Bensman, author of last year’s Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in American History, explains that the administration’s policies opened the border wide for illegal aliens. Anticipating a surge of illegal aliens resulting from the May termination of Title 42, the Biden administration funneled hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens into the country by enabling them to pre-schedule their “legal” entry through the CBP One app. A surge at the border occurred nonetheless. The overwhelming numbers of illegal border crossings and overworked agents also resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) losing track of 85,000 unaccompanied alien children.
The media largely ignored the nastiness until Michelle proclaimed, upon Barack winning a primary, “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country.” This earned Michelle a Republican and media backlash. The next day, she hired a speechwriter and declared, “I hate politics. I just want to be the mom in chief.” This earned Michelle an immediate respite and reshaped Michelle’s public persona from a highly political anti-American radical into a mom who hates politics.
TRY TO THINK OF A SINGLE THING THE BANKSTER REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN DID FOR BLACK AMERICA OTHER THAN GIVE THEIR JOBS TO ILLEGALS.
Many Americans saw the ascent of Obama to the White House as the proud culmination of a long and painful process of gradual reform – one that began with the abolition of slavery and included the indignity of Jim Crow and the advances of the civil-rights movement. For many of those who cast their votes for Obama on Election Day, and who cheered the results of the tabulation that evening, his election confirmed that the country had put racial division behind it once and for all. In the 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention that introduced him to most of his fellow Americans, Obama had declared: “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” Now the election of Obama himself seemed to have proven him gloriously right.
Our Once, Present, and Future President
A new book examines Barack Obama’s malign – and continuing – influence.
On the day that Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the United States of America was still recognizably the same country it had been for a very long time – arguably, from its very inception. Yes, the Civil War was a monumental disruption, and the social policies introduced by FDR and LBJ ushered in permanent change. So did the upheavals of the 1960s. But whereas the histories of some countries have been marked by one revolution after another, the history of America has, to a remarkable extent, been a tale of gradual reforms during which a single Constitution has remained firmly in place.
Many Americans saw the ascent of Obama to the White House as the proud culmination of a long and painful process of gradual reform – one that began with the abolition of slavery and included the indignity of Jim Crow and the advances of the civil-rights movement. For many of those who cast their votes for Obama on Election Day, and who cheered the results of the tabulation that evening, his election confirmed that the country had put racial division behind it once and for all. In the 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention that introduced him to most of his fellow Americans, Obama had declared: “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” Now the election of Obama himself seemed to have proven him gloriously right.
And then, of course, our glamorous new Commander in Chief set about trying to tear it all down.
In his smart, no-nonsense new book, Racism, Revenge, and Ruin: It’s ALL Obama, Scott McKay recounts in detail the ways in which our golden god and his sundry henchmen managed, in a remarkably short period of time, to transform the City on the Hill into what McKay calls a “dystopian nightmare.” To be sure, some of us have been following this sad story all along, and might think that we don’t need to be reminded of all the depressing details; but it’s striking, while reading McKay, to discover just how many of those details one has forgotten (the human mind, after all, being remarkably good at suppressing traumatic memories). And to re-encounter all those details one after the other is to see one’s anger over Obama’s manifold perfidies not only revived but intensified.
Anyway, it’s all here – from the closure of the Keystone XL pipeline to the wokification of the military; from the federal government’s deliberate refusal to control the southern border to the demonization of ordinary Americans as “white supremacists; from the weaponization of the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice to the madness of gender ideology. It was all ultimately Obama’s doing, and it was all done with one clear objective: to destroy the middle class and thereby make possible the replacement of the America we know with – well, with what?
To answer this question, McKay leads us into the sordid place that is Obama’s past. There’s a chapter on his relationship with Stalinist writer Frank Marshall Davis, who may or may not have been Obama’s biological father, and another chapter on his close friendship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, who’s probably the real author of Obama’s uncharacteristically lyrical (and, demonstrably, largely fictional) Dreams from My Father. Also making appearances in these pages are Obama’s Jew-hating Columbia professor Edward Said, one of the leading founders of postcolonial studies, and Obama’s mentor Derrick Bell, who invented Critical Race Theory.
We glimpse Obama the college student, who, according to a classmate, parroted classical Marxism; Obama the Chicago community organizer, who was so wed to leftist dogma that he was incapable of conceiving of practical solutions to ghetto problems; and Obama the 1996 candidate for Illinois State Senate, who won the Democratic primary by using political connections to have the ballot petitions of all of his opponents invalidated. Then there are the gay rumors, which circulated in Chicago Democratic circles back in the day but that have only recently been revived. Most of this material was familiar to me, but I don’t remember ever hearing about the gay church choir director who was close to Obama and who “was found dead in his hotel room of multiple gunshot wounds” on Christmas Eve 2007. Move over, Hillary! Of course there’s no proof that Obama had anything to do with it, but the victim’s mother thinks he did.
Whether Obama had the choir directed taken out or not, McKay makes one thing clear: Obama, utterly belying his cool, above-the-fray image, was, from the beginning of his political career, one hell of a ruthlessly ambitious piece of work. McKay even maintains that he “brought to national politics a new rapacity to win at any cost” – although, having recently read Roger Stone’s The Man who Killed Kennedy: The Case against LBJ, I’d be prepared to argue that that’s not strictly true. And let’s not forget Hillary Clinton, who by 2007 had for years been practicing the distinctive brand of slimy politics for which she is so beloved. It would be downright sexist to deny that, even though she failed to win the presidency, she certainly broke the glass ceiling for women when it comes to sheer, grasping unscrupulousness.
Then again, even LBJ and Hillary, for all their egomania, would never have dared, as Obama did, to declare, at the convention at which he was nominated, that that very nomination would someday be remembered as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” No, when it comes to public vanity on that scale, Obama did indeed set a new record. And what’s remarkable is that he got away with it – and is still getting away with it. McKay quite rightly poses the question: “How could such a sleazy Chicago pol emerge from the ooze of his Alinskyite South Side agitation and bad-faith political campaigns, as this supposedly soaring, untouchable figure?”
Part of the answer, of course, is that the corporate media has his back. But then that’s also been the case with Biden, the Clintons, and most other Democrats. No, Obama has – and had from the beginning – something else that none of the others had. And it’s not just that he’s black, either; so are Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters. No, Obama had something special. Biden recognized it when, in 2007, in his unvaryingly elegant way, he described Obama as “the first mainstream African-American” in American politics “who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” TV pundit Chris Matthews was reacting to that special something when he listened to a 2008 Obama speech and, as he admitted on MSNBC, “felt this thrill going up my leg.” And New York Times columnist David Brooks was responding to the same thing when, upon meeting Obama in 2005, he noticed Obama’s “perfectly creased pant” and decided instantly that “a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
Exactly what is it that all these buffoons were picking up on? McKay cites the film critic David Ehrenstein’s observation that Obama fits to a T a cinematic trope known as the “magical negro.” The term refers to the kind of black character who “exude[s] wisdom and quiet nobility” – many of the men played by Sidney Poitier come to mind – and who, in Ehrenstein’s words, serves “to assuage white ‘guilt’ …while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.” Sometimes the “magical negro” really is magical – think of Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty or the black mortician in Final Destination or the chef played by Scatman Crothers in The Shining. For many starry-eyed voters, Obama had his own kind of shining: when they saw him, as Ehrenstein put it, they saw “a comic-book superhero” who was “there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand.”
McKay might also have cited Shelby Steele, who divides black celebrities into “bargainers” like Louis Armstrong, who “make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him,” and “challengers,” who, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, try to advance by manipulating white guilt. Needless to say, Obama the candidate – who insisted that “[t]here’s not a black America and white America,” and who, when the truth about his own ideological loyalties threatened to damage his electoral chances, threw his Marxist pastor Jeremiah Wright under the bus with inimitable finesse – was a bargainer par excellence.
If more of us had paid more attention to Obama’s personal history, what happened after his election wouldn’t have come as such a surprise. In fact, if enough of us had paid attention, he’d never have been elected in the first place. But the American electorate, in its naivete and trust and hopefulness (“Know hope!” was the unvarying mantra of blogger and blind Obama-worshiper Andrew Sullivan), was drawn to the bargainer, and pulled that lever. And then it happened. “The very moment Barack Obama took office,” writes McKay, “the soothing tones of the campaign rhetoric, the placating centrism of his speeches, the hagiographic portrayal as America’s healer … all of it went away.”
Obama had promised “radical transformation.” But the “radical transformation” that ensued was decidedly not the kind that most of his supporters had thought they were voting for. It began with his inaugural address, which McKay rightly describes as “an outright paean to collectivism.” This was followed, on the homefront, by his “stimulus” bill, his auto bailouts, Operation Fast and Furious, Obamacare, his use of the IRS to destroy his political enemies, and his appalling response to the jihadist massacre at Fort Hood (his administration called it “workplace violence” and expressed the usual bogus concern about an “anti-Islam backlash”).
Abroad, there was his apology tour. In Turkey – which, as McKay notes, is “one of the most genocidal nations in world history” – Obama apologized for American slavery. Believe it or not (somehow I missed this story at the time), Obama actually planned, during a visit to Japan, to apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And guess who talked him out of it? The Japanese. Even as he sucked up to Castro and opened an embassy in Havana with great ceremony, he went out of his way to insult Netanyahu and embolden Hamas, all the while exhibiting a fierce hostility to Israel that (in a stunningly dramatic reversal) spread quickly throughout the Democratic base – the consequences of which were on horrific display in the Holy Land on October 7 and throughout America in the weeks that followed.
Obama had two terms, but when they were over, he didn’t go away. He stayed in Washington and was the central figure behind the concerted attempt to bring down his successor. The group Organizing for America, founded in 2013 by Michelle Obama and described by McKay as “Obama’s Red Guard,” played a major role in promoting the Russia hoax; other Obama operatives pushed the claim that Trump voters were all “white supremacists,” the “both sides” lie about Charlottesville, and the sanctification of George Floyd. They used COVID as an excuse to utterly revamp election rules, and they covered up, with spectacular efficiency, the spectacularly damning contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. So successfully, indeed, did Obama and his crew continue to advance their cause, during Trump’s presidency, of creating a new America that, as McKay suggests, it wouldn’t be outrageous to describe the Trump years as Obama’s third term.
In any event, it’s become increasingly clear during the so-called Biden presidency that it’s Obama who’s really in charge – making this, depending on how you count, either his third or fourth term. In the name of our feeble faux leader, policies have been put in place that are patently part of the Obama agenda – and that bear no relation to the lifelong politics of Biden himself. “Racial equity,” for example, has been thrust upon every office of the federal government. And for many young Americans with no memory of pre-Obama America – Americans who’ve been brought up to view Obama as a saint and Trump as a Nazi – all this creeping socialism is just plain dandy. If earlier generations saw America, quite properly, as the world’s last best hope, all too many of today’s young Americans see it as a force for evil that was founded on racism and whose power must be restrained by such benign international institutions as the UN and the WEF. Ultimately, every bit of it can be traced back to the efforts of Barack Obama, who’s still only 62, as ambitious and beloved as ever, and manifestly determined to persist in doing all he can to reshape America into a nation of which his Communist mentors would be proud. And what’s standing between him and his objectives? Only you and me.
