Tag Archive for: Barack Obama

This Video Builds A Rock Solid Case For Only Trump As The Commander-in-Chief

We have written about why Donald J. Trump is the only real choice for America’s patriots to become the 47th President of the United States, here, here and here.

It appears that World Net Daily’s Bob Unruh agrees with us. In his April 15th, 2024 article titled “Stunning video builds case for only Trump as commander-in-chief”  Bob wrote,

A stunning new video has been delivered that makes the case for ONLY President Donald Trump as commander-in-chief.

The Gateway Pundit explains it is the “most powerful pro-Trump ad of the year” – “It is that good.”

It is from Claremont Institute chairman Tom Klingenstein, a philanthropist, public speaker, writer, and playwright.

He explains:

Now that President Trump is the Republican nominee for President in 2024, it’s time for Republicans, including those who doubt him or even can’t stand him to get behind him. The times demand it. We are in a war fighting an enemy of revolutionaries that kick and spit on America. I call our enemy the Woke regime or the Group quota regime. This war is a contest between those who love America and those who hate it. But we do not have a commander-in-chief. You can’t win a war without one. We shouldn’t much care whether our commander-in-chief is a real conservative, whether he is a role model for children, or says lots of silly things, or whether he is modest or dignified.

What we should care about is whether he knows we are in a war, knows who the enemy is, and knows how to win.

Trump does. His policies are important but not as important as the rest of him. Trump grasps the essential things. He understands the Group quota regime is evil and will not stop until it destroys America. He is a fighter, bold, brave, and decisive, who has confidence in himself and his country.

Trump never apologizes for America. He rightly believes America is the greatest country in history. Trump says, in effect, we have our culture. It’s exceptional, and that’s the way we want to keep it. And we won’t keep it if we usher in millions of immigrants with cultures different from our own. Trump knows his job is to protect Americans and just Americans. Protect them not just from enemies abroad, but from the woke globalists within. He knows that America does not need more diversity. It needs more cohesion. The woke radicals tell the Trump voters they are a threat to democracy. Think about that. They’re saying, You Trumpsters are a threat to democracy. The woke radicals also tell us ad nauseam that America is systemically racist. Trump knows this is deadly nonsense, and he says so. This charge of systemic racism bounces off Trump because he has no white guilt, or any guilt for that matter. Trump tells his supporters what they already know. They are not racist, and they do not have white privilege. The woke radicals shut up those who disagree. Trump will not be shut up. If they manage to put him in jail, he will still roar like a lion.

The woke radicals have the moral arrogance of fanatics. Trump, God bless him, knows we are all sinners. Trump rejects the utopian fanaticism of the woke radicals. He is a businessman who takes the world on its own terms and navigates by facts and common sense. Trump’s base knows firsthand the America that Trump wants to recover. They love him, and they know he loves them. They will fight for him because they know he will fight for them. Trump speaks to his supporters as fellow citizens without any condescension or poll-tested BS. Despite his billions, he is one of them, an outsider looking in, a man who takes catsup on his steak. And is as disgusted as they are with the anti-American elite.

This natural appeal has molded everyday patriotic Americans into an army. We cannot stop the left’s revolution and retake the nation without these men and women. Unlike most Conservatives, they will actually fight for America. But they follow Trump. Without him, they stay home. With him, they are united and determined. At his rallies, his audience invariably breaks into chants of USA, USA. In these moments, Trump and his audience mutually pledge to each other their fidelity and their sacred honor.

His enemies hate him with an indescribable fierceness. Another Hitler, they say. Elect him and he will be a dictator. We should take this hysteria as reason for hope.

The America-haters rightly fear that Trump and his party are on the threshold of a successful counter-revolution. Trump hates his enemies every bit as much as they hate him. His enemies are America’s enemies. Trump is the most towering figure of our time. He has changed politics, not just in America, but in the West. If we are to take back America, we need someone who is unmovable, who has proven that he can stand up against the immensely powerful army of woke modernity that will attack him with all its might. Someone who will go after the deep state without pity or compassion. And someone who has the conviction that America is still the last best hope of Earth. That someone is Trump. Trump, the politician, came out of the blue. An unconventional commander against an unconventional enemy. Almost inconceivable as President at any other time.

Trump fits this turbulent moment to a T. Is it too much to wonder whether the appearance of this most unconventional man is providential?

Lincoln spoke of Americans as the almost chosen people. Trump gives us hope that the God who has never forsaken his almost chosen people will not do so now.

Read full article.

WATCH: Claremont Institute chairman Tom Klingenstein on Trump’s Virtues – Part II.

The Bottom Line

In our column Comparing Two Democrats: Confederate Jefferson Davis and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. we warned that America is in a Civil War 2.0.

American Civil War 2.0 is about destroying our Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a one world order. It also requires the enslaving of the American people.

It is yet to be seen if it will become a fully armed conflict, although we are witnessing groups like the pro-Hamas supporters calling for “the death of America” and their storming of the White House and violent marches across America waving the flag of the terrorist group Hamas and the burning of the American flag.

Unlike the Civil War of 1861, the American Civil War 2.0 is in essence not seceding from the United States but rather destroying it from within by a cabal of traitors.

Abraham Lincoln wrote, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

We know what President Donald J. Trump must do when inaugurated on January 20th, 2025.

He must drain the swamp from the schoolhouse to the White House, completely and totally.

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Seriously?!? Stephen Colbert Spots ‘Unsettling’ Poll Where Trump Has A Huge Lead

Prosecutors In Trump Cases Accused Of Corruption In New Documentary

Massive Crowd Greets Trump in Harlem

Trump Speaks Out on Day 1 of ‘Hush-Money’ Trial in New York | The Epoch Times

New Poll Shows BIG Trouble For Biden In Former Swing State

POSTS ON X:

March 28th, 2024 Said Everything About Biden vs. Trump … Everything!

Below is from a friend of a friend which I totally agree with.  Once again Biden shows up in a dark, blood red stage at NYC’s glitzy Radio City with his Marxist buddy Barack Obama and pedophile/rapist buddy Bill Clinton as the three of them were lifted up on stage from the hell on earth they occupy.  Who were their fund raising audience?

Elitists and fellow narcissists, a personality disorder is found more commonly in men like Clinton, Obama and Biden. All three are rich, true believers of the “Great Reset”, globalists, and Democrats with no core values other than Marxism who donated up to $500,000 each.

Meanwhile, not that far away in Queens, President Donald J.  Trump attended a funeral for a young slain New York City police officer Jonathan Diller who murdered at a traffic stop in Queens by a criminal with 21 charges set free by a woke, leftist judge.

President Trump was there to comfort the officer’s young wife, her child and family, and re-commit to supporting Law Enforcement and the rule of law.

This is an objective big Democrat run sanctuary cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland and other big Democrat controlled cities don’t support.

WATCH: Trump at the Wake for NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller: ‘We Have to Get Back to Law and Order’

Listen to this testimony:


I don’t normally show photos but yesterday was simply too easy.

Joe, Bill and Barry “glitzed” it all up to raise $25 million for Joe’s campaign while Trump went to a FUNERAL.

Yep, The FAMILY of this week’s slain NYC Police Officer invited Donald to the “wake” for the slain officer while JOE, BILL & BARRY whooped it up at RADIO CITY in NYC…Yep, take a very good look at both images and you will get the REAL PICTURE…The DEMOCRATIC PARTY is all about MONEY and absolute detachment from the REALTY of DEAD POLICE OFFICERS…Think carefully about that divide the next time you think about taking a subway…or walking at night on a dark street in most major cities all run by Democrats.

LA is the city of the HOMELESS…NYC has become the city of DEAD COPS. Oh, and the NYC Police Union told Joe, DO NOT SHOW UP AT THE FUNERAL…YOU ARE NOT INVITED. Think about that. They have told the President of the United States to STAY HOME!

