 27 and available for purchase here. The excerpt is from pages 254-258.

President Donald Trump constantly committed to reviving American industry during his 2016 presidential campaign, promising that he’d bring back jobs that the country lost due to unfair trade deals. His loud appeals to blue-collar laborers went a long way toward putting him in the White House, even though they garnered ceaseless skepticism from the establishment media, mainstream economists, and his predecessor.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said weeks after Trump’s election that the president would never bring back lost manufacturing jobs. Krugman declared that “nothing policy can do will bring back those lost jobs. The service sector is the future of work; but nobody wants to hear it.” At a PBS town hall in June 2016, former President Barack Obama poured cold water on Trump’s promise to restore a manufacturing jobs sector that’d been slowly picked apart for decades. Obama contended that decades of America’s diminished dominance in manufacturing was proof of a larger global trend. “Well, how exactly are you going to do that?” Obama asked rhetorically. “What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it. He just says, ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.” It was Barack Obama who oversaw a stagnant and declining manufacturing sector during his eight years in office. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Obama’s economy produced less than 100,000 manufacturing jobs across the nation during his last two years in office. In contrast to Obama, manufacturing jobs started soaring shortly after Trump assumed office in January 2017.

Since the Trump Administration’s red-tape–cutting policies and the tax cut and reform law passed in December 2017, manufacturers added 467,000 jobs, more than six times the 73,000 manufacturing jobs added in Obama’s last two years.

Looking at Trump’s first two years, the revised BLS data shows that more than two manufacturing jobs were added for every one job added in government at the federal, state, and local level. In contrast, under Obama, almost five government jobs were added for every one manufacturing job.

Since President Trump took office in January 2017, employment in manufacturing has increased 3.7 percent. Over the same period during the last two years under President Obama, manufacturing payrolls grew by only 0.6 percent.

Justin Haskins, the editorial director and a research fellow at the Heartland Institute, noted in an op-ed in The Hill in January 2020 that Democratic lawmakers fundamentally misunderstand job creation. Instead, Haskins argues that what’s necessary for the economy to flourish is to allow business owners to operate with minimal government interference.

“What Obama and others in the Democratic Party didn’t understand—and judging by the rhetoric coming from the current batch of presidential candidates, still don’t understand—is that you don’t need a magic wand to grow the economy,” Haskins wrote. “All that is required are policies that give individuals and businesses more power to operate freely and that limit efforts by inept, greedy government bureaucrats in Washington to meddle and manipulate markets they don’t fully understand.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Tech CEO Emails 10 Million Customers Urging Them To Vote For Biden 

HUGE TRUMP 2020 CAR PARADE: Religious Jews In New York Rally For Trump, Crowds To Converge In Marine Park [VIDEOS]

Multiple Medical Journals Refuse To Run Results of LARGEST MASK STUDY

[VIDEO] Jill Biden Screams Over Trump Supporters Blasting Their Horns, While Joe Appears to Wander Around Behind Her

MAGA Nuns Go Viral, Cause Worldwide Sensation! ‘God was right behind our president!’

Corrupt Joe Biden’s 10 BIGGEST Debate Lies and Racist Slurs

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

The Trump Administration’s Geopolitical Hat Trick

/in , , , , /by

Sudan has become the third Arab country to agree to normalize relations with Israel. The Palestinians are most unhappy: “Palestinians condemn ‘shameful’ Israel-Sudan accord,” by Khaled Abu Toameh and Celia Jean, Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2020:

The Palestinian Authority said on Friday that it “condemns and rejects” the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel.

A statement by the PA presidency in Ramallah said that normalization with Israel is in violation of the Arab summit resolutions and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative….

Friday’s statement by the PA, however, did not accuse Sudan of betraying the Palestinians or stabbing the Palestinian people in the back, as was the case with the UAE and Bahrain.

Mahmoud Abbas has apparently figured out that the curses and insults that he and his cronies flung at the UAE and Bahrain when they normalized relations with Israel, did the Palestinians no good, but merely inflamed passions against them. With the Sudan, they’re trying a different, more-in-sorrow approach: How can you do this to us? Don’t you feel our pain?

“No one has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue,” the statement added. “The path to a just and comprehensive peace should be based on international law and legitimacy so as to end the Israeli occupation of the land of the State of Palestine and achieve independence for the Palestinian people in their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership will take the necessary decisions to protect the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

But Sudan did not arrogate to itself the “right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue.” It said nothing at all about the “Palestinians” in its agreement to normalize relations with Israel. It was only addressing, and promoting in two ways, its own national interest. First, to obtain this agreement, the U.S. has removed the Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. That will give it access to foreign investors, and to loans from the World Bank, the IMF, and other institutions. Second, Israel will be eager to prove to the Sudan that it made the right choice, by helping it where it most could use Israeli help: in agriculture. Israel is a world leader in drip irrigation, in wastewater management, and in solar energy, all of which could be of great help to Sudanese farmers.

While not in the official PA statement, Wasel Abu Youssef from the Palestinian Liberation Front, a small faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said that Sudan joining “others who normalized ties with the state of the Israeli occupation represents a new stab in the back of the Palestinian people and a betrayal of the just Palestinian cause.”