Bruce Bawer
Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Reader Interactions
Michelle and Barack Obama’s latest movie warns not to trust white people
A year after leaving the White House, Barack and Michelle Obama created a production company called Higher Ground Productions that would produce documentaries and high-end movies. Their most recent movie, though, seemingly seeks the lowest ground possible, for it appears to stoke racial hatred in the context of an apocalypse.
According to the Higher Ground website, Leave the World Behind throws a white and black couple together during a massive cyberattack:
A family’s (Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke) vacation is upended when two strangers (Mahershala Ali and Myha’la) arrive at night, seeking refuge from a cyberattack that grows more terrifying by the minute, forcing everyone to come to terms with their places in a collapsing world.
Image: Barack and Michelle Obama by AI.
It’s not just that the Obamas produced the movie through their company. Barack was involved in writing the script:
While writing the script, Esmail consulted Obama, hoping that his perspective would “ground” the story and make it more realistic.
According to Esmail, Obama thought the script was fairly close to how a crisis would actually pan out in the real world.
[snip]
“He had a lot [of] notes about the characters and the empathy we would have for them,” Esmail said. “I have to say he is a big movie lover, and he wasn’t just giving notes about things that were from his background. He was giving notes as a fan of the book, and he wanted to see a really good film.”
So far, the movie sounds like a routine thriller, with the only twist being that the technical advisor is a one-time president. However, given that that he is part of the same Deep State that brought us COVID, I consider it creepy that he’s imagining for us what it would be like if there were another crisis in America. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
What leaves an even worse taste is the clip that’s emerged in which a black woman says to another black character, “I’m asking for you to remember that if the world falls apart, trust should not be doled out easily to anyone, especially to white people – even mom would agree with me on that.”
It’s entirely possible that the point of the movie, with the black couple and the white couple forced to depend on each other, is going to prove the opposite…namely, that you can trust white people. However, only an idiot would include in the movie a line like that, which can, and will, be taken out of context. (And no, I have no idea what the context is; I just know the line is horribly racist on its face.)
Moreover, when I check out the Wikipedia description of the book on which the movie is based, I actually can’t figure out a darn thing about the plot. Apparently, within a single 36-hour period, deer and flamingos go crazy, white people are racist (including anti-Hispanic racism), and people instantly fall ill from devastating diseases. The plot even includes a swipe at George W. Bush after 9/11, for it has the president hiding in a bunker. Of course, today, we have a president who hides in basements and beach houses.
The whole thing sounds awful, offensive, and entirely typical for a man and his wife who, once one strips away the expensive glamour, have always been nothing more than Marxist race hustlers.
Leftists, including women, are silent about Hamas’s murderous rape spree
On my personal website, Bookworm Room, I post memes every Friday. Most come from other people but, occasionally, I’ll create one of my own. On October 27, ten days after Hamas massacred 1,400 Israelis and kidnapped more than two hundred others, I created a meme about Michelle Obama’s silence. Now, lots of people are noticing her silence. Indeed, as more news emerges about the abuse women suffered on October 7 and that those in captivity continue to suffer, the silence from leftist women is deafening.
Here’s the image I created and ran on October 27:
You probably recognize a doleful Michelle from the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign that was launched in 2014 when Boko Haram, a Muslim terrorist group, brutally kidnapped over two hundred mostly Christian girls in Nigeria.
However, this time around, Michelle seems peculiarly disinterested in the rape, kidnap, and murder of hundreds of girls:
May Golan, Minister for the Advancement of the Status of Women of Israel, said Saturday that she had approached former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama to condemn attacks on Israeli women by Hamas on October 7 — and been met with complete silence.
[snip]
A search of Michelle Obama’s social media accounts does not show any statements about Israel or the October 7 terror attack.
Michelle’s silence is not unique on the left. The UN Women’s division was silent for a week. Then, in response to criticism, it finally released an anodyne statement on Instagram: “We condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on October 7 and continue to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” Almost immediately, UN Women deleted that post, replacing it with one that didn’t condemn Hamas but did call for the hostages to be released.
This “see no evil that Hamas committed against Jewish women” appears at the highest levels of the American government, too. Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s cavalier response to the targeted rape and slaughter of Jewish women, combined with her moral equivalence, was so grotesque that even CNN’s Dana Bash called her out for it:
Meanwhile, on the ground, the useful idiots are taking a different approach, which is to deny that anything bad happened to women. Even though Hamas joyously released its own videos of the carnage it inflicted, the useful idiots are denying that “their side” had anything to do with rape and murder.
But could Jayapal be right? I mean, war is hell. Right now, Israel’s assault on Hamas operatives is killing those civilians whom Hamas has refused to let leave after first making sure that its military infrastructure was embedded in civilian environs, especially hospitals and schools. Nope. She’s not right.
There is a fundamental, ethical difference between a Stone-Aged enemy that slaughters civilians and a moral nation that has a targeted military response to this slaughter and does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties:
More than that, you must understand the nature of this slaughter of civilians. The Jewish Chronicle’s report highlights that this was not war-deprived soldiers slaking their lusts on the first women they could find. Instead, what happened were acts of incredible, almost unfathomable violence:
Yoni Saadon, who escaped execution by hiding underneath a stage, said: “I saw this beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or ten of the fighters beating and raping her.
“She was screaming, ‘Stop it—already I’m going to die anyway from what you are doing, just kill me!’ When they finished they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.
“I kept thinking it could have been one of my daughters. Or my sister—I had bought her a ticket but last minute she couldn’t come.”
Speaking to The Sunday Times at Sitria, a support area set up for festival survivors southeast of Tel Aviv, Saadon said he also witnessed the brutal murder of women who resisted Hamas attackers.
“They had caught a young woman near a car and she was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her,” he said.
“They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her and her head rolled along the ground. I see that head too.”
Pamela Geller has images of some of the least badly brutalist bodies, and it’s still vomitous. (Videos of those acts taking place in real-time were what Hamas forced the brutalized hostage children to watch.) Also, it wasn’t just women the Hamas monsters raped. They raped men, too. Because homosexuality is a capital crime amongst devout Muslims, those rapes prove that rape was an act of war.
Jewish women, who were amongst the left’s most enthusiastic acolytes, are coming to terms with the fact that the left used them. In response to the UN Women’s silence, there is now an online petition noting that the #MeToo movement and “believe all women” don’t apply to Jews. You can find and sign the petition here.
The left uses everyone. Their love for Jews, free speech, free love, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement…all of these were vehicles to achieve power. As they’ve gained that power, they’ve systematically turned on their ideas and allies. To date, they’ve abandoned Jews and free speech and are abandoning blacks for illegal aliens. The LGBTQ+ cadre will discover, as Hitler’s early homosexual supporters did, that tyrants can’t afford sexual deviants, who are troublemakers—useful during the revolution and dangerous after.
We are getting a preview of coming attractions for the rest of the West, and the left, whether at the UN, in Obama’s house, in Congress, or on the streets, is abandoning those it once championed while hollering “la, la, la” to drown out the screams of those raped women.
It was a year of not-so-remarkable achievement for the man many consider our laziest living president, Barack Hussein Obama. Few men in history have been so honored and enriched through so little effort and achievement that one must marvel at Obama’s ability to command such vapid celebrity status for so long.
On one hand, he managed to produce his first streaming movie for Netflix, which was so good it was deemed unfit for theaters. On the other hand, his private chef mysteriously drowned in a paddleboarding accident off the coast of his palatial estate on Martha’s Vineyard.
For that we can’t much blame Obama. It is only fitting that he relaxes beachside as those around him struggle to stay afloat in the dangerous waters he provided them.
There’s the Israelis, left to fight a gruesome war sparked by Obama’s disastrous Iran deal. There’s also his octogenarian former vice president, who is stumbling and mumbling his way to a 37 percent approval rating heading into reelection season.
But those things do not concern Obama. Yes, it’s good to be an Ivy League man who is both rich and retired well before his 65th birthday.
Obama’s notable achievements in his post-presidency appear to lie solely in multimillion-dollar real estate acquisitions and script advising. Bored with actual public service, Obama has largely avoided charitable endeavors. It took him weeks to opine on the war in Israel he started, and he is yet to build his billion-dollar presidential mosque (some say it will also house a library).
Obama’s few other accomplishments, meanwhile, have been revealed not by the former president but by his former acquaintances. In late September, decades-old letters Obama sent to an ex-girlfriend surfaced, showing he admitted to having sex with other men daily—in his mind. (Larry Sinclair disputed this characterization.)
Laziness is not a virtue we’re inclined to reward around these parts. But in 2023, few proved better at resting on their laurels than our former president. And for that, we give credit where it’s due. Barry O, you’re a Washington Free Beacon Man of the Year.
BARACK OBAMA
Nickname(s): Barry O’Bummer, the Choom Gangsta, Hussein in the Membrane
Occupation: Serial memoirist, nicotine addict, property owner, Netflix producer, secret Muslim, 44th president of the United States
Background: “Born” in “Hawaii” in 1961, B. Hussein Obama moved with his mother at age six to Indonesia and ate dog meat. He returned to Hawaii years later to join the Honolulu-based “choom gang” and experiment with drugs before “enrolling” at Occidental College, followed by Columbia, followed by Harvard Law School. After publishing his first memoir at age 33, Obama worked in the Illinois state government under the tutelage of left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers before getting elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and immediately running for president to validate his preternatural self-regard. Mission accomplished.
Hobbies: Hanging out with celebs, drinking wine with “interesting Italians,” and complaining about his wife’s literary success. Being wrong about politics might even be considered one of Obama’s hobbies. In 2016, for example, he backed Hillary Clinton over his own vice president. We all know how that turned out. In 2020, Obama was “enamored” with failed candidate Beto O’Rourke and feared Joe Biden would “dishonor himself” by running. He didn’t even donate to Biden’s campaign.
Hates freedom? Without question.
Why/how? Where to begin? As president Obama relished every opportunity to apologize for American exceptionalism, which he dismissively likened to “British exceptionalism” or “Greek exceptionalism.” His signature move when greeting foreign leaders was the submissive bow. He brazenly lied about whether Americans would be able to keep their doctors following the passage of Obamacare. He repeatedly expressed frustration with the fact that he was merely president of the United States, as opposed to an “emperor” or “dictator” with total authority to decide how the American people should live their lives. Apart from coddling terrorists, his signature foreign policy achievements include presiding over the death of an American ambassador in Benghazi and cozying up to the anti-American regimes in Iran and Cuba.
Claim(s) to shame: Generally speaking, Obama is a pathological narcissist who journalists lustily admired as president because he reminded them so much of themselves and satisfied their overwhelming desire to publicly demonstrate opposition to racism and other bad things. He resented the American people for constantly letting him down, and behaved as though the office of the presidency was beneath him. In March 2014, for example, Obama refused to let Russia’s impending annexation of Crimea spoil his vacation plans. “I needed this,” he told former NBA star Alonzo Mourning and other guests at the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo. “I needed the golf. I needed to laugh.”