In San Francisco you are permitted to steal up to a $1000 off the shelves of stores and NOT FACE JAIL TIME. Macy’s in San Francisco has announced they are closing. For you who were never in SF in the 60’s/70’s and 80s…That Macy’s was the most prominent store in UNION SQUARE. That Macy’s was very different from any other Macy’s in the country. They had their own buyers. They were very UPSCALE.

It was like a BLOOMINGDALES…and now it is closing…Why? Try homeless in UNION SQUARE try being allowed to STEAL $1000 in goods off the shelves…The new mayor of Houston just announced that HOUSTON is now broke officially. The rest of TX is fine but Houston has been run by Democrats…and it is now broke…OH…least we forget…CA has a $70+ Billion deficit for the coming fiscal year…Does all this sound weird?

JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES AGAIN…The 3 YOYOS are celebrating…What in the hell are they celebrating?..6 million illegal migrants crossing the border…dead cops…homeless LA…and they are CELEBRATING…”LOOK WHAT WE HAVE DONE!…Never mind 2 WARS and all the dead. Well, all I can say is..do exactly what they tell you to do…”LOOK WHAT WE HAVE DONE”…Yep, look carefully.. It is NOT a very good picture.

©2024. . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump was a source of comfort to the Diller family: Bruce Blakeman

POST ON X:

What Barack Obama Doesn’t Know About Islam, Slavery and Black Africans

Barack Obama clearly had no idea, when he made his Cairo speech, of how Muslim Arabs regarded black Africans; I doubt if he has learned more about it since. The Arabs regarded the black Africans with contempt. In the Hadith of al-Bukhari, we find the remarkable statement that “Anyone who says that the Prophet is black should be killed.” Elsewhere in the Hadith, Muhammad says “’Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!’ He was a sturdy black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks.”

In the same vein, the Prophet sent Khalid bin al-Walid in Ramadan 8 A.H., to a spot called Nakhlah, “‎where there was a goddess called Al-‘Uzza venerated by the Quraish and Kinanah . . . On ‎his return, the Prophet asked him if he had seen anything there, to which Khalid gave a ‎negative answer . . . He went back again and there he saw a black woman, naked with torn ‎hair. Khalid struck her with his sword into two parts. He returned and narrated the story ‎to the Prophet, who then confirmed the fulfillment of the task.”‎

Sa’d bin Zaid Al-Ashhali, another follower of Muhammad, was sent in the same month and on the same mission to Al-‎Mushallal to destroy an idol, Manat, respected by both the Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj tribes. Here ‎also a black woman, naked with messy hair appeared, wailing and beating on her chest. ‎Sa’d immediately killed her.

Clearly Muhammad was not at all bothered by these two unprovoked murders by his followers of “black women.” He greeted the news from one of the killers as being part of the “fulfillment of his task” – the task assigned to him by Muhammad.

There are three hadith in Al-Bukhari where Muslims are told to obey a ruler, even if he were a black man, as here: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.’” (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375).

And there is this from the celebrated historian Al-Tabari: “Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants [Africans] would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his [Ham’s] descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” (Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21)

Why was it so terrible for the Prophet to be called “black”? Because for the Arabs, blacks were unquestionably inferior. Such misidentification, according to Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, was an insult to the Prophet, and deserved death. And blacks, as descendants of Ham, were fit only to be slaves (Shem’s descendants “would enslave them”).

Many of the most famous Arab writers and Islamic scholars were unambiguously “racists” in the full meaning of that word.

Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) was, among other things, an Islamic jurist, Islamic lawyer, Islamic scholar, Islamic theologian, and hafiz (one who has memorized the entire Qur’an). He is one of the most important figures in Islamic history. Here are two disparaging remarks, among so many that he makes about black Africans in his Muqaddimah:

“Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.”

Beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.

Ibn Sina or Avicenna (980-1037), was another celebrated figure in Islamic history: a Hafiz, an Islamic psychologist, scholar, and theologian and, by our lights, a racist: “[Blacks are] people who are by their very nature slaves.”

Ibn Qutaybah (828-889), was a renowned Islamic scholar from Kufa, Iraq, who claimed that “[Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country.”

Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (1201-1274), was a Shia Muslim Scholar and Grand Ayatollah:

“If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth – In no other peculiarity or property – except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent.

“[The Zanj (African) differ from animals only in that] their two hands are lifted above the ground,… Many have observed that the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj.

Al-Muqaddasi (945/946-1000) was a medieval Muslim geographer:

Of the neighbors of the Bujja, Al-Muqaddasi had heard that “there is no marriage among them; the child does not know his father, and they eat people — but God knows best. As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.” (Kitab al-Bad’ wah-tarikh, vol.4)

“Al-Masudi (896-956), was a Muslim historian and geographer, known as the “Herodotus of the Arabs”:

“Galen says that merriment dominates the black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence.” (Al-Masudi, Muruj al-dhahab)

Ibn al-Faqih was a Muslim historian and geographer:

“A man of discernment said: The people of Iraq … do not come out with something between blonde, buff and blanched coloring, such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slavs and others of similar light complexion; nor are they overdone in the womb until they are burned, so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions, such as the Zanj, the Somali, and other blacks who resemble them. The Iraqis are neither half-baked dough nor burned crust but between the two.” (from his Mukhtasar Kitab al-Buldan, 903 AD)

These are just a tiny sample of the hair-raising racist remarks made by noted figures in Islamic history.

Obama would no doubt be quite startled to learn about how the learned men of Islam viewed black Africans.

And now that we have seen how absurd Obama’s claims about Islam’s “religious tolerance” and “racial equality” turn out to be, let’s look next at his list of the supposed “achievements” of Islamic civilization.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Barack Obama’s Ignorant Praise for Islam

Germany: University withdraws invitation to historian because he noted that Muslims, not just whites, held slaves

Seattle: Ishmail Brown stabs passenger on light rail in ‘random and incredibly violent’ attack

Canada: New Democratic Party seeks probe on election interference by Iran

Germany: Police cover up the rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl by a Muslim migrant

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

The ‘LGBT Pride’ Flag’s True Colors are Blood Red with a Splash of Gold

pride

noun

  1. a feeling of great satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements.

Achievements.

Achievements.

Achievements.

It might be news to some, especially to the left’s useful idiots on the left and the right, but the “LGBT Pride movement” is a communist movement. Same with the “Black Lives Matter movement,” the “Feminist movement,” etc. Because a naked communist movement might wake up too many Americans, and leftists know that, they hide behind race, sex and sexuality to push communism.

And we really need to stop calling leftists “liberals,” as even so-called conservative pundits continue to do. Leftists aren’t “old school classical liberals”; they’re fire-breathing anti-American commies looking to do us in from within, and if the last few years didn’t convince you of that, nothing will. As for the “old school classical liberals” who still exist, however few of them there are, some of them are under the delusion that the answer to leftism is liberalism, when it was liberalism that was subsumed by leftism, which showed its Achilles heel.

With the left now openly communizing and sexualizing children, through “entertainment” and government schools, and no doubt even some private schools, Americans who are known for their tolerance and acceptance, no matter what intolerant leftists claim, have had about enough of the left. We can tolerate a lot, we can accept a lot, and adults are free to do what they want, so long as they don’t hurt others, but once leftists went after children in such an obvious way that no one can deny, an actual resistance to leftist madness began to take place, and is growing stronger. The left’s response to this resistance, particularly the resistance by fed up parents, is for our leftist government and its now KGB-like FBI to identify parents who object to gay pornography in children’s books, etc., as “terrorists.” “Terrorists.”

And then you have the left’s useful idiots on the left and the right who celebrate “Pride” as if were a celebration of actual pride, which isn’t the case, as pride is a personal thing for individuals, for their achievements, not one’s sexuality. Then there are also the “Pride” celebrations at churches, held by Christians who are also the left’s useful idiots.