“A new stab in the back”? Oh dear. It sounds as if Wasel Abu Youssef of the PLF did not get the memo from Mahmoud Abbas calling for a kinder, gentler approach to Sudan. This kind of charge only infuriated the UAE and Bahrain when it was made about them by the PA; the Sudanese are just as unlikely to be pleased to be described as back-stabbers. The Palestinians really ought to do a better job of coordinating their responses; this mixed-messaging will never do.

Abbas Zaki, a senior official of the ruling Fatah faction, said that Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord with Israel….

“Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord”? But Sudan has already gained something. It has been removed from the American list of state sponsors of terrorism; that removal will greatly improve Sudan’s ability to attract foreign investment, and will now enable Sudan to receive loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other financial institutions that were previously impossible to obtain. And then there is the extensive Israeli aid that will be given to Sudanese farmers, just as soon as the agreement goes into effect. Abbas Zaki is whistling in the dark.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that the agreement was “not compatible with Sudan’s record of supporting the Palestinians.”

But that “record of supporting the Palestinians” took place under the long and terrible rule of Omar al-Bashir, the dictator of Sudan from 1989 to 2019. Bashir was an ardent supporter of Hamas, allowing it to operate freely in the country. Bashir also gave refuge to Osama bin Laden, who lived securely in the Sudan for four years. The new regime in Sudan wants to end any hint of the country’s previous connection to terrorists; it wants to reconnect with the West, attract investors, and build its economy, especially agriculture. It has gotten nothing from its “record of supporting the Palestinians” except being placed on the list of state sponsors of terror. Now, by normalizing relations with Israel, it has already been taken off that list, allowing it to attract investors, be again eligible for foreign aid, and be able to obtain loans from major financial institutions such as the IMF. Israel is ready to share with Sudanese farmers the benefits of its expertise and advances in at least three key areas – solar energy, drip irrigation, and wastewater management – where it is a world leader.

PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] spokesman Daoud Shehab accused Sudan of presenting Israel with a “free gift” in order to appease the US.

“This is a black day in the history of Sudan,” Shehab added. “The agreement jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity and is a betrayal of the Arabs and Muslims.”

The PIJ official expressed confidence that the Sudanese people would not accept this “betrayal.”…

It is Israel that will be giving gifts to the Sudan, in the form of aid to its agricultural sector. As for Shehab’s claim that the normalization agreement “jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity,” since when did the Palestinians become the judges as to the “Arab” identity of others? Because the Sudanese are black, is there possibly an attempt here to hint at doubt as to their “Arab” identity unless they fall back into line with what the Palestinians demand? And what exactly was the “betrayal” by the Sudan? Did it owe the Palestinians anything? Have the Palestinians ever done anything for the Sudan, other than land the country on the list of state sponsors of terrorism?

There is certainly domestic opposition in the Sudan to this new agreement. But the opponents of normalization surely know that the Sudanese quid for that significant American quo was Sudan’s agreeing to normalize relations with Israel. And if they are willing to “give peace a chance,” they will find the new connection with Israel will pay ample dividends, for the Israelis want to make sure that the “early adopters” of normalization realize economic benefits quickly. In the case of Sudan, as bears repeating, that means Israeli help to Sudanese farmers, mainly by sharing Israeli advances in drip irrigation, in waste water management, and in solar energy.

Commending the agreement from the Arab world was Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who tweeted that he welcomed the joint efforts of all three states involved in the agreement.

He added that he also values “all efforts aimed at achieving regional stability and peace.”…

El-Sisi has for a long time been cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially against Jihadis in the Sinai and, naturally, against the Muslim Brotherhood that is the sworn enemy of his regime. He previously praised both the UAE and Bahrain for their normalization agreements with Israel. It is not surprising, but is still heartening, that the most populous Arab state, and Sudan’s immediate northern neighbor, has come out foursquare for the agreement.

The Palestinian Arabs continue to believe that they should have a veto power over the policy toward Israel of all the other Arabs. They seek to deny the Arab states the possibility of making their own arrangements with Israel, arrangements that further their own national interests. The UAE and Bahrain dismissed the Palestinian objections, and went ahead in normalizing relations with the Jewish state. They have had only curses and insults heaped on them by the Palestinians, which only makes them more determined to promote both economic and people-to-people ties with the Israelis – “a warm peace.” Meanwhile, the entire nation of Israel seems ready to make sure their new Arab interlocutors benefit from such normalization; Israeli businessmen, entrepreneurs, scientists, academics, and tourists have gone to the UAE and Bahrain, while Emiratis and Bahrainis are doing the same in the Jewish state. And now, to complete the Trump Administration’s geopolitical hat trick, Sudan has just become the third Arab state to announce its intention to normalize relations with Israel. Abbas rages in Ramallah, for he can do no other, and the caravan moves on.

COLUMN BY

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED VIDEO: FBI warns David Wood of jihadists’ calls to murder him for eating Qur’an pages

RELATED ARTICLES:

North Carolina Leftist who wanted to kill Biden to ‘save Bernie’ had pro-jihad video, praised 9/11

Colorado: Non-Muslims try to destroy Islam by ‘sugarcoating, watering it down, accept LGBT…HIYZ…music is okay’

Muslims from Mozambique screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ cross into Tanzania, behead 20 people

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

VIDEO: Biden states we have put together, ‘the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization in the history of American politics’

/in , , , /by

Joe Biden bragged the he, and Obama, have put together “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

The truth comes straight from Biden’s mouth. Amazing!

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.