Fun fact(s): Obama is the first former president since Dwight Eisenhower, commander of the D-Day invasion, to compose a multi-volume memoir about his time in office. During the 2012 election, the Choom Gangsta voted for himself at precisely 4:20 p.m.
What’s next? Becoming the first ex-president billionaire, finishing his third memoir, and eventually publishing a 900-page novel that reviewers will unanimously praise as “Holden Caulfield meets Ta-Nehisi Coates … an intellectual call to arms,” because they’ll be too gutless to admit it’s rather tedious and overwrought.
HASN'T AMERICA HAD ENOUGH OF THESE TWO POLITICAL HUCKSTERS AND THEIR GODFATHER GEORGE SOROS???
JESSE JACKSON IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST HUCKSTERS IN U.S. HISTORY STANDING ONLY NEXT TO AL SHARPTON AND THE OBAMAS
Michelle befriended Santita Jackson, the daughter of Jesse Jackson, and has said, “I grew up in that man’s house.” Yes, Michelle spent much time at Jesse Jackson’s house while he was preparing to run for president. “I’ve seen it all,” Michelle said of the experience.
WARNOCK IS BARACK'S FAVE SLUMLORD HUCKSTER
I woke up yesterday elated by the news of Reverend Raphael Warnock's election victory. He'll be Georgia's first Black senator, and I was heartened by the idea that the Senior Pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church—the home parish of Dr. King and a spiritual and organizational hub during the Civil Rights Movement—would be representing his state in the United States Senate.
HUCKSTER MICHELLE:
The media largely ignored the nastiness until Michelle proclaimed, upon Barack winning a primary, “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country.” This earned Michelle a Republican and media backlash. The next day, she hired a speechwriter and declared, “I hate politics. I just want to be the mom in chief.” This earned Michelle an immediate respite and reshaped Michelle’s public persona from a highly political anti-American radical into a mom who hates politics.
Michelle Obama Absolutely Is Political
Upon hearing the notion that Michelle Obama may be the presidential candidate for Democrats in 2024, many Republicans reflexively recite the mantra that she is enjoying her life and is not political. Let me make one thing clear: Michelle Obama is a political animal. Republicans must quickly begin to prepare for her candidacy.
Michelle grew up as the daughter of a Chicago Democrat party precinct captain. She has written about making the rounds with her father from age 4, visiting homes in her area to get out the black vote for the white liberal Chicago Democrat party machine. Michelle has also noted that people came to her house seeking money from her father, Fraser Robinson. In high school, Michelle was elected repeatedly to the student council and was class treasurer. Michelle befriended Santita Jackson, the daughter of Jesse Jackson, and has said, “I grew up in that man’s house.” Yes, Michelle spent much time at Jesse Jackson’s house while he was preparing to run for president. “I’ve seen it all,” Michelle said of the experience.
At Princeton University, Michelle was elected to the board of the Third World Center, a radical black activist fraternity. Michelle and Barack had a mutual professor at Harvard, though in different years, named Charles Ogletree. When Barack was elected president, Ogletree told TMZ that between Barack and Michelle, he would have thought Michelle more likely to run for president.
In Chicago, Michelle befriended another political animal, the former head of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group and accused cop-killer Bernardine Dohrn. Michelle worked with her for two years at the Sidley Austin law firm and had dinners at her home with Bill Ayers for years, right up until the time Barack ran for U.S. Senate in 2004. Dohrn was Michelle’s first guest speaker at Public Allies, the community organizing group she ran. Yes, like Barack, Michelle was also a community organizer for three years. In marrying a politician, she married her father.
On the 2008 campaign trail, Michelle spoke to huge adoring crowds across the country, trumpeting word for word the anti-American rhetoric she’d learned from Dohrn. The media largely ignored the nastiness until Michelle proclaimed, upon Barack winning a primary, “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country.” This earned Michelle a Republican and media backlash. The next day, she hired a speechwriter and declared, “I hate politics. I just want to be the mom in chief.” This earned Michelle an immediate respite and reshaped Michelle’s public persona from a highly political anti-American radical into a mom who hates politics.
To a degree, Michelle was being truthful. All politicians hate politics — it’s grueling and annoying — but they put up with it because they love power.
With this context, you can understand why I researched Michelle Obama’s true life history and published the film and book of the same name, Michelle Obama 2024: Her Real Life Story and Plan for Power. Seeing Joe Biden’s advanced age, immense unpopularity, and terrible polls, Democrat party leaders such as Barack Obama and David Axelrod have observed that Biden is likely going to lose to Trump. In the wings, however, waits the very political Michelle Obama. Lucky for us, she let it all hang out when she tweeted a two-part statement on January 7, 2021, one day after “January 6.” Interestingly, on the day following this statement, the tech companies did what Michelle asked them to do: ban Donald Trump from social media.
Michelle’s January 7 Twitter manifesto deserves to be read in full. Can there be any doubt that Michelle Obama is a political animal who has her sights on the White House in 2024?
Michelle Obama, January 7, 2021:
I woke up yesterday elated by the news of Reverend Raphael Warnock's election victory. He'll be Georgia's first Black senator, and I was heartened by the idea that the Senior Pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church—the home parish of Dr. King and a spiritual and organizational hub during the Civil Rights Movement—would be representing his state in the United States Senate.
In just a few hours, though, my heart had fallen harder and faster than I can remember. Like all of you, I watched as a gang—organized, violent, and mad they'd lost an election—laid siege to the United States Capitol. They set up gallows. They proudly waved the traitorous flag of the Confederacy through the halls. They desecrated the center of American government. And once authorities finally gained control of the situation, these rioters and gang members were led out of the building not in handcuffs, but free to carry on with their days. The day was a fulfillment of the wishes of an infantile and unpatriotic president who can't handle the truth of his own failures. And the wreckage lays at the feet of a party and media apparatus that gleefully cheered him on, knowing full well the possibility of consequences like these.
It all left me with so many questions—questions about the future, questions about security, extremism, propaganda, and more. But there's one question I just can't shake: What if these rioters had looked like the folks who go to Ebenezer Baptist Church every Sunday? What would have been different?
I think we all know the answer. This summer's Black Lives Matter protests were an overwhelmingly peaceful movement—our nation's largest demonstrations ever, bringing together people of every race and class and encouraging millions to re-examine their own assumptions and behavior. And yet, in city after city, day after day, we saw peaceful protestors met with brute force. We saw cracked skulls and mass arrests, law enforcement pepper spraying its way through a peaceful demonstration for a presidential photo op.
And for those who call others unpatriotic for simply taking a knee in silent protest, for those who wonder why we need to be reminded that Black Lives Matter at all, yesterday made it painfully clear that certain Americans are, in fact, allowed to denigrate the flag and symbols of our nation. They've just got to look the right way. What do all those folks have to say now?
Seeing the gulf between the responses to yesterday's riot and this summer's peaceful protests and the larger movement for racial justice is so painful. It hurts. And I cannot think about moving on or turning the page until we reckon with the reality of what we saw yesterday. True progress will be possible only once we acknowledge that this disconnect exists and take steps to repair it. And that also means coming to grips with the reality that millions voted for a man so obviously willing to burn our democracy down for his own ego.
I hurt for our country. And I wish I had all the solutions to make things better. I wish I had the confidence that people who know better will act like it for more than a news cycle or two. All I know is that now is a time for true patriotism. Now is the time for those who voted for this president to see the reality of what they've supported—and publicly and forcefully rebuke him and the actions of that mob. Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior—and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technology from being used by the nation's leaders to fuel insurrection.
And if we have any hope of improving this nation, now is the time for swift and serious consequences for the failure of leadership that led to yesterday's shame.
Thankfully, even in the darkness, there are glimmers of hope. It's something I imagine Reverend Warnock has preached about before—and I'm still heartened beyond belief that he's headed to Washington. I'm glad his fellow Georgian, Jon Ossoff is, too, and that together they'll help give control of Congress back to the only party that's shown that it can put our democracy above its own short-term political fortunes. I pray that every American, especially those who disagree with them, will give our new Congress, President-Elect Biden, and Vice-President-Elect Harris the chance to lead us in a better direction.
But make no mistake: The work of putting America back together, of truly repairing what is broken, isn't the work of any individual politician or political party. It's up to each of us to do our part. To reach out. To listen. And to hold tight to the truth and values that have always led this country forward. It will be an uncomfortable, sometimes painful process. But if we enter into it with an honest and unwavering love of our country, then maybe we can finally start to heal.
Hollywood film director Joel Gilbert is president of Highway 61 Entertainment. Among his many films are political documentaries including The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America; Trump: The Art of the Insult; There's No Place Like Utopia; Dreams from My Real Father; Atomic Jihad; and Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam and the new film and book Michelle Obama 2024: Her Real Life Story and Plan for Power.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Michelle and Barack Obama’s latest movie warns not to trust white people
A year after leaving the White House, Barack and Michelle Obama created a production company called Higher Ground Productions that would produce documentaries and high-end movies. Their most recent movie, though, seemingly seeks the lowest ground possible, for it appears to stoke racial hatred in the context of an apocalypse.
According to the Higher Ground website, Leave the World Behind throws a white and black couple together during a massive cyberattack:
A family’s (Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke) vacation is upended when two strangers (Mahershala Ali and Myha’la) arrive at night, seeking refuge from a cyberattack that grows more terrifying by the minute, forcing everyone to come to terms with their places in a collapsing world.
Image: Barack and Michelle Obama by AI.
It’s not just that the Obamas produced the movie through their company. Barack was involved in writing the script:
While writing the script, Esmail consulted Obama, hoping that his perspective would “ground” the story and make it more realistic.
According to Esmail, Obama thought the script was fairly close to how a crisis would actually pan out in the real world.
[snip]
“He had a lot [of] notes about the characters and the empathy we would have for them,” Esmail said. “I have to say he is a big movie lover, and he wasn’t just giving notes about things that were from his background. He was giving notes as a fan of the book, and he wanted to see a really good film.”
So far, the movie sounds like a routine thriller, with the only twist being that the technical advisor is a one-time president. However, given that that he is part of the same Deep State that brought us COVID, I consider it creepy that he’s imagining for us what it would be like if there were another crisis in America. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
What leaves an even worse taste is the clip that’s emerged in which a black woman says to another black character, “I’m asking for you to remember that if the world falls apart, trust should not be doled out easily to anyone, especially to white people – even mom would agree with me on that.”
It’s entirely possible that the point of the movie, with the black couple and the white couple forced to depend on each other, is going to prove the opposite…namely, that you can trust white people. However, only an idiot would include in the movie a line like that, which can, and will, be taken out of context. (And no, I have no idea what the context is; I just know the line is horribly racist on its face.)
Moreover, when I check out the Wikipedia description of the book on which the movie is based, I actually can’t figure out a darn thing about the plot. Apparently, within a single 36-hour period, deer and flamingos go crazy, white people are racist (including anti-Hispanic racism), and people instantly fall ill from devastating diseases. The plot even includes a swipe at George W. Bush after 9/11, for it has the president hiding in a bunker. Of course, today, we have a president who hides in basements and beach houses.