We’re halfway through “LGBT Pride Month,” and have yet to see MAGA hat-wearing homosexuals being celebrated by the “LGBT community,” furthering my point that this is a leftist movement, through and through. We’re told that it is an “inclusive” movement, but can you think of any non-Democrat/non-leftist/non-communist gays being celebrated during “LGBT Pride Month”? But we did see trans boobs being flopped around on the White House lawn, with the boob-in-chief saying about “LGBT” people, that they’re “the bravest and most inspiring people I’ve ever known.” He doesn’t know them, but he does know his son, Hunter, and he’s called him “the smartest man I know.” And the YouTube video of trans boobs being flashed on the White House lawn was slapped with age restrictions by YouTube, even though the leftists at YouTube are all in on sexualizing and communizing children.

As for those who still think they can get away with saying that they have no clue as to why decent Americans are objecting to the “LBGT” movement, they need to be reminded that most Americans didn’t give a damn about gay people, trans, and drag queens until they targeted children. Americans truly have a live and let live attitude, but leftists in America, who’ve embraced the foreign idea, leftism, don’t have that live and let live attitude. They not only want to drive electric cars, but they want to force all of us to do that. They don’t only want to take covid “vaccines,” they want to force all of us to take them. And so on. Leftists crossed the line when they explicitly went after children, and they can’t now pretend that they haven’t done that. That was the flashpoint for Americans. And I see that even some gays, notably the group, Gays Against Groomers, understand that the communist gays simply cannot resist crossing the line and upending years good will from average Americans.

In sum, the LGBT movement is a gay communist movement that now expresses a triumphalist attitude about their position in 2023, where they moan about how “marginalized” they are, while shoving their lifestyle in our children’s faces. As one of these gay supremacists put it the other day, “Straight sex is just not natural. Those are biological facts.” I would tell this gay supremacist that without natural straight sex, he and billions of people wouldn’t exist.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Transvestite Flashes Fake Breasts Below White House’s Prominently Flown Pride Flag After Taking Photo with Biden

Most Americans Say Changing Gender is ‘Morally Wrong’: Poll

Arab Israeli woman who had been threatened over her sexual orientation is shot dead

RELATED VIDEO: You cannot mock God

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

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

Won’t someone save democracy from the people?

Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.

The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are “subverting democracy” and that democracies have “grown dangerously complacent.” In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even  warned that “too often we’ve taken freedom for granted.”

To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.

“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.

Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.

The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.

Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.

This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.

Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.

Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.

Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.

This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.

It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.

Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, “One people, One state, One leader”.

When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.”

The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.

Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.

Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.

Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.

Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.

Obama complains, “China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination” and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a “regulatory structure” to be designed with “communities of color” to slow “the spread of harmful content.” The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.

Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.

Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.

A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life. The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.

That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.

The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.

America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.

Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Critical Qur’an: ‘A Qur’an commentary that goes where others fear to tread’

Muslim cleric quotes Muhammad saying even women in labor must have sex if husband wants it

Italy: Muslim migrant cook beheads Muslim migrant dishwasher

Sweden: Almost 30% want to ban ‘offensive’ demonstrations after Muslims riot over Qur’an-burning

England and Wales raise marriage age to 18 in bid to protect Muslim girls

Why Should the UN Consider It Its Duty to Protect Islam from Criticism?

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

Obama To Keynote Disinformation Conference With High-Profile Allies Tied To Fake News Scandals

Former President Barack Obama will deliver the keynote speech at a Stanford University forum Thursday on media disinformation.

The keynote speech is part of Obama’s crusade against disinformation in the digital world, the Washington Free Beacon reported. The former president allegedly joined the fight against “disinformation” after lengthy discussions with Apple heiress Lauren Powell Jobs, who reportedly funded a number of fake local news sites in Silicon Valley that push Democratic rhetoric and talking points.

Other panelists at the event include Color of Change president Rashad Robinson who consistently pushed the fake news story that Jussie Smollett was the victim of a hate crime, the outlet reported. Smollett was later convicted of staging the hate crime.

Stanford researcher Renee DiResta will moderate the panel, according to the report. DiResta was reportedly part of the advisory team that created fake Russian bots that helped influence a 2017 Alabama special election, according to the report. She admitted to working with the company but denied knowledge of their tactics when asked by The Washington Post.

Former national security advisor Obama Ben Rhodes will also attend the conference. Rhodes previously admitted he created “echo chambers” of spin that supported “largely manufactured” narratives about various topics, including the Iran nuclear deal, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Obama’s personal history earned the “Lie of the Year” award from PolitiFact in 2013 for his repeated use of the phrase, “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton called out Obama in a tweet Thursday for “lecturing” Americans on disinformation despite earning the “Lie of the Year.”

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

Reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Goes On About Mask Mandates When Reporter Asks About Title 42

Corporate Media Goes Into Full Panic Mode After Travel Mask Mandate Ends

Editor Daily Rundown: With Mask Mandates Falling, Biden Admin Panics About Losing Power

DOJ Appeals Mask Mandate Ruling After CDC’s Request

Psaki Clarifies After Biden Says Masking Is Now Up To Americans

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

The Oldest Hatred Now Fulminates and Flourishes at 1600

In February, not two weeks into the, ahem, presidency of Joe Biden, I described in my article, “Joe’s Jews,” the appointments he made of 11 longtime Jew-haters and Israel-loathers to key positions in his cabinet/regime.

A month later, in my article “More about Joe and the Jews,” I described 12 more Jew-haters and Israel-loathers that Joe appointed to key positions in his cabinet/regime.

There have been many other alarmingly similar appointments since then, making it clear to even the most casual observer that the Biden White House has a particularly hostile––even hateful––attitude toward Jews and their ancient homeland Israel, combined with a perverse infatuation with and allegiance to any group or individual intent on destroying the Jewish state.

There is no doubt that Biden’s presence in the Oval Office has been interpreted by these career haters and organized thugs as an unmistakable nod of approval to continue and even expand on the tsunami of anti-Semitism now sweeping the entire globe––from the contamination of most American colleges and universities to brutal physical assaults of Jews in the streets of New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and around the world––a phenomenon writer Victor Rosenthal elaborates upon in chilling detail––to condemnation of Israel by the Irish parliament and other governments to the racist obscenities vomited out routinely by Democrat members of the U.S. Congress.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON

In fact, Joe Biden and his entire coterie/staff/cabinet/appointees of left-wing, blatantly anti-Semitic radicals demonstrate their noxious racism on a daily basis, notwithstanding his boilerplate pronouncements about support for Israel…at the exact same time he embraces, applauds and funds Israel’s mortal enemies. Want proof? Here is the very very short list:

  • Biden appeased and clearly agreed with the growing number of Jew- and Israel-haters in the Democrat Party by sending the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians $167 million dollars––enough to finance the recent war against Israel by Hamas terrorists.

But we really shouldn’t worry. After all, just the other day, Biden told an ABC-TV reporter that Hamas is “just an idea. It’s more of a concept, an a-a-abstract, a, the, you know, the, the, the thing. A sym––a symbol. Hamas is more of the journey, the, the destination. The real Hamas is just the, you know, just the friends we made along the way.”

“So who is launching the rockets then?” asked the interviewer.

“Come on, man!” Biden replied angrily. “Want to arm-wrestle? I took down ole Bucktooth Joe back in my college days. He was one of the best arm-wrestlers east of the Mississippi. And pow! I took him down. Right in the kisser. Let’s go, me and you, right now. Or maybe a push-up contest. You know, the — the thing about the push-ups…”

  • Biden––when it was clear that the aggressors of Hamas were getting trounced by Israel––was sent a letter by no less than 500 of his anti-Israel campaign staffers––begging him to “hold Israel accountable for its actions.” Bad Israel for fighting back!
  • Biden dispatched Michael Ratney to represent the U.S. in Israel––the same guy, according to Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart––whose role in the Obama administration was to interfere in Israel’s 2015 election with the goal of ousting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
  • Biden, instead of allowing Israel to turn Gaza into a demilitarized zone, initiated the ceasefire that Hamas was begging for and demanded that Israel––not the terrorists!––meet three demands:
    • Desist from evicting the Arabs who have been squatting on Jewish property for decades without paying rent,
    • Appease the fanatically militant Arabs who don’t allow Jews to pray at their most sacred site, the Temple Mount,
    • And stop celebrating Jerusalem Flag day which honors the State of Israel. “Imagine if another country demanded we stop celebrating the Fourth of July or Memorial Day!”
  • Biden, like Obama before him, believes in rewarding terrorists, and so has pledged billions––not millions or even multimillions, but billions!––to rebuild the breeding ground of hatred and terrorism known as Gaza. He has also committed $150 million to––as former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley describes it––the systemically corrupt United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that was suspended under the Trump administration.
  • Biden and Kalamity Harris enthusiastically supported Rev. Raphael Warnock when he ran, victoriously, for the U.S. Senate in Georgia last year, knowing full well of his rabid anti-Semitism and hatred of whites, as spelled out here by journalist and blogger Jeff Dunetz.
  • Biden’s nominee for a top State Department position, according to writer Alana Goodman, “played a key role in assembling a book on the nefarious influence of the ‘Israel lobby’ while working for an organization that promoted claims about Jewish media control and dual loyalty to Israel.”
  • Biden chose attorney Kirsten Clarke as the Assistant Attorney General to lead the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, she whose loathing of Jews and whites is extensively documented by the esteemed Daniel Greenfield, as well as by writer/editor David Rosenberg. Clarke has posited that “the human brain was structured in a way that makes black people superior to white people.”
  • Biden, only a year after being elected, delivered Egyptian disinformation to Israel––to the besieged country’s detriment––ahead of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973, as described by writer David Israel.
  • Biden, just the other day, ordered U.S. Embassies around the world to fly the Black Lives Matter flag to commemorate George Floyd’s murder “on May 25 and beyond.” You remember BLM––the Marxist terrorist group rampaging across the U.S. for the past year and responsible for about $2 billion in property damage, devastating arson, widespread theft, the injuries of more than 240 police officers and destruction of hundreds of police precincts, upward of 30 murders, and the defacement and vandalizing of synagogues, at which they screamed “F… the Jews and Kill the Police.” That BLM! That Joe Biden!
  • Biden’s House Democrats last week rejected–– unanimously––a Republican effort to provide Israel with emergency security funding for its life-saving Iron Dome system. A couple of days earlier, they stopped legislation that would sanction foreign entities doing business with Hamas. Getting the picture?
  • Biden & Co. fully support the World Health Organization, a toxic arm of the United Nations cesspool, which held a meeting the other day to address the global response to the coronavirus pandemic, and predictably––given their entire history of fanatical anti-Semitism––singled out Israel to condemn for violating the rights of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, although the charge is objectively untrue and Israel has been at the international forefront of the research and development of anti-Corona vaccines.
  • Biden has brought in Islamic activists––among them Hina Shamsi, who fought on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation, the leaders of which were convicted of providing material support to Hamas—to investigate “extremism” in the U.S. military. In essence, writes Daniel Greenfield, “American military personnel are being put at the mercy of advocates for their worst enemies. To Biden, defending Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorists is the only qualification needed for going after American soldiers.”

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLE

One thing about Jew-haters and Israel-loathers:  they are remarkably unoriginal. While their reasons for hating Jews may have changed over the centuries, the symptoms of their racism have remained the same:

  • Thinking obsessively about Jews,
  • Fulminating with hatred,
  • Blaming everything wrong in their lives and society on Jews,
  • Joining with other racists to inflict harm,
  • In many cases, devoting their lives to this obsession.

All of it driven by pathological jealousy!

Interestingly, they never seem to wonder why it is that out of eight-billion people in the world––including 2.2-billion Christians, approximately one-billion Protestants, and 1.8-billion Muslims (the majority in 49 countries), they cannot deal with or destroy the 15-million Jews––seven-million in the U.S., seven-million in Israel, and about one million around the world.

It must make them feel immensely stupid or impotent, hence even angrier than their usual fixated state of fury.

But like every liberal, leftist, progressive––whatever they’re calling themselves these days––who thinks that the crashing failures of socialism and communism in world history were a function of bad management and that they will do it better, so the Jew-haters of the world think they will finally get the anti-Semitism thing right and once and for all get rid of the people, and their country, that make them feel so bad and inferior and stupid and impotent every minute of every day and night––including weekends and holidays!

THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD

“The Biden administration has revealed the president’s long-seething hostility toward Israel,” writes former professor of political science Abraham Miller, “going back to his encounter with Israel’s then-prime minister Menachem Begin, in which Biden threatened to cut off aid to Israel.”

As Israelis were crouching in hallways and bomb shelters and Hamas launched death from the skies against them,” Miller writes, “the Biden administration’s representatives in Vienna were negotiating an overture to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal”––Iran being the foremost supplier of arms to Hamas.

Larry Gordon, editor-in-chief of the 5 Towns Jewish Times (Long Island, NY), asks: “Do Jewish Lives Matter?”

“A great deal of the recent debate [about the Hamas-Israel conflict], Gordon writes, revolved around the issue as to whether Israel has the right to defend itself….under what possible circumstances would it be acceptable or okay for Israel not to defend itself?

“Over the last several weeks Jews are being clubbed and beaten at random.” Gordon continues, “but the president so far has not found it within himself––like the Jewish Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer––to stand up and condemn these types of hate crimes. Perhaps they will see themselves as being aligned too much with Jews which may impact on their political standing….what a shameful situation!”

Economist and political commentator Valerie Sobel states that it is “entirely inexplicable how such a large caucus of American Jewry can be so irreparably injured by a presidential tweet on media bias, yet be entirely untouched by the ‘Death to Jews’ chants in the violent, politically underwritten Jew-hatred festivals of their own party and tirelessly anti-Semitic media.

“Impossible to digest how their Jewish offspring, their contaminated social justice warriors, the very grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, are so indoctrinated that they march with Black Lives Matter and the Boycott-Divest-Sanction Jew haters while holding ‘Free Palestine’ signs. And entirely irreconcilable––the supine silence of predominately liberal Jewish Community leaders on the Kristallnacht-style pogroms in L.A., London and New York.

“How can we explain this craven desire to throw ourselves onto the sword in the name of wokeness?” Sobel asks. “Who would applaud this desperation for acceptance into a club of liberal ideals that includes vile Jew-hatred? And why in the world would a political party with such a vast anti-Semitic ledger and clinically Israel-allergic membership be valued at such a premium by Jews themselves?”

Psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin also talks about the Congressional enablers of genocidal anti-Semitism. “Hamas is explicit in wanting to kill not only all Israelis but all Jews,” Levin writes….

“The current Administration,” Levin continues, “has stated as one of its essential goals the reassertion of American moral authority in the world…[but] the further, ugly phenomenon of a sizable segment of the Congressional delegation of a major American political party serving as supporters of or apologists for the criminal actions of a genocidal anti-Semitic terrorist group…[is] rather a demonstration of moral bankruptcy.”

Liel Leibovitz, writing in the NY Post , states: “As Jews were being pummeled, punched, spat at, intimidated with explosive devices and singled out for violence and harassment all across America this week, the righteous men and women of the Democratic Party were quick to denounce the twin scourges behind these mini-pogroms: anti-Semitism and—drumroll, please—Islamophobia.

“That’s the thing with morally muddled thinking, “Leibovitz continues. “It’s a simple principle that seems to be completely lost on nearly everyone in today’s Democratic Party. Hopefully, its Jewish voters will wise up before it’s too late.”