The whole thing sounds awful, offensive, and entirely typical for a man and his wife who, once one strips away the expensive glamour, have always been nothing more than Marxist race hustlers.
Leftists, including women, are silent about Hamas’s murderous rape spree
On my personal website, Bookworm Room, I post memes every Friday. Most come from other people but, occasionally, I’ll create one of my own. On October 27, ten days after Hamas massacred 1,400 Israelis and kidnapped more than two hundred others, I created a meme about Michelle Obama’s silence. Now, lots of people are noticing her silence. Indeed, as more news emerges about the abuse women suffered on October 7 and that those in captivity continue to suffer, the silence from leftist women is deafening.
Here’s the image I created and ran on October 27:
You probably recognize a doleful Michelle from the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign that was launched in 2014 when Boko Haram, a Muslim terrorist group, brutally kidnapped over two hundred mostly Christian girls in Nigeria.
However, this time around, Michelle seems peculiarly disinterested in the rape, kidnap, and murder of hundreds of girls:
May Golan, Minister for the Advancement of the Status of Women of Israel, said Saturday that she had approached former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama to condemn attacks on Israeli women by Hamas on October 7 — and been met with complete silence.
[snip]
A search of Michelle Obama’s social media accounts does not show any statements about Israel or the October 7 terror attack.
Michelle’s silence is not unique on the left. The UN Women’s division was silent for a week. Then, in response to criticism, it finally released an anodyne statement on Instagram: “We condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on October 7 and continue to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” Almost immediately, UN Women deleted that post, replacing it with one that didn’t condemn Hamas but did call for the hostages to be released.
This “see no evil that Hamas committed against Jewish women” appears at the highest levels of the American government, too. Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s cavalier response to the targeted rape and slaughter of Jewish women, combined with her moral equivalence, was so grotesque that even CNN’s Dana Bash called her out for it:
Meanwhile, on the ground, the useful idiots are taking a different approach, which is to deny that anything bad happened to women. Even though Hamas joyously released its own videos of the carnage it inflicted, the useful idiots are denying that “their side” had anything to do with rape and murder.
But could Jayapal be right? I mean, war is hell. Right now, Israel’s assault on Hamas operatives is killing those civilians whom Hamas has refused to let leave after first making sure that its military infrastructure was embedded in civilian environs, especially hospitals and schools. Nope. She’s not right.
There is a fundamental, ethical difference between a Stone-Aged enemy that slaughters civilians and a moral nation that has a targeted military response to this slaughter and does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties:
More than that, you must understand the nature of this slaughter of civilians. The Jewish Chronicle’s report highlights that this was not war-deprived soldiers slaking their lusts on the first women they could find. Instead, what happened were acts of incredible, almost unfathomable violence:
Yoni Saadon, who escaped execution by hiding underneath a stage, said: “I saw this beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or ten of the fighters beating and raping her.
“She was screaming, ‘Stop it—already I’m going to die anyway from what you are doing, just kill me!’ When they finished they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.
“I kept thinking it could have been one of my daughters. Or my sister—I had bought her a ticket but last minute she couldn’t come.”
Speaking to The Sunday Times at Sitria, a support area set up for festival survivors southeast of Tel Aviv, Saadon said he also witnessed the brutal murder of women who resisted Hamas attackers.
“They had caught a young woman near a car and she was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her,” he said.
“They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her and her head rolled along the ground. I see that head too.”
Pamela Geller has images of some of the least badly brutalist bodies, and it’s still vomitous. (Videos of those acts taking place in real-time were what Hamas forced the brutalized hostage children to watch.) Also, it wasn’t just women the Hamas monsters raped. They raped men, too. Because homosexuality is a capital crime amongst devout Muslims, those rapes prove that rape was an act of war.
Jewish women, who were amongst the left’s most enthusiastic acolytes, are coming to terms with the fact that the left used them. In response to the UN Women’s silence, there is now an online petition noting that the #MeToo movement and “believe all women” don’t apply to Jews. You can find and sign the petition here.
The left uses everyone. Their love for Jews, free speech, free love, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement…all of these were vehicles to achieve power. As they’ve gained that power, they’ve systematically turned on their ideas and allies. To date, they’ve abandoned Jews and free speech and are abandoning blacks for illegal aliens. The LGBTQ+ cadre will discover, as Hitler’s early homosexual supporters did, that tyrants can’t afford sexual deviants, who are troublemakers—useful during the revolution and dangerous after.
We are getting a preview of coming attractions for the rest of the West, and the left, whether at the UN, in Obama’s house, in Congress, or on the streets, is abandoning those it once championed while hollering “la, la, la” to drown out the screams of those raped women.
Report: Barack Obama Fears Joe Biden ‘Could Lose the White House’ Next Year
President Joe Biden is seeing out the end of 2023 with multiple crises across a variety of fronts – political and personal – causing some at the very zenith of his own party to doubt his ability to hold the White House in 2024.
Former President Barack Obama is reportedly among the doubters.
He increasingly questions the incumbent’s prospects for next year’s election and “feels that Democrats very well could lose,” according to a report by Annie Linskey citing an anonymous source in the Wall Street Journal.
File/President Joe Biden (L) and former U.S. President Barack Obama (R) rally for Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Josh Shapiro at the Liacouras Center on November 5, 2022 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Mark Makela/Getty)
With former President Donald Trump forging ahead in polls, and concerns about the president’s age, immigration, Israel policy, and economic plan denting confidence all while son Hunter Biden appears to be providing an endless media distraction, the quoted source familiar with Obama’s thinking described the former president as troubled.
Trump has the edge over Joe Biden in seven crucial swing states in hypothetical match-ups with the 2024 general election less than a year away, according to a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll.
He is also increasingly seen as the stronger, better leader of the two.
Obama “knows this is going to be a close race,” the source told the WSJ, and “feels that Democrats very well could lose” the 2024 election while also fretting “the alternative is pretty dangerous for democracy,” the person said.
The reportedly private expressions of doubt align with members of the Democrat Party who have called for Biden to avoid reelection and pass the torch to the younger generation in fear that he could lose to Donald Trump. As the Hill noted last month:
Former President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod on Sunday suggested President Biden drop out of the 2024 presidential race in the wake of a new poll showing the incumbent trailing former President Trump.
Pointing to a New York Times and Siena College poll published Sunday, Axelrod wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: “It’s very late to change horses; a lot will happen in the next year that no one can predict & Biden’s team says his resolve to run is firm.”
Arguing Biden is “justly proud of his accomplishments,” Axelrod said Biden’s poll numbers will “send tremors of doubt” through the Democratic Party. “Not ‘bed-wetting,’” but legitimate concern, Axelrod wrote.
Bill Maher is another to have called on Biden to drop out of the 2024 race, making his fears public more than 12 months ago.
“Someone has to convince President Biden that if he runs again, he’s going to turn the country back over to Trump and go … down in history as Ruth Bader Biden, the person who doesn’t know when to quit and so does great damage to their party and their country,” Maher then said again last month.
Hardcore Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol have also called for 81-year-old Biden to step down.
Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: Follow @SunSimonKent or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com
Why is Biden (and Obama!) still on the ballot?
What do you call it when a socialist national government ignores the consent of the governed?
In their desperation to keep the spotlight off what they are doing to the country, leftist authoritarians have decided to destroy democracy to “save” it. Because the obvious way to have the people rule is to forcibly keep them from voting for the candidate of their choice. It makes sense only if you don’t think about it — at all.
Thus, leftists are going pedal to the metal in persecuting their political opponents, with their latest stunt, banning President Trump from the ballot in Colorado over the mere charge of “organizing” an “insurrection.” For normal people, what looked like merely giving a speech was somehow a super-secret coded communication for a capital coup on January 6, 2021. (Yes, we included the year in that date to remind everyone how long the left has been exploiting this.) Except even the politicized and weaponized Fascist Bureau of Intimidation (FBI) decided this over two years ago:
Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated — sources
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then–President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
So we now have the dangerous precedent that a court can interfere with virtually any election it wants to by merely asserting that someone was inciting an “insurrection,” all thanks to our wonderful comrades of the authoritarian left. You can just imagine how proud they must feel in where they have brought this country.
This brings up a merely hypothetical question: why is dictator Joe Biden (which is to say, Biden and Barack Obama) still on the ballot, given what we know about what he has done, as evidenced by real-world results?
Does anyone recall the leftist authoritarians filling us in on their plans to destroy the country? Something along the lines of:
Oh, by the way, if you vote for us, we’re going to open the border to millions of illegal invaders, men of military age from enemy nations, terrorists, and who knows what else.
In addition to that, we’re going to use your hard-earned money to bus and fly (without valid ID) them around the country so they don’t bunch up around the border areas so you take notice.
And in addition to that, we’re also going to use your hard earned money to feed and house these folks so they’re all ready to vote for us in the next election.
On top of that, all of this is going to cause drug use and crime to skyrocket, but we’ll use those “serious crises” to gain even more control. Isn’t that going to be great?
Does anyone remember that kind of pithy sales pitch on the destruction of our constitutional republic? Because we don’t recall any of that.
We do remember reading somewhere along the line that certain truths are self-evident, and
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Did we the people ever consent to the ever-expanding disaster and destruction of our country and our way of life?
It should be evident by now that all of this is by malevolence rather than incompetence. With the latter, the odds are that the people would win out here and there, or maybe break even once in a while.
This issue alone shows that Obiden is far worse than the fantasy accusations made against President Trump in that the regime fits the dictionary definition of a dictatorship.
In that, they are “fundamentally transforming” the country without the consent of the governed while their propaganda arm, the national socialist media, spews incessant accusations that Trump is Hitler and is going to be a dictator while ignoring the example in their midst.
Newsweek among others profiled Republicans who threatened to throw Joe Biden off ballots in certain states, and they were perplexed as to the constitutional grounds for this. They could start with Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
...along with that whole dictatorship issue that they keep squawking about when it comes to President Trump. They ignore it when dealing with their side.
What is truly interesting is that while many celebrated the un-democratic move in Colorado, others saw it as a very dangerous precedent. But that’s what happens when you crave power for the sake of power and will use any means necessary to get it. Overreach and attempts at raw dictatorship while distracting attention with projection can get you only so far. Then the people turn on you and send you to the ash heap of history, where you belong.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
- His son is facing felony charges for being the collections guy in the family bribery business.
Biden's Party is Over… and the Hangover Has Begun
As we approach the last year of Joe Biden’s term, it’s an opportune moment to reflect back on January of 2021. Our new President had been inaugurated (though we still don’t know that he was elected). Democrats believed the evil Trump had been vanquished from the body politic forever. We were assured that blue-collar Joe from Scranton was going to return normalcy to Washington -- as if that were a good thing.
Biden was riding high in the polls. His “wingmen” were in control of the executive branch. His allies were in power in Congress and his media lapdogs would guarantee that all news was good news. It was a heady time for team Biden.
The Left was giddy too. In Joe Biden, they had found that one kid in the gang who would act on any suggestion and accept any dare. Nothing could stop them now. This would be their opportunity complete the “fundamental change” that Barack Obama had started, but not finished -- because he had a sense of self-preservation that Joe lacks.