Journalist and author John Perazzo, in Israel’s Fake ‘Friend’––an in-depth, comprehensive timeline of Joe Biden’s relentless hostility toward Israel from 1982 to just a few months ago––describes “a long destructive track record of undermining Israeli security.”

“Joe Biden has made a habit of describing himself as a loyal, stalwart friend and ally of Israel,” Perazzo writes….but a careful examination of Biden’s track record reveals his long and extremely troubling history of undermining Israel’s security and public image.”

In his timeline, Perazzo describes eight long years of Biden’s steadfast support of Barack Obama’s deep hostility and sabotage of Israel, which Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international outreach branch, said were “catastrophic.”

Writer Andrea Widburg has the last word in Biden’s ignominious role toward Israel: “Biden may say he believes Israel has a right to self-defense,” Widburg writes, “but his actions reveal that his real sympathies lie with the Islamists who seek to destroy Israel and kill every one of her inhabitants. He is an indecent excuse for a human being.”

©Joan Swirsky. All rights reserved.

House passes bill stopping any future president from imposing ‘travel ban on the basis of religion’

The list of countries of concern that the Trump administration outlined in an executive order was based on the document devised by the former Obama administration. Despite the fact that it was Obama who set the foundation, it is Trump who is persistently criticized as being discriminatory against Muslims. Obama restricted visa waivers for seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The restriction was based on security issues. But we didn’t hear any Leftist outcry about Obama being “racist” against Muslims or discriminatory.

This new bill is nothing but virtue-signaling, and wouldn’t even have stopped Trump’s bans, for they were not based on religion, but on security.

It just happens to be the case that among the world’s most egregious violators of human rights and hotbeds of terrorism are many Muslim countries. Does this new bill now mean that such countries when they are Muslim-majority are no longer dangerous? Does it mean that America should permit open immigration from any country, no matter how violent, as to not offend Muslims and the woke crowd?

As absurd as all this is, it is the premise of the irrational policies that are being instituted by the Biden administration. The administration is willing to put national security at risk as to not offend Islam. America continues a rapid descent downwards; Sharia tenets are being institutionalized, while the strictures and policies of Communism are being increasingly normalized.

US House passes bill to prevent another ‘Muslim ban’

by William Roberts, Al Jazeera, April 21, 2021:

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would limit the ability of any United States president to impose a travel ban on the basis of religion, a move that was welcomed by civil rights advocates as “a major step forward”.

The legislation, known informally as the NO BAN Act, comes in response to former President Donald Trump’s controversial “Muslim ban” that barred travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries.

The bill, which must also pass in the US Senate to become law, was approved by a 218-208 vote in the House on Wednesday.

“The Muslim ban tore families apart, put lives on hold for years and labelled Muslims, Africans and other targeted people as threatening outsiders,” said Madihha Ahussain, counsel to Muslim Advocates, a US civil rights group.

“We must ensure that no president can enact discriminatory bans like this ever again and with the passage of the NO BAN Act in the House, we are taking a major step forward to ensuring that they won’t,” Ahussain said in a statement as the bill was passed…

COLUMN BY

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Biden’s Handlers to Bring In More ‘Refugees’

CENTCOM top dog: it will be difficult to battle terrorism in Afghanistan without U.S. troops in the country

Bangladesh: Muslim leader arrested for instigating violence, attempted murder, assault and vandalism

Iran: Advanced centrifuges discovered at nuke facility, again proving Islamic Republic violated 2015 deal

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

Obama’s New Muslim Podcast: Allah’s ‘Throwing Shade at Jews and Christians’

Obama’s gotta do something with his time besides serving as the façade for a bunch of white socialists looking to wreck America. Besides that job only pays in the low six figures, so he’s got contracts with Netflix and Spotify through his own production company.

The Obama podcasting game includes talking about how racist the country is to fellow working-class millionaire hero Bruce Springsteen, and this Muslim podcast.

Barack and Michelle Obama have their Ramadan plans ready.

The couple, who have spent the years since Barack’s US presidency came to an end focusing on developing multi-platform media projects, announced a new season of their Higher Ground podcast called Tell Them, I Am, which will feature a collection of narratives from Muslim voices.

No, Obama’s not actually in it.

Produced by the Obamas, the pod will be hosted by Misha Euceph, a first-gen Pakistan-American and exclusively available on the platform, launching on the first day of Ramadan.

Euceph also appears to have hosted a Koran book club on Instagram. Here’s the description of one episode.

God is still throwing shade at the Jews and Christians this episode of #quranbookclub

Meanwhile, social media is purging conservatives. But this sort of thing can help you get a podcast produced by Barry.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al-Qaeda: ‘Whoever thinks that somebody can stop the imminent collapse of America is mistaken’

Sweden: Knife-wielding Muslim breaks into family’s home, screams ‘Allahu akbar’ as he is arrested

Nigeria: Islamic jihadis forced kidnapped Christian girls to study the Qur’an, pressured them to convert

Online petition calls for changing name of Pakistan’s capital from Islamabad to ‘Islamagood’

Germany: Muslims praying in the street, including ISIS jihadi, beat up driver because he honked during their prayer

Inside Hizb Ut Tahrir, A Gateway to Jihad

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

Race Relations Plummeted While Joe Biden Was Vice President Under Barack Obama

  • Polling on racial relations turned historically negative during President Barack Obama’s final year in office due in part to the blossoming of the Black Lives Matter movement after the police shootings of two black men. Now, Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, is running for president as a unifier on race. 
  • Americans’ view on race during President Donald Trump’s first three years in office were good relative to Obama’s final year in office, with polls showing public satisfaction on race issues increasing dramatically in 2018. 
  • Views on race relations turned overwhelmingly negative during the final year of Trump’s first term after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in May after a white police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly 9 minutes. 

Former Vice President Joe Biden is billing himself as the person who can ease race relations and unify the nation as part of his 2020 presidential bid. But race relations plummeted while the presumptive Democratic nominee served under President Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president in history.

Biden supported demonstrations in May and June against the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly 9 minutes, video of the incident shows. He met with Floyd’s family after the tragedy and wrote in a June 10 tweet that he’s ready to get to work on “day one” to tackle racism.

The former vice president stayed on message that month and promised to “heal the racial wounds that have long plagued our country.”

“This is a battle for the soul of America,” Biden said at an economic roundtable in June. “Who are we? What do we want to be? How do we see ourselves? What do we think we should be? Character is on the ballot here.”

But last time Biden was in the White House, when he was serving as vice president, race relations in the U.S. took a nose dive.

Race Relations During The Obama Era

Americans held a positive view on race relations during the first half of Obama’s administration, with more than 52% of voters telling pollsters in 2008 that the former president’s victory would lead to better race relations, a Pew Research poll published in November 2008 showed. Only 9% thought race relations would get worse.

But polling on racial relations turned overwhelmingly negative during the last half of Obama’s administration. Nearly 70% of Americans said in July 2016 that race relations were bad, a level not seen since the 1992 riots in Los Angeles during the Rodney King case, a New York Times/CBS News poll published that month and year show.

The poll found that six in 10 American voters said race relations were growing worse, up from 2015, when 38% 0f people expressed a similar view.

The downward trajectory coincided with the blossoming of the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 after videos were made public showing the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of the police. They were killed over the course of two days that year.

Five police officers were shot and killed in Dallas by a black Army veteran the day after the Sterling and Castile deaths.

Obama told audience members at the police officers’ memorial service on July 11, 2016 that, “we are not as divided as we seem,”

“We cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid,” Obama said.

He added: “We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and co-workers and fellow church members again and again and again — it hurts.”

Obama’s pleas didn’t do much to change perceptions.

The July 2016 NYT poll showed a stark difference in how white and black people see race. Three-quarters of black people said police are more likely to use deadly force on an African American over a white person, the poll showed. Only 18% of black people argued that the color of the person made no difference.

Race Relations During Trump’s Term

Satisfaction with race relations jumped during Trump’s first three years in office.

A Gallup survey conducted in January 2020, for instance, recorded a double-digit increase (14 percentage points) in public satisfaction with the state of race relations in the country. Only 22% of people held a satisfactory view on race at the end of the Obama-era, with that number jumping to 36% in January, Gallop’s survey showed.

Satisfaction also increased between six and nine points regarding the position of black people and other racial minorities in January, according to the Gallup poll. Trump and White House officials cited the historic low black unemployment rate for reasons why attitudes on race were in positive territory at that time.

Black unemployment reached a record low during the first two years of the Trump administration, with only 5.9% claiming unemployment in May 2018. Yet the biggest drop came under Obama, when the unemployment rate for black people fell from 16.8% in March 2010 to just 7.8% in January 2017, AP reported in 2019.

Poll numbers on race relations plummeted shortly after Floyd’s death, which sparked nationwide demonstrations and calls for city and state officials to defund the police. Biden does not endorse an outright campaign to defund the police but does support a move to redirect police funding to address mental health.

Following Floyd’s death, most Americans now argue that race relations in the U.S. are bad, including a majority of both black and white people, according to a CBS poll conducted in June. Roughly 61% of Americans believe that the state of race relations in the U.S. today are generally bad compared to 35% who say they are good, the poll notes.

Trump’s poll numbers are similarly dropping.

More than 67% of voters disapprove of the president’s “oversight” on the coronavirus pandemic, according to a July 11 poll conducted by The Guardian. The same percentage said they disapproved of the president’s response to recent racial unrest.

COLUMN BY

CHRIS WHITE

Tech reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Yet Another Poll Shows Biden Leading Over Trump By Double Digits

‘They’re Not Concerned About The General Public’: NY, LA Police Unions Blast Massive Budget Cuts

Two Texas Police Officers Ambushed, Shot Dead Investigating Routine Call

Here Are Examples Of The Media Claiming The Protests Are Peaceful

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Plot Thickens: Grassley-Graham Letter Sheds New Light on Steele Dossier, Nunes Memo

While politicians, pundits, and the people continue to react to (and spin) the contents of the Nunes memo that was released last Friday, and await the release of the Democrats’ rebuttal, a new document has been released that contains tidbits of illuminating information.

On Jan. 4, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime and terrorism, submitted a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray requesting that they consider investigating Christopher Steele for lying to the FBI, which is a federal crime.

Steele is the former British spy who was hired and paid $160,000 by Fusion GPS, a research company working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to do opposition research on Donald Trump. Steele is also the individual who produced a dossier that was used to support an application for a warrant to engage in electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a suspected foreign agent (wittingly or unwittingly) of the Russian government who was also working as an unpaid foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.

And it is Steele’s credibility, as well as allegations of political bias at senior levels of the FBI, that are the center of this dispute.

Grassley-Graham Memo Informs Our Understanding of Nunes Memo

Attached to that referral letter was an eight-page classified memorandum (“Grassley/Graham memo”) setting forth the basis for the referral. Wray, very much to his credit, has declassified much (but not all) of the information in that memorandum, which has now been released.

The initial application (which was subsequently renewed three times) was filed on October 21, 2016, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and was signed by a judge on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

As I wrote in a previous article, Former FBI Director James Comey has testified that the information in the Steele dossier was “unverified” at the time the initial FISA application was submitted, and, according to the Nunes memo, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before the House intelligence committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] with the Steele dossier information,” suggesting the FBI did not believe probable cause existed based on the information it gathered on its own.

Several Democrats have charged that the Nunes memo mischaracterized McCabe’s testimony and have implied that there was more than enough information in the FISA application to support issuing the warrant without information from the Steele dossier.

In their referral memorandum, Grassley and Graham, who have reviewed all four FISA applications in their entirety, “as well as numerous other FBI documents relating to Steele,” make statements which, assuming they are true, tend to support what is contained in the Nunes memo.

Specifically, the Grassley/Graham memo states that the Steele dossier “formed a significant portion of the FBI’s warrant application,” that the application “relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims,” and that the basis for the warrant “rests largely” on Steele’s credibility.

The Steele dossier contains explosive allegations that the Russian government, acting under orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin, was carrying out an operation to tilt the election in Trump’s favor and that the Russian government had compromising information of a financial and sexual nature against Trump that could be used to blackmail him at some point in the future.

Why the FBI Trusted Steele

The FBI, it seems, trusted Steele and relied on this information because of his background as a spy and because he had provided the bureau with reliable information on several occasions in the past.

According to the Grassley/Graham memo, the FBI stated in its initial FISA application that, “based on [Steele’s] previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes [Steele’s] reporting to be credible.”

While that may have been so in the past, there was plenty of reason to distrust Steele in this case.

In addition to the fact that he was working on behalf of the DNC and Trump’s opponent in the presidential election, Steele detested Trump. A month before the government filed its first FISA application, Steele told Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, that he was “desperate” to see that Trump not win the election.

Moreover, the Steele dossier itself is replete with statement allegedly provided to Steele by various unnamed sources whom Steele claims are or were senior Russian officials or people who were close to them. In other words, the validity of the dossier depended not only on the credibility of the man preparing the dossier (whose credibility was subject to doubt in this case), but also his assessment of the credibility of other unidentified sources who were feeding him information.

Did Clinton Sources Contribute to Steele Dossier?

As disturbing as that is, another revelation in the Grassley/Graham memo is even more concerning.

The memo suggests that some of the information being fed to Steele and included in his dossier did not come from highly-placed Russian sources, but from people associated with the Clintons.

There has been some speculation that this individual may have been Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and employee of the Clinton Foundation and a long-time close confidant of Hillary Clinton.

As the memo states, “[i]t is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”

Steele’s Relationship With FBI

The nature of the lies that Steele may have told the FBI are also significant.

Given the fact that the information in the Steele dossier was “unverified” and was central to the FISA application, the FBI was looking for some, any, information that might be deemed corroborative. According to the Grassley/Graham memo, at the time of the initial FISA application, Steele had told the FBI that he had not disclosed the contents of his dossier to anyone other than the bureau and Fusion GPS.

Roughly one month beforehand, Yahoo News, presumably doing its own investigative work, published an article that, as the FISA application stated, “generally match[ed] the information about [Carter] Page that [Steele] discovered doing [his] own research … .”

According to the Grassley/Graham memo, the FBI affirmatively stated in the FISA application that it did not believe Steele was the source of the information that appeared in the Yahoo News article, which attributed the source of its information to “a well-placed Western intelligence source … .”

If the Yahoo News source was indeed an independent source, this would be significant, but it wasn’t. Contrary to what he told the FBI, Steele had, in fact, provided information in his dossier to others. The source of the information in the Yahoo News article was Steele himself.

Steele, no doubt anxious to get his revelations into the public domain before the election, was leaking like a sieve. In addition to speaking to Yahoo News, Steele provided background briefings to CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and possibly other media outlets.

Shortly after the initial FISA warrant was obtained, Mother Jones published its own article in which Steele outed himself as an FBI confidential source, which prompted the FBI to formally terminate Steele’s designation as a trusted source.

Friends of Steele’s have stated that Steele was deeply troubled by what he learned during his investigation of Trump and that he felt like he was “sitting on a nuclear weapon.” Perhaps that was so.

But given the explosive nature of charges, the relationship of the target (Page) to the Trump campaign in the heat of a close election battle, the fact that Steele was paid by (and possibly given unsourced information by) the Clinton campaign, it was incumbent on the FBI to verify as much of this information as it could or, at the very least, to reveal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every bit of information it had that might cast doubt on Steele’s credibility.

In summary, the initial FISA application and, most likely, the renewal applications, relied extensively on the credibility of Steele. Yet in addition to the fact that it failed to disclose the full extent of Steele’s known or potential bias in the initial application, when the FBI learned that Steele had not been truthful during the process, it did not, it seems, tell that to the FISA court.