So, the Left unleashed their man-child in the candy store without adult supervision. Joe did what any spoiled child would do. He indulged his every wish -- and he wished to play king. He plundered the candy store like a Viking raider, with complete disregard that the sugar-high would be followed by a stomachache. The man-child was oblivious to the notion that in the adult world, choices come with consequences. That’s a lack of wisdom universal to immaturity regardless of whether one is 8 or 80.
Biden’s first year in office was a time of historic action -- and not in a good way.
Goaded by the Left, Joe unleashed his inner id, using his pen and phone to fulfill his lusts, and those of his radical toadies. With every action he considered, his gallery of sycophants remained behind him chanting: Go ahead Joey. Do it. We double dog dare you. And Joe did it -- consequences be damned.
He bragged about beating the tyrant Trump, and signed executive orders at a rate of dozens per day -- to cancel any accomplishment of Trump. It was irrelevant to him if Trump’s achievements were beneficial to Americans. If Donald did it, Joe undid it because… well, just because.
He threw our borders open to foreign invasion, simply because Trump had closed them. Joe’s policies added an additional 3.8 million criminals to our society. That’s enough people to populate Los Angeles -- admitted with no vetting, no control, and no apology.
Joe added $5 trillion to our national debt -- enough $100 bills to reach the Moon and back 10 times. The spending drove inflation to a 40-year high. Interest rates reached a 20-year high, as the Federal Reserve struggled to tame the mess. In so doing, Joe placed home mortgages out of reach for many Americans.
He choked domestic energy production, making us again dependent on foreign oil. Prices for gas and electricity skyrocketed. In the process, he enriched Russia (a producer of oil) and China (a producer of solar and wind technology). We’re expected to pay no attention to the little issue that the Biden family received millions of dollars from Russia and China, for no apparent service.
Joe surrendered unconditionally to the Taliban in Afghanistan. As we fled, 13 soldiers were killed, Joe broke our word to our allies, and he armed a global threat. It was done because he wanted a talking point on the twentieth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.
Joe shipped billions of dollars of our war material to Ukraine -- which coincidentally was another multi-million-dollar benefactor of the Biden family. While he armed Ukraine, our own military has fallen to its lowest level of preparedness since before WWII. But our soldiers do get their pronouns correct now.
Joe funded Hamas, using Iran as a financial cutout. Hamas then committed the single largest one-day killing of Jews since the Holocaust. Hamas’ Bidenbucks facilitated murder, gang rape, kidnapping, and infanticide. While the world watched in horror, Joe went on another beach vacation.
Joe used the power of the executive branch to infringe on our rights of assembly, religion, speech, property, due process, and self-defense. When stopped by the courts, he didn’t comply but pursued workarounds -- showing utter contempt for the Constitution that he is sworn to defend.
He weaponized our criminal justice system, breaking all legal precedents in a childish tantrum to punish anyone whom he disliked. Actual criminal wrongdoing was irrelevant. Political adversaries, pro-life protesters, election deniers, and non-compliant members of the press had their homes raided and faced criminal prosecution via creative application of laws, for purposes that were never intended.
Biden gave a national address standing before a satanic red backdrop with symbols of his military power standing at attention. He dehumanized half of the Americans whom he is sworn to represent, calling them semi-fascists. In other comments he has repeatedly threatened military force against anyone who challenges his government.
Joe Biden’s first year in office was a time of great hubris, for which I’m sure he felt entitled, given his 46 years of “government service.” But Greek philosophy frowns on hubris for a reason:
Hubris was not something you wanted to be accused of if you were in ancient Greece. It was thought to be behavior outside the norm. Most specifically, that behavior in which one would attempt to defy -- or challenge -- the gods. To display such arrogance meant that you became a target of Nemesis and she is inescapable.
So, has Joe:
- Acted outside the norm in weaponizing the government against its people? Check.
- Defied God by infringing on God-given rights? Check.
- Displayed arrogance by ignoring his oath and the courts? Check.
Joe dared Nemesis, the Greek Goddess of Divine Retribution, to pay him a visit. It seems that Nemesis has now arrived, signaling that the party has ended, and the hangover has begun.
As we near the end of Joe’s first term, his last year looks very different from the first.
- Biden’s approval is down to 34 percent, and that doesn’t appear to be the floor.
- The party he leads is losing the minority vote, and tearing itself apart over its hatred of Jews.
- His son is facing felony charges for being the collections guy in the family bribery business.
- The House of Representatives has opened an impeachment investigation, because the corruption became too great to ignore.
- Biden faces the possibility that his legacy will be as America’s most corrupt President.
- The public is ridiculing him for his inability to navigate stairs or stages.
- His friends are abandoning him.
- His nemesis Trump is poised to exact revenge in 11 short months.
If Biden were an adult, he might reflect on the last three years and wish that he’d simply exercised a bit of self-control. But that’s not who Joe Biden is. President “Man-Child” will spend his last year stamping his feet, denying any wrongdoing, and demanding more candy.
John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He is a staff writer for the American Free News Network and can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
VIDEO
Watters: I guarantee you Satan went to law school
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Ln2aXLqWw
THERE IS NO GREATER DANGER TO AMERICA THAN THIS PIG LAWYER JOE BIDE!
Biden was 25 in 1967, and was attending Syracuse University College of Law, from which he graduated 76th in a class of 85 in 1968. By 1967, when he supposedly talking to the Egyptian government on behalf of Golda
Meir, he had already embarked upon his career of lying. A Syracuse
College of Law faculty report on December 1, 1965 stated that Biden “used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution,” and recommended that he fail a legal methods course because of his plagiarism.
Biden lied about his undergraduate degree and his majors, lied about his rank in law school, lied about scholarships and educational aid he had received, lied about his stance toward the Vietnam war while in college, lied about
his plagiarism of other politician's writings and speeches, lied about the
circumstances around his first wife's fatal accident, lied about how he met his second and current wife, and lied about the affair they were having when they were both married. MARK CHRISTIAN
Big media and Big Tech colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. A poll showed that nearly four of five Americans believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of that election.
Mark Zuckerberg spent $419 million, which enabled far-left activists to target specific key districts in swing states, redesign ballots to their advantage, overrule local elected officials on how elections were to be run, and even infiltrate sacrosanct electoral infrastructure.
The Eyes of Totalitarianism
It’s not your grandfather’s Democrat Party.
April 20, 2023 by John Perazzo 29
|
The iconic broadcaster, author, and legal scholar Mark Levin recently observed: “As a nation we’ve now turned the corner. We’ve turned the corner into a hard tyranny…. I just want the audience to know that we are staring into the face of tyranny, that the Democrat Party is a totalitarian party.”
And indeed, it is. To recognize this, we need only to listen when Democrats tell us – repeatedly – of their burning desire to “transform” the U.S. into a radicalized cesspool by such means as:
· ending the filibuster rule so they can forcibly ram their radical legislation through the Senate;
· governing via presidential executive orders rather than navigating the normal legislative process;
· promoting immigration and border policies designed to import massive blocs of foreigners who will eventually become reliable Democrat voters for generations to come;
· turning the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico into new U.S. states, thereby allowing Democrats to permanently pack the Senate with four additional members of their party;
· expanding the Supreme Court and packing it with newly appointed leftist ideologues;
· openly defying that same Supreme Court whenever its rulings conflict with Democrat Party preferences;
· forcibly censoring the free expression of any ideas that conflict with Democrat values; and
· pursuing the impeachment and imprisonment of their political foes on the flimsiest pretexts imaginable.
Below is an abundant collection of remarkable quotes by which immensely powerful Democrats in recent times have openly and proudly promoted the objectives enumerated above, like the domineering totalitarian thugs that they are.
Barack Obama (GAMER LAWYER)
During a campaign stop in Missouri five days before Election Day 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama famously said, to thunderous applause: “Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: Five days. Five days…. [W]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Three months earlier, when candidate Obama spoke in July 2008 to the open-borders group, National Council of La Raza, he stated that “together, we won’t just win an election; we will transform this nation.”
And a year before that, on July 17, 2007, candidate Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund to advocate for unfettered abortion rights and said: “I am absolutely convinced that we’re not just going to win an election, but more importantly we’re going to transform this nation.”
Indeed, nearly two decades earlier, in an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990, Obama had candidly articulated his desire to “reshape America” and “be part of a transformation of this country.”
The Democratic Party’s 2016 Platform
In 2016, the Democratic Party’s official platform said that in an effort “to end institutional and systemic racism in our society … [w]e will push for a societal transformation.”
Joe Biden (GAMER LAWYER)
At a March 26, 2019 presidential campaign event in New York City, Joe Biden said: “We all have an obligation to do nothing less than change the culture in this country. This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture. It’s got to change.”
On April 13, 2020, Biden said “we can transform this nation … so that [my administration] goes down in history … as one of the most progressive administrations since Roosevelt.”
On May 4, 2020, Biden characterized the coronavirus pandemic as an “incredible opportunity … to fundamentally transform the country.”
In early June 2020, Biden stated that America needed to make “revolutionary institutional changes.”
On July 4, 2020, Biden pledged to “rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country” and “transform” it.
On July 13, 2020, Biden promised to make “systemic” and “institutional” changes to American society.
On October 29, 2020, Biden channeled Obama’s famous utterance from 12 years earlier and said: “Five days left [until Election Day]. Five days. I believe when you use your power, the power of the vote, we literally are going to change the course of this country for generations to come.”
Shortly after two mass shootings that had killed a combined total of 18 people in Colorado and Georgia, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced on March 24, 2021 that President Biden was planning to issue executive orders to address the issue of gun violence, and was “not waiting for anything to fail” in Congress.
In a September 9, 2021 speech announcing new federal COVID vaccine mandates, Biden said: “And tonight, I’m calling on all governors to require vaccination for all teachers and staff…. Let me be blunt. My plan also takes on elected officials in states that are undermining [teachers] and these lifesaving actions. […] If they’ll not help, if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”
On September 25, 2021, Biden said the following about the $1.9 trillion infrastructure bill that he was promoting: “My first piece of economic legislation will “fundamentally change the structure and the nature of the economy in this country.”
On October 4, 2021, Biden – citing the October 18 deadline by which time the Democrat-controlled Congress was seeking to raise the federal debt limit in order to allow for more government borrowing – condemned Senate Republicans for using the filibuster rule to block such a measure. “Republicans just have to let us do our job,” said Biden. “Just get out of the way. If you don’t want to help save the country, get out of the way so you don’t destroy it.”
On October 5, 2021, Biden said there was a “real possibility” that Senate Democrats might use their razor-thin majority to suspend the filibuster rule so they could forcibly raise the debt ceiling even with no Republican support at all.
During a June 30, 2022 press conference, Biden was asked what “specific actions” he might take in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. “I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law,” he said, “and the way to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way … we provide an exception for this, we require an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.”
During a September 30, 2022 speech for Hispanic Heritage Month, Biden celebrated what he viewed as the political benefits of the mass migration – legal and illegal — of Mexicans and Central Americans into the United States. “When in American history has there been a circumstance where one ethnicity has the potential to have such a profound impact on the direction of a country?” he asked rhetorically. “Twenty-six percent of every child who’s in school today speaks Spanish — 26 percent,” Biden added.
Bernie Sanders
In October 2019, then-presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said in a tweet: “Our campaign is not only about changing the system politically and economically. We will change the value system of this country.”
In August 2020, Sanders, who by then had dropped out of the presidential race, said that “when Joe Biden is elected president, when we have a Democratic House, when we have a Democratic Senate, we can begin the process of transforming this government and our nation.”
Charles Schumer (GAMER LAWYER)
In a September 30, 2020 interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, then-Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer speculated about what he and his fellow Democrats could accomplish if they were to win both the White House and a majority in the U.S. Senate: “I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing, We are going to get a whole lot done. And as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.” He further elaborated: “I would — believe me, on D.C. and Puerto Rico … I’d love to make them states.”
On the afternoon of November 7, 2020 — shortly after America’s largest media networks announced that Joe Biden had won the Electoral College vote in the disputed 2020 presidential election — Schumer, raising a clenched left fist for emphasis, told a jubilant crowd of supporters in Brooklyn: “Now we take Georgia, and then we change the world! Now we take Georgia, and then we change America!” (This was a reference to the two upcoming Senate runoff elections slated for January 5, 2021 in Georgia. If the Democrats could win both, they would gain control of the U.S. Senate.)
In a January 30, 2021 interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s Politics Nation, Schumer, who was now the Senate Majority Leader, re-emphasized his commitment to bringing transformational change to the United States: “Well, Rev, we have one goal: big, bold change in America” which would include “dealing with D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood.” He also articulated his desire to end the Senate filibuster rule, thereby empowering his party to ram its radical agenda down the throat of a deeply divided nation at a time when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate by the slimmest of margins.
At a March 16, 2021 press conference, Schumer spoke about the prospect of Democrats either dispensing with the Senate filibuster rule, or circumventing it by means of the budget reconciliation process (by which budget-related bills can pass with a simple majority and do not require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster). “[W]e must get bold change,” he said. “And if our Republican friends block it, we’re going to put our heads together and figure out the best way to go. Everything’s on the table. It’s plain and simple.”
· This was a stark contrast to what Schumer had said about the prospect of ending the filibuster in 2005, when Republicans held a solid majority in the Senate. SaidSchumer at that time: “The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called ‘the cooling saucer of democracy’ into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We will not let them. They want – because they can’t get their way on every judge – to change the rules in midstream, to wash away 200 years of history. They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules…. It would be a doomsday for democracy if we do.”
· Schumer had similarly spoken out against ending the filibuster in April 2017, when he suggested that President Donald Trump should replace his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, with “a mainstream nominee” who would be able to garner 60 votes in the Senate — rather than allowing the majority Republicans to do away with the filibuster and confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote: “Look, when a nominee doesn’t get 60 votes, you shouldn’t change the rules, you should change the nominee.”
On October 4, 2021, Senator Schumer, who wished to be able to raise the federal debt ceiling without any Republican support whatsoever, said: “We only ask that they [the Republicans] get out of the way, let Democrats pass it on our own …”
Nancy Pelosi (INSIDE TRADER AND STOCK MANIPULATOR)
In September 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared: “We can impeach him [Trump] every day of the week for anything he does.”
On October 12, 2021, Pelosi lamented the fact that some Democrats wished to scale back their party’s ten-year, $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending bill. But she vowed that while the legislation’s price tag might be negotiated down, changes to the bill “only would be [made] in such a way that does not undermine the transformative nature of it.”
Jen Psaki (NON LAWYER WORKED IN A D.A.’s OFFICE)
During an October 12, 2021 press briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki discussed the ongoing negotiation between Democrat legislators vis-a-vis the $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” bill that the Biden administration was hoping to pass. “The president wants to make fundamental change in our economy, and he feels coming out of the pandemic is exactly the time to do that,” she said.
Maxine Waters (BANKSTER BRIBES SUCKER)
At a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event on September 21, 2017, Rep. Maxine Waters asserted that Congress could impeach President Trump for any reason it chose. “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is,” she said. “There is no law that can dictate impeachment. What the Constitution says is high crimes and misdemeanors, and we define that.”
In a July 22, 2019 tweet, Waters predicted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance before Congress on July 24 would open the door for Democrats to impeach President Trump “immediately” and then incarcerate him. Wrote Waters: “Impeachment first, prison next!”
After the Supreme Court officially announced its decision to strike down Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, Waters, flanked by fellow Congressional Democrat Al Green, joined a throng of pro-abortion activists outside the Supreme Court building and told reporters: “You ain’t seen nothing yet. Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us. The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them!”
Ed Markey (GAMER LAWYER)
In a June 30, 2022 appearance on MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson Reports, Senator Ed Markey exhorted the Senate to eliminate the filibuster rule and pass “abortion rights” that would circumvent the recent Supreme Court decision and permanently enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. Said Markey: “I think the Congress should take up the offer that Joe Biden has made to repeal the filibuster. Carve out of the filibuster an exception for abortion rights …”
Mazie Hirono (GAMER LAWYER)
In an interview with CNN on March 5, 2021, Senator Mazie Hirono said: “I definitely support filibuster reform, and part of that is ending the filibuster. It could be totally, or it could be for certain kinds of bills, but I’m definitely open to making those kinds of changes so we can get things done …”
Dianne Feinstein (THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION - FEINSTEIN TAUGHT THEWM ALL HOW TO SUCK BRIBES THROUGH FAMILY MEMBERS AND STAY OUT OF PRISON)
On March 19, 2021, Senator Dianne Feinstein released a statement saying that, contrary to her previously articulated position, she was now supportive of ending the Senate filibuster: “[I]f … Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster by requiring cloture votes, I’m open to changing the way the Senate filibuster rules are used.”
Bob Menendez
In a June 23, 2021 interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Senator Bob Menendez said he was in favor of enacting a “democracy exception” to the filibuster rule in order to enable Democrats to pass the “For the People Act,” their radical “election-reform” bill, with a simple majority in the U.S. Senate.
Andrew Cuomo (GAMER LAWYER KNOWN TO BE A PERV)
At a July 26, 2021 media briefing, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the launch of a new initiative allocating $15 million in taxpayer funds to promote the vaccination of the 3.5 million New Yorkers who had not yet been inoculated against coronavirus. “We have to get in those communities,” he said, “and we have to knock on those doors, and we have to convince people, and put them in a car, and drive them, and get that vaccine in their arm. That is the mission.”
Cedric Richmond (GAMER LAWYER)
On September 9, 2021, White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond stated that President Biden would “run over” any Republican governors who might try to resist the new federal vaccine mandates. “The one thing I admire about this president,” said Richmond, “is the fact that we are always going to put people above politics. And those governors that stand in the way, I think, it was very clear from the president’s tone [in his speech] today that he will run over them.”
Elizabeth Warren
On September 7, 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Amazon.com CEO Andy Jassy, demanding that the company use its algorithms to suppress the sale of books that, according to the senator, were spreading “COVID-19 misinformation.”
Ilhan Omar
In September 2019, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said it was “not appropriate” for Senate Democrats to attempt to pass their proposed pathway-to-citizenship provision by means of the budget reconciliation process which would require only a simple majority rather than the normal 60 votes. In response to that, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted: “This ruling by the parliamentarian is only a recommendation. Sen. Schumer and the White House can and should ignore it.”
Mondaire Jones (GAMER LAWYER)
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 2, 2022, New York Democrat Mondaire Jones delivered an impassioned speech stating that Republicans would not be able to prevent the majority Democrats from using every trick at their disposal to pass gun-control legislation in Congress: “You will not stop us from advancing the Protecting Our Kids Act today. You will not stop us from passing it in the House next week. And you will not stop us there. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it.”
Julian Castro (GAMER LAWYER)
In January 2013, San Antonio mayor Julian Castro spoke with CBS News’ Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation and predicted that because of mass immigration from Central America — both legal and illegal — the state of Texas would soon change from majority-Republican to majority-Democrat. Said Castro with delight: “In a couple of presidential cycles, you’ll be on election night, you’ll be announcing we’re calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It’s changing. It’s going to become a purple state and then a blue state, because of the demographics, because of the population growth of folks from outside of Texas …”
Pramila Jayapal
During a January 2, 2022 appearance on MSNBC’s The Sunday Show, Rep. Pramila Jayapal applauded Twitter for its decision to permanently ban the personal account of Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, according to the social media giant, had been spreading “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines designed to combat it. “I think it’s just as well that we take one voice [Greene’s] that is deliberately spreading disinformation out of the mix as much as possible,” said Jayapal. “That’s certainly a good thing.”
Ruben Gallego
On February 22, 2022, Rep. Ruben Gallego called for government and law-enforcement agencies to forcibly seize and then give away the vehicles of truck drivers who were heading to the District of Columbia in a peaceful convoy to protest the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. “Perfect time to impound and give the trucks to small trucking companies looking to expand their business,” Gallego tweeted.
Conclusion
There you have it – the Democratic Party in all its totalitarian glory. Whatever obstacles its members may face, their instinctive response is always the same: iron-fisted thuggery.
If the Senate filibuster rule thwarts the Democrats’ legislative desires, they portray it as an antiquated relic of a racist epoch and demand that it be canceled.
If Democrats’ control of the U.S. Senate hangs precariously in the balance, they demand the sudden creation of a group of brand new majority-Democrat states that each will yield two new Democrat senators.
If Democrats are unable to cobble together electoral majorities in a few crucial swing states, they import massive blocs of people from across the globe who will eventually become reliable Democrat voters for generations to come.
If the radical-left Justices who sit on the Supreme Court are outnumbered by their originalist colleagues, Democrats seek to expand the Court and then pack it with newly appointed leftist ideologues to rubber-stamp every Democrat agenda item.
When that same Supreme Court issues rulings that conflict with Democratic Party preferences, the Democrats pledge with passionate zeal to defy those rulings.
If anyone dares to challenge Democrat positions on matters like the merits of critical race theory, COVID vaccine mandates, “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors, or claims that the 2020 presidential election was rife with Democrat corruption, Democrats respond by demanding that the most influential social-media platforms on Earth should censor and ban such heretics from the digital public square.
And, when challenged by a former Republican President who was highly effective at exposing and mocking the vapidity of various left-wing ideals and policies, the Democrats, in the longstanding tradition of fascists and communists from across the globe, simply call for his impeachment, arrest, and imprisonment.
If Democrats are not the party of totalitarianism, what else would you call them?
YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT OBAMA WENT TO HARVARD LAW AND IT WAS PAID FOR BY A MUSLIM SAUDIS BILLIONAIRE. THEN DO A SEARCH FOR ALL THE OBOMB DID FOR THE SAUDIS DURING THE BANKSTER REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN!
Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?).
Thus, while Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump all explicitly recognized Almighty God in every yearly Thanksgiving Proclamation, Biden has now joined Obama in the infamy of secularizing the country’s most religious homegrown holiday.