As Graham has stated: “You can be an FBI informant. You can be a political operative. But you can’t be both, particularly at the same time.”

All attorneys before a court have a duty of candor, which means they must disclose “all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.” Would the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge have signed the warrant if this information had been disclosed? We will never know.

This is, of course, a developing story, and more information will likely be revealed once the memo from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is disclosed, assuming that it is disclosed.

Speaking of the Schiff memo, some Democrats have expressed the fear that the president, who must approve the memo’s release, will make “political redactions” to the memo to prevent the disclosure of information that will be unfavorable to him.  And some Republican sources have expressed the fear that the Democrats may have intentionally included highly sensitive information in their memo so that, if redacted by Trump, it would enable them to argue that the president is hiding something.

Let’s hope neither of these is true.

It is, of course, vital that the president protect against the disclosure of sensitive “sources and methods” that could imperil the integrity of current or future national security investigations. That having been said, it is also important that the public get to the bottom of what happened here. As I have previously stated, this “matter should be thoroughly and dispassionately (to the extent that is possible in Washington, D.C.) investigated. The matter is too important to do otherwise.”

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

7 Anti-Trump Politicians and Institutions Who Colluded with the Russians

Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Remembering the 1979 Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: How Democrats created radical Islamic terrorism

Don Hank in an email titled “This is how the terror started (in 1979)” provided this quote:

In his 1993 memoirs [“From the Shadows“], ex-Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Robert Gates revealed that direct CIA involvement in Afghanistan had commenced almost six months before the Soviet invasion. Jimmy Carter signed a presidential decree in July 1979 to covertly aid the Mujahideen insurgents.

Hank then wrote, “And then came Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attack, and then ISIS and the invasion of Europe. It all seems to have started with the CIA. If you want a war on terror, you have to start with the people who spawned the terror. A true war on terror would include a war on the CIA. It starts with education.”

Hank provided a link to a Daryl Morini, paper dated January 3rd, 2010 titled “Why Did the Soviet Union Invade Afghanistan?.” Morini wrote:

The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was a costly and, ultimately, pointless war. Historical hindsight has made this evident. However, exactly why the Red Army wound up in direct military conflict, embroiled in a bitter and complicated civil war—some 3,000 kilometres away from Moscow—is a point of historiographical uncertainty. The evidence available suggests that geopolitical calculations were at the top of the Kremlin’s goals. These were arguably to deter US interference in the USSR’s ‘backyard’, to gain a highly strategic foothold in Southwest Asia and, not least of all, to attempt to contain the radical Islamic revolution emanating from Iran. The subsidiary goal of the invasion was to secure an ideologically-friendly régime in the region.

[ … ]

Following the 1970s period of détente between the United States (US) and the Soviet Union, the latter seemed to be in an advantageous strategic position, compared to the post-Vietnam paralysis which plagued its main opponent. Scott McMichael, a military historian, argued that this “turned out largely to be an illusion,” although there is substance to the claim that the Soviet Union was ahead of the game in the lead u p to 1979. This is exemplified by Moscow’s increasing assertiveness in foreign affairs during this period. As a direct result of the so-called ‘Brezhnev doctrine’, the USSR asserted its “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if and when an existing socialist regime was threatened.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Is Russia, under Putin, making the same mistake that his predecessors in the Former Soviet Union made by exerting Russia’s “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if an when an existing socialist regime [like Assad’s Syria] was threatened.” According to Wikipedia:

The Ba’ath Party, and indirectly the Syrian Regional Branch, was established on 7 April 1947 by Michel Aflaq (a Christian), Salah al-Din al-Bitar (a Sunni Muslim) and Zaki al-Arsuzi (an Alawite). According to the congress, the party was “nationalist, populist, socialist, and revolutionary” and believed in the “unity and freedom of the Arab nation within its homeland.” 

[ … ]

The party merged with the Arab Socialist Party (ASP), led by Akram al-Hawrani, to establish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Lebanon following Adib Shishakli‘s rise to power. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Has President Obama made the same mistake as Jimmy Carter did in 1979 by arming the anti-Assad Mujahideen insurgents? Is the CIA complicit, once again, in doing the wrong thing for what it believes is in America’s national interests?

President-elect Donald J. Trump has expressed his doubts about the CIA and other U.S. national intelligence agencies, especially when it comes to Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and Syria.

On January 20th, 2017 Donald J. Trump will be sworn into the Office of the President of these United States. Will a President Trump learn from the failures of both Democratic President’s Carter and Obama? Me thinks so.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Kerry’s Speech on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Guess who Obama’s State Department issues hundreds of thousands of student visas to?

It has been said that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime.  This simple saying illustrates how important training/education is.

Incredibly, the United States’ immigration policies formulated by the Obama administration welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students into our nation’s premier universities while it is clear that China demonstrates hostility to the United States acting not as a partner, but rather as an adversary.

Chinese computer hackers attack computers in the United States as a matter of routine. The obvious question is how many of those Chinese computer hackers may have been trained and educated in the United States.

China’s recent theft of a U.S. Navy drone in the South China Sea underscores this hostility as do the arrest of numerous spies operating on behalf of China to steal America’s military and industrial secrets.

Not surprisingly, China has offered to return the drone while President-Elect Donald Trump has been quoted as saying that China can keep that drone.

China may have had two reasons for its illegal action.  It is clearly attempting to demonstrate that it has unilateral control over the strategically important South China Sea although this claim is not based on law or fact.  Additionally, China has an obvious interest in America’s military technology.  By now China’s engineers have had ample opportunity to study the design of the drone and, perhaps, has managed to embed technology within the drone that would continue to provide intelligence about the use of that drone.

The U.S. Navy’s underwater drones seem to have drawn particular interest by China’s military.  In fact, on April 22, 2016 Newsweek reported, “Chines Spy In Florida Sent Drone Parts To China For Military.”

On April 14, 2016 Newsweek published a report about a naturalized United States citizen, Edward Lin, who had joined the U.S. Navy only, allegedly, to be able to spy on the Navy.  I cannot help but wonder if his application for citizenship had been more effectively scrutinized if his alleged disloyalty to the United States could have been uncovered sooner.

That report, “Accused Navy Spy Edward Lin Had Friends In Sensitive Places” began with the following:

Edward Lin, the U.S. Navy officer suspected of spying for China and Taiwan, had scores of friends in sensitive places, if the number of contacts who “endorsed” him for military and security “skills” on LinkedIn, the professional networking site, is any guide.

Among those who endorsed Lin, a Taiwan-born officer assigned to a highly classified naval air reconnaissance unit in Hawaii until his secret arrest last year, are senior Taiwanese military officers and a Beijing-based venture capitalist specializing in “mobile internet applications and mobile games,” according to their LinkedIn bios. His American endorsers on the site include the second in command at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo; the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s senior political-military analyst on Southeast Asia; a Navy congressional liaison officer; and fellow former aviators in his reconnaissance squad, including one now working at the Northrop Grumman Electromagnetic Systems Laboratory in Sacramento, California.

Lin also served as a congressional liaison for the assistant secretary of the Navy for finance management and comptroller from 2012 to 2014, a position that presumably gave him access to highly classified strategic weapons planning and put him in regular contact with senior members of the House and Senate armed services and military appropriations committees.

Lin’s assignments and the relationships that he developed positioned him perfectly to have access to extremely sensitive information.

Chinese citizens are not only allegedly spying on our military.  On May 19, 2016 Reuters reported, “U.S. charges six Chinese nationals with economic espionage.”

On December 8, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) released a press release that provided the latest statistics concerning foreign students who are present in the United States.

This press release began by noting that there are currently 1.23 million foreign students who have been admitted with F (academic visas) or M (vocational visas) studying at 8,697 schools scattered across the United States.

Consider this excerpt from that press release:

Nearly 42 percent of all F and M students pursued studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. This marks a 10.1 percent increase in international students pursuing STEM studies compared to November 2015.