Joe Biden Snubs ‘Almighty God’ in Thanksgiving Proclamation
Obama’s History 101: “Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding”
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard. JACK CASHILL
Then, Gay’s own Ph.D. dissertation was called into question, with scholar Carol Swain, whose work was cited in the Harvard president’s dissertation, telling Breitbart News that the Harvard president Gay “is a fraud” and “an embarrassment,” who “should resign.”
Report: Obama Privately Lobbied on Harvard President Claudine Gay’s Behalf amid Antisemitism Scandals
Former President Barack Obama secretly lobbied on behalf of embattled Harvard President Claudine Gay’s amid the antisemitism scandals that have rocked the Ivy League university, according to a report by Fox News.
Obama, who graduated Harvard’s law school in 1991, privately lobbied the university’s leadership to stand by Gay as she faces pressure to resign for failing to properly address antisemitism on campus, according to a report by Fox News.
Harvard president Claudine Gay addresses an audience during commencement ceremonies, Thursday, May 25, 2023, on the schools campus, in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard has announced that Gay is to succeed Harvard University Lawrence Bacow, and is to become its new president beginning July 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
Moreover, the former president reportedly lobbied Harvard officials even after her December 5 testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee, where she declined to say whether advocating for the genocide of Jews is permissible on campus.
“It sounded like people were being asked to close ranks to keep the broader administration stable — including its composition,” a source said of Obama’s clandestine involvement.
It remains unclear, however, if the 44th president continued his efforts after Gay’s Ph.D. dissertation was called into question over multiple instances of alleged plagiarism.
“I stand by the integrity of my scholarship. Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards,” Gay told the Boston Globe a few weeks ago in response to the plagiarism allegations.
But on last week, fresh plagiarism allegations were unearthed in an official academic complaint against Gay when Harvard’s Research Integrity Office received a complaint featuring more than 40 alleged instances of plagiarism.
The klieg lights have been on the Harvard president since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack against Israel, to which the school’s leadership failed to properly respond after more than 30 of its student groups signed a pro-terror statement blaming Israel for the attack against itself.
After initially remaining silent, Harvard issued a vague, generic statement, in which the Ivy League university failed to counter or even mention its student groups in question. After nationwide backlash, Gay issued a follow-up statement trying to distance the school from the students who signed the pro-terror statement.
To make matters worse — and for some, laughable — Harvard then issued a third statement lecturing the public about the importance of free speech, despite ironically being named 2023’s worst school for free speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
After that, Gay, along with the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania President and MIT, delivered a disastrous testimony before congress regarding antisemitism on their campuses. University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill ended up resigning shortly after the hearing.
Then, Gay’s own Ph.D. dissertation was called into question, with scholar Carol Swain, whose work was cited in the Harvard president’s dissertation, telling Breitbart News that the Harvard president Gay “is a fraud” and “an embarrassment,” who “should resign.”
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and X/Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.
Claudine ‘no check for you’ Gay
A bit like Bob Dylan's "Sad-eyed lady of the lowlands Where the sad-eyed prophet says that no man comes," Harvard President Claudine Gay is finding out that the man with the check is not coming these days or leaving anything of value by her gate.
Yes, the check is not in the mail. Can't blame the Post Office for this one. Let's check the latest story:
Another billionaire has snapped his checkbook shut to Harvard University.
Businessman Len Blavatnik and his family foundation have paused their millions of dollars in funding to the Ivy League as it stands behind president Claudine Gay despite accusations she stood by as students spewed antisemitic rhetoric on campus, according to a report.
The Harvard Business School alumnus will halt his funding until the university directly addresses what he sees as rampant antisemitism at the school, a person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg.
Blavatnik and his wife, Emily, have donated at least $270 million to Harvard, with about $200 million directly benefiting the medical school.
What it will take for the elite institution to win back the Access Industries founder’s financial support is unclear.
A Wexner, an Ackman, and a Blavatnik and pretty soon Harvard will have a tough time paying the lights. Well, not quite, but it's hard to run a university if the alumni with deep pockets think that you tolerate attacks on Jews.
President Gay's problem is that she lives in a world surrounded by people obsessed with the oppressor and the oppressed. In that world, the oppressor is an ally of the U.S. and the oppressed is anyone who claims an "ism." It's all about skin color and gender in that corner of the world. Character? That's just something that Martin Luther King said years ago.
So it's time for President Gay to move on and enter a reeducation camp where she can dewoke herself.
On Day 1, she can learn that the U.S. is the best place in the planet for a Black woman to grow up in.
On Day 2, she can learn that Israel lets women get advanced degrees and her "oppressed" neighbors don't.
On Day 3, she can learn that the Founding Fathers were more than people who owned slaves.
On Day 4, she can explain who on earth makes all those Palestine flags that magically go up every tine that some “ism” is itching the wokes.
On Day 5, she can bring some reality to the gang marching with the “Queers for Palestine” placards. My late Cuban mother had a word for people like that.
Anyway, you get the idea.
Move on and let someone make Harvard a place of learning again.
P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts and videos.
Image: Purple Slog
Congress overrides Obama veto of bill allowing
9/11 lawsuits
By Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and Obama administrations.
VIDEO OF OBAMA BENDING OVER TO KISS THE HEM OF THE SAUDIS LARDBUCKET DICTATOR
Obama's Saudi Bow: The Worst Scandal in Presidential History | The Daily Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I2xYh9mfaI
Obama Kissing the Butt of the King of Saudi Arabia, Part 1 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCutd8KXng
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of expenditures.
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard. JACK CASHILL
WHAT IS THIS SHIT FROM LYING GAMER LAWYER OBOMB??? OBAMA HAS SERVED MUSLIM DICTATORS FROM DAY ONE. A SAUDIS BILLIONAIRES PAYED FOR OBOMB'S HARVARD EDUCATION AND WE KNOW WHAT OBAMA DID FOR THE SAUDIS POST SEPT 11!
Obama’s History 101: “Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding”
by Selwyn Duke
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society
You’ve probably never heard of Founding Fathers named Gamal bin Washington and Thamar Jefferson, and neither has Barack Obama. But this didn’t stop him from making the claim that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”
While speaking in the White House’s South Court Auditorium during a conference on “countering violent extremism” last week, Obama said that we need to “stay true to the values that define us” and “show that we welcome people of all faiths.” The president then made the following claim:
Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America. The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque [founded in 1929] — this was an interesting fact — was in North Dakota.
Of course, both these events occurred long after our country’s founding; in fact, 1890 was the year of the 11th U.S. census, which led to official recognition that there was no longer even a Western frontier in the nation. And there were no sheikhs or mullahs at the Constitutional Convention more than a century before.
Yet the Wednesday remark was just one of many historically illiterate statements by Obama, who at the recent National Prayer Breakfast likened the Crusades to Islamic jihad despite their having actually been a response to Islamic jihad. But the claim that Muslims were instrumental in America’s founding has been a theme with the president. As CNS News pointed out:
“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in a June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
Yet experts label this attempted myth-making. As the Blaze reports, relating comments historian David Barton made on Glenn Beck’s radio program:
“In all the reading I’ve done, thousands of books, there’s nothing there [relating to Islamic contributions in early America],” Barton said on Friday. “I mean, we know that Muslims were the folks who captured the slaves sent to America, largely out of Africa…. The Muslims did the slave hunting and the slave trading, et cetera. The first Muslims came to America as a result of the Muslims capturing them and sending them to the Dutch traders.”
Note that the Muslim slave trade continues to this day. Frontpage Mag reported on the modern Arab child-slave trade in 2011, a phenomenon that saw what perhaps was its most brutal iteration hundreds of years ago when young African and European boys would be captured, castrated, and then sold into bondage by North African Muslims.
The reality is that Muslim contributions were rare in 19th-century America and not very consequential. Barton cited as an example the U.S. Army’s 1856 retaining of a Muslim to train camels for use in Indian wars in the Arizona desert; the effort was abandoned as the animals proved too slow to keep pace with the Indians.
Yet Muslims certainly are “woven” into our history, and they did help with the re-establishment of the U.S. Navy — by attacking American merchant vessels and enslaving and ransoming their crews.
The Islamic Barbary States of North Africa had long engaged in piracy, and their attacks on U.S. shipping in the late 18th century led to Congress’ 1794 authorization of the building of six naval vessels and the establishment of the Department of the Navy four years later. Interestingly, another myth peddled by Obama relates to this period.
While hosting a 2012 Iftar dinner at the White House, where Muslims break the Ramadan fast, Obama said to the attendees, “Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” He then referenced Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and called it “a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam … is part of our national story.”
But striking is what was left unsaid. The envoy was Tunisian emissary Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, who Jefferson hosted toward the end of the First Barbary War (1805) “in an attempt to bribe him into submission after the USS Constitution captured ships from the bey of Tunis,” as Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro puts it.
In reality, Jefferson did not have a rosy view of Islam and would be shocked by Obama’s revisionist history. Just consider what Jefferson reported was the answer when Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, was asked in 1785 why his people would “make war upon nations who had done them no injury”:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
As Shapiro points out, John Quincy Adams emphasized this Islamic perspective when he wrote of the Tripolitan negotiations and stated:
The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Shapiro then wrote, “Quincy Adams would later lament, ‘Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.’” Moreover, continued Shapiro, “Philosophers upon whom the founders relied had similarly negative views of Islam…. The historical record demonstrates that Islam had virtually no role in the foundation of the early Republic outside of being used as a negative comparison point for freedom and self-government.”
So was Islam woven into our country’s founding? It seems more like Obama was weaving a tangled web of a tall tale.
Photo of President Obama: AP Images
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
By Jack Cashill
What shocked even the old timers in my hometown was that Mayor Hugh Addonizio, the man who gave me my Eagle Scout Award, would accept kickbacks in cash right across his desk. They were troubled less by his criminality -- that was expected in Newark -- than by his lack of subtlety. Addonizio paid for his indiscretion with a lengthy prison sentence.
So it is with the current college admissions scandal. People have been scamming their ways into prestige universities for decades, maybe centuries, but in the past they have had the good sense not to put the cash on the table. It seems that in this scandal a few of the bribers and their brokers may well pay for their indiscretion with prison sentences as well.
The media pretend to be shocked. In an editorial on the scandal, the New YorkTimes singled out Harvard University for its “special admissions preferences and back doors for certain applicants.” This is the same New York Times, however, that published an entirely uncritical article three years prior headlined, “Malia Obama Rebels, Sort of, by Choosing Harvard.”
Malia is the fourth member of the Obama family to attend that august university, none of whom, save perhaps for Grandpa Obama, deserved to be there.
Let’s start with Obama Sr., the only member of the extended family to attend college before the affirmative action/diversity era. Obama arrived at Harvard in the early 1960s with the goal of getting a Ph.D. in economics. According to biographer Sally Jacobs, Obama “struggled” with his studies but managed to get a Masters degree.
Alas, the university booted him on moral grounds before he could get his doctorate. An inveterate playboy despite his two ongoing marriages, Obama had an affair with a high-school girl. Denied his Ph.D., says Jacobs, “He goes on to claim the title, nonetheless. He's Dr. Obama. The older he gets, the more he claims it.” As will be seen, intellectual fraud runs in the family.
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.” She did not write well either. Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," as “dense and turgid.”