Out of the nearly 514,000 international students pursuing STEM studies, almost 450,000 were from Asia, with the majority of all STEM students from India and China.

Concerns about foreign students with malevolent goals is not limited to students from China.

On February 24, 1998, two days short of the fifth anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, “

The full text of that hearing, “Foreign terrorists in America : five years after the World Trade Center” includes Senator Dianne Feinstein’s prepared testimony.

Here are a few excerpts from her testimony well worth considering:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy found in September 1997 that many terrorist-supporting states are sending their students to the United States to get training in chemistry, physics, and engineering which could potentially contribute to their home country’s missile and nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.

[ … ]

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through non-immigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Back then Senator Feinstein’s testimony made perfect sense and asked the right questions.

Inexplicably, even after the terror attacks of 9/11, the attacks at the Boston Marathon and at San Bernardino, today Feinstein’s commonsense approach would be the source of derision by her colleagues of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, as I discussed in a recent article, so-called, “Sanctuary campuses” shield and harbor illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents.

Finally, increasing numbers of American high-tech professionals are being fired and replaced by foreign H-1B workers, often from India.  The obvious question is how many of those aliens with H-1B visas who have gone on to replace Americans were educated in the United States?

“Knowledge is power.”  The time has come for Americans to be empowered to be successful.  Educating foreign students who may, in one way or another, use their training against America or Americans must end.

January 20, 2017 cannot come fast enough.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

76% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats want to ‘Admit Fewer Refugees’

I was surprised to see that this large number—38%—of Democrats think our refugee admissions are too high!

Obama and Clinton 3

Readers you have to wade through a lot of column inches before you get to what I consider the meat of this story by AP.  It sure looks like Americans generally are not in agreement with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on admitting tens of thousands of refugees from mostly Muslim countries, especially Syrians.

Associated Press at WHIO (12 paragraphs into the story).  Emphasis below is mine:

Americans are slightly more likely to oppose than favor a temporary ban on Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States, by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin that has been strikingly consistent in AP-GfK polls conducted this year.

Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say they favor the temporary ban on Muslim immigration, while 68 percent of Democrats are opposed. Half of whites and just a third of non-whites say they favor the ban. Seventy-six percent of Trump supporters are in favor.

On a trip to Scotland last month, Trump shifted his rhetoric, saying he would instead “want terrorists out” of the U.S., and to do so, he would limit people’s entry from “specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are.”

The poll indicates that rhetorical shift could win support. Among those asked more broadly about a temporary ban on immigrants from areas of the world where there is a history of terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, 63 percent are in favor and 34 percent opposed. Ninety-four percent of Trump supporters say they favor this proposal, as do 45 percent of Clinton supporters.

“That’s a necessity for creating stability,” said Ryan Williams, 40, a health care provider from Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Most Americans — 53 percent — think the United States is currently letting in too many refugees from Syria, engulfed in civil war since 2011 and the Islamic State militant group’s de facto center. President Barack Obama has pledged to admit some 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

Remember Hillary is on record saying she wants to admit 65,000 Syrians immediately (only 11 percent of Americans agree with her!):

Another 33 percent think the current level is about right, while just 11 percent want to let in more. About 4 in 10 think there’s a very or somewhat high risk of refugees committing acts of religious or political violence in the United States, 34 percent think the risk moderate, and 24 percent consider it very or somewhat low.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans think the U.S. should allow fewer refugees. Among Democrats, 43 percent think the current level is about right, 38 percent think the U.S. should allow fewer, and 18 percent want to allow more.

This tells me that Trump has to continue to pound the issue of refugees!  (And, that the propagandists at The Hive have their work cut out for them).

BTW, if every American could see what I’ve seen over the last two days on my road trip, these numbers would be even higher!

One more thing…I’ve heard several times lately that some Americans think that the U.S. refugee program is a temporary one for the refugees, that they only come here until things calm down in their home countries.  That is NOT the case! Refugees who come to the U.S. come here permanently and ultimately become citizens.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Nice, France Grapples With How to Combat Terrorism

The Attempted Coup Reveals Turkey’s Instability. That’s Bad News for the U.S.

These Are the Tools We Need to Win the Long War Against Islamist Terrorism

Retired DHS Intelligence Officer Blows Whistle on Federal Government’s role in Islamic terror threat

WASHINGTON, D.C. — One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.

Who exactly is the enemy we face, not only in the Middle East but also within our borders? Is it “murderers without a coherent creed” or “nihilistic killers who want to tear things down,” as some described ISIS after 130 people were brutally slain and another 368 injured in a coordinated attack on Western soil that authorities say was organized with help from inside France’s Muslim communities.

After the Paris attacks, Obama, himself, described ISIS as “simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations.”

But how much do words and definitions really matter? According to the legendary military strategist Sun Tzu, if “you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one (battle) and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was “preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism.” The Bush administration’s definition of the enemy as a tactic, terrorism, rather than a specific movement, proved consequential amid a culture of political correctness. By the time President Obama took office, Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders in the United States were forcing changes to national security policy and even being invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.

When recently retired DHS front-line officer and intelligence expert Philip Haney bravely tried to say something about the people and organizations that threatened the nation, his intelligence information was eliminated, and he was investigated by the very agency assigned to protect the country. The national campaign by the DHS to raise public awareness of terrorism and terrorism-related crime known as If You See Something, Say Something effectively has become If You See Something, Say Nothing.

To be released by WND Books on May 24, 2016, in See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, Haney – a charter member of DHS with previous experience in the Middle East – and co-author Art Moore expose just how deeply the submission, denial and deception run. Haney’s insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative.

Haney discloses:

  • How the Bush administration stripped him and other front-line officers of their ability to define the threat;
  • How much the Obama administration knew in advance of the Boston Marathon bombing and how it launched an ongoing cover-up on behalf of a major ally;
  • The administration’s stealth policy to protect Islamic leaders with supremacist beliefs and violent-jihadist ties, allowing them to freely travel between the U.S. and the Middle East;
  • The scope of access to the White House and the classified information the Obama administration gave to members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups;
  • The damning intelligence on Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders invited to sit at the table and help form national-security policy;
  • The “words matter” memo imposing the demands of radical U.S. Muslim leaders on the DHS, including stripping intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism;
  • The purging of training material that casts Islam in a negative light;
  • The erasing and altering of vital intelligence on terrorists and terror threats;
  • The fear-based tactics imposed by the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. and their accomplices that paralyze officials, members of Congress and any Department of Homeland Security employee who dares to expose or resist their agenda; and

Much more …

In this well-documented, first-person account of his unique service with DHS, Haney shows why it’s imperative that Americans demand that when they see something and say something, the servants under their charge do something to prevent a cunning, relentless enemy from carrying out its stated aim to “destroy Western Civilization from within.”

ABOUT PHILIP B. HANEY

Philip Haney studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before he was hired as a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. After becoming an armed Customs and Border Protection officer, he served several tours of duty at the National Targeting Center near Washington, DC, where he quickly was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team, an unprecedented accomplishment for an agent on temporary duty assignment. Officer Haney won numerous awards and commendations from his superiors for meticulously compiling information and producing actionable reports that led to the identification of hundreds of terrorists. He has specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. He retired honorably in July 2015.

ABOUT ART MOORE

Art Moore is an editor for online news giant WND. He entered the media world as a public relations assistant for the Seattle Mariners and a sports correspondent for Associated Press Radio. Moore served for ten years in Eastern Europe with a Christian organization and earned a master’s degree in communications from Wheaton College. Before joining WND shortly after 9/11, he was an editor for the news service Worldwide Newsroom and senior news writer for Christianity Today magazine.

See Something, Say Nothing will be in bookstores nationwide on May 24, 2016

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guide to the George Soros Network

The Peace & Security Funders Group: Funding the War Against the War-On-Terror