The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.” Hitchens exaggerated only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:
The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law. I have been told by those on the inside that there are ways of recognizing affirmative-action admissions. Still, one almost feels sorry for Michelle. She was in so far over her head it is no wonder she projected her angst onto the white people around her. “Regardless of the circumstances underwhich [sic] I interact with whites at Princeton,” she wrote in the opening of her thesis, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Barack was the smarter and better educated half of the couple. That said, had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia.
In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.
Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have been as useful to him as affirmative action.
In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.
As for Malia, whose grades and scores are as much a state secret as her father’s, the old man damns with the faint praise of “capable” and “conscientious.” But hell, Bill’s daughter Chelsea got into Stanford and George’s daughter Barbara got into Yale, so this particular path to the back door was well worn.
Barack Obama’s back door, however,
was unique to him. Before prosecutors send
some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the
slammer for their dimness, they might want to
ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Freedom-Lovers of the World, Unite!
By J.B. Shurk
What is the single greatest threat to globalist tyranny? A moral and self-sufficient population capable of critical thinking and dedicated to the defense of individual liberty.
People who can distinguish between right and wrong do not require governments to safeguard their conscience. People who can provide for themselves and trade with others in free markets do not become addicted to government welfare. People who question authority and value objective truth are less inclined to be manipulated by government propaganda. People who recognize personal freedom as an inviolable right tend to possess the character and moral fortitude to resist coercion.
For the Marxist globalists advancing a technocratic new world order designed to elevate a privileged few over everyone else, the ideal human is spiritually confused, helpless, ignorant, and uncurious. Preying on those who are in desperate need of saving is how governments turn citizens into slaves.
In order to hasten the arrival of its planned dystopia, the one-world-government crowd depends on artificial constructs meant to nudge the masses into compliance. The “climate change” bugaboo is the mechanism used to replace free markets and private property with corporate oligarchs and central bankers who act as global economic managers tasked with “saving the planet.” The prospect of unending waves of new viral pandemics is the mechanism used to justify government coercion, lockdowns, mandates, and mass surveillance. Fraudulent allegations of racism, colonialism, imperialism, cultural supremacy, and privilege together form the mechanism that Marxist globalists (actual imperialists) use to mobilize mass migration, unleash cultural conflict, and keep otherwise peaceful populations in a vulnerable state of division, hostility, and social decay. Finally, governments’ open war on “disinformation” and all its variants (including the erroneous classifications of scientific debate as “misinformation” and public debate as “hate speech”) is the mechanism used to silence all criticism and dissent.
If unregulated “disinformation” were really the dangerous threat that governments pretend it to be, a reasonable person would expect to see dedicated public schools now teaching the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to arm every citizen with the requisite tools to combat the supposed monstrous surge in unsanctioned propaganda. From the beginning of an elementary school pupil’s education, rational argument would be distinguished from logical fallacy. Reason and rigorous investigation would be valued over emotional and subjective appeals to feelings. Not only would young students be taught to examine their presuppositions, but also they would be exhorted to question all appeals to authority. After all, authoritarians such as Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler all ruled with an iron fist precisely because questioning their authority was forbidden. If governments were truly motivated by a fear of a future Hitler, they would counsel their youngest citizens from the earliest age: question everything!
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Freethinking and creative expression are now burdened with so many intrusive guardrails that more time is wasted divining what cannot be said out loud than is spent nurturing true genius and imagination. Math classes have replaced calculus with social grievance curricula and obsessions over systemic racism. Literary classics have been swapped with new age rubbish that demonizes Western civilization, while proselytizing a new “woke” religion devoted to multiculturalism, global warming, abortion, and gender fluidity.
In other words, childhood education has banished intellectual discernment from the classroom and is now hopelessly awash in fairytales, feelings, psychobabble, and other mind-numbingly stupid and spurious inanities.
How can any student prepare to combat a world supposedly rife with “disinformation” when government indoctrination is disguised as schoolwork and critical thinking is sacrificed on the altar of “politically correct” groupthink?
Asking the question suggests an obvious answer: governments are not worried about “disinformation” at all. What concerns them is competing points of view that challenge their monopoly over constructed “truths.” As the world’s foremost purveyors of propaganda, they fear the rise of any speakers not under their control. Governments’ fabricated war on “disinformation” is actually a war for the preservation of a filthy public sewer system that pumps out toxic “disinformation” daily.
Freethinkers armed with critical thinking skills are like intellectual plumbers capable of parsing governments’ sordid lies. Marxist globalism’s fetid sludge grows underground only if society lacks the good sense to understand what causes the foul-smelling putridness drifting beneath its own nose.
Government propaganda is nothing new. Concentrated power depends on institutional control over what is considered “true.” An open war on “disinformation,” though, suggests that the ground beneath our feet is shifting. What has changed? An unchartered and unregulated guild of intellectual plumbers has begun to make solid progress in unclogging governments’ propaganda-filled sewers, so that fresh truths can finally flow.
What do the political successes of Donald Trump in the United States, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands represent if not a pivot away from the ruling globalists’ chokehold over institutional power and toward a fledgling cross-border movement for human liberty?
Perhaps the era has finally arrived to turn Marx on his head and implore: Freedom-lovers of the world, unite!
There is a clever political meme rumbling around online that breaks society into four groups of people:
(1) Those who believe the narrative and comply;
(2) Those who know it’s BS and comply anyway;
(3) Those who are waking up to the lie and are starting to refuse to comply; and
(4) Those who knew it was BS right from the start and refused to partake in the lie.
Those in category (4) represent a stubbornly consistent 20% of the population whose capacity for smelling BS and rejecting official “truths” runs high. Jim Quinn wrote an essay over at The Burning Platform highlighting Stanley Milgram’s consequential study that concluded, “80% of the population do not have the psychological or moral resources to defy an authority’s order, no matter how illegitimate the order is.”
Quinn surveys how Deep State propaganda, rampant fearmongering, and social media influence campaigns have only further dulled critical thinking skills in the sixty years since Milgram’s experiment and paints a depressing picture:
“The entire Covid scamdemic was a modern day Milgram Experiment and the vast majority of the world population were duped into believing the annual flu was such a horrific threat that they agreed to be locked down, lose their jobs, treat others like lepers, mask & distance, give their government unlimited authoritarian power, agree to censor and cancel critical thinking dissenters, and ultimately be injected with an untested, toxic, gene therapy that failed to combat covid, but certainly has caused millions of “sudden deaths”, turbo cancers, and myocarditis in young people.”
From Quinn’s perspective, “the clearly stolen 2020 presidential election” and the J6 “fake insurrection” further suggest, “the sheep obediently believe what the authorities spout.”
Given that only 14% of U.S. adults have grabbed the most recent COVID shot and strong majorities of the American people believe both that fraud tainted the 2020 election and that J6 prosecutions have amounted to targeted political persecution, I will suggest a more optimistic conclusion: the number of Americans who have moved from group (1) to group (3) is rapidly expanding. People are, indeed, “waking up” and refusing to comply.
Our goal, then, is straightforward: continue shaking group (1) awake from its interminable slumber until an overwhelming majority can isolate and eliminate group (2) from ever again exercising authority.
The government’s execrable war on “disinformation” proves how much it fears that we might be winning.
Image: Pashi via Pixabay, Pixabay License.
PROFILE OF A SOCIOPATH GAMER LAWYER:
JOE BIDEN is known as a serial liar, a "public servant" who has somehow managed to accrue tremendous wealth, a race-baiting opportunist, a Catholic-in-name-only, and a bought-and-paid-for politician in bed with criminal cartels and foreign foes. In another era, Joe Biden would have been run out of his country much the same way Benedict Arnold was two and a half centuries ago; in an era when integrity, honor, fortitude, fidelity, and grit have been jettisoned for immorality, unscrupulousness, weakness, betrayal, and craven pliability, however, he is elevated to king sleazeball in a city drowning in sleaze. JB SKURK
Thus, while Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump all explicitly recognized Almighty God in every yearly Thanksgiving Proclamation, Biden has now joined Obama in the infamy of secularizing the country’s most religious homegrown holiday.
Joe Biden Snubs ‘Almighty God’ in Thanksgiving Proclamation
964
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
25 Nov 2023
2:31
President Joe Biden omitted any reference to Almighty God or Divine Providence Thursday in his annual proclamation of the quintessentially American feast of Thanksgiving.
In his own 1863 presidential proclamation instituting Thanksgiving as a national holiday, Abraham Lincoln urged his fellow Americans to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”
Even in the midst of the civil war, Lincoln recalled the many blessings and bounties bestowed on the nation, attributing them all to the Almighty.
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg (Library of Congress/Getty)
“No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things,” Lincoln declared. “They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
In this way, he enjoined his fellow citizens to offer up “the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings.”
And in case anyone forgets to thank Almighty God for these gifts, Lincoln also issued a warning, noting that these bounties “are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come.”
Fast forward 160 years, and it would seem that the “devoutly Catholic” President Joe Biden has done just that, insisting in his own 2023 proclamation of Thanksgiving that Lincoln had established this national holiday “to honor the blessings of our country,” rather than to praise and thank God.
While remembering firefighters, police officers, first responders, doctors, nurses, scientists, public servants, union workers, teachers, mothers, fathers, and caregivers, Biden conspicuously fails to acknowledge the Source from whom all blessings flow.
To be fair, however, Biden is not the first American president in recent memory to have refrained from thanking God in his Thanksgiving Proclamation. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama famously chose to give God the cold shoulder by similarly writing Him out of the feast.
Former President Barack Obama (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Thus, while Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump all explicitly recognized Almighty God in every yearly Thanksgiving Proclamation, Biden has now joined Obama in the infamy of secularizing the country’s most religious homegrown holiday.
Saudi Slavery
An Islamically-sanctioned barbarity continues.
November 8, 2019
Hugh Fitzgerald
As is well known, slavery was formally abolished in Saudi Arabia as late as 1962, and then only after terrific pressure had been applied to the Saudis by Western governments. And today, when we speak of slavery in the Muslim world, we think of Mauritania (with 600,000 slaves), as the report in the past hour discussed, Niger (600,000 slaves), Mali (200,000 slaves), and Libya (where slave markets have opened in nine sites during the last two years). Most of us assume that in Saudi Arabia, slavery is no longer tolerated.
But most of us are wrong.
Slavery may have been formally abolished, but the cruel and savage treatment of foreign domestic workers, their inability to free themselves from arduous work conditions because their employers keep their passports and other documents, amount to slavery in all but name.
A report on one group of domestic slaves — Vietnamese women — by reporter Yen Duong, who interviewed former workers who had made it back to Vietnam, was published last year in Al Jazeera here:
Overworked, abused, hungry: Vietnamese domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.
Women say they are forced to work at least 18 hours a day, denied food, assaulted and refused the right to return home.
Pham Thi Dao, 46, says she worked more than 18 hours a day and was given the same one meal to live on – a slice of lamb and plain rice.
Dao, 46, was a domestic worker in Saudi Arabia for more than seven months until she returned to Vietnam in April.
“I worked from 5am until 1am in the morning, and was allowed to eat once at 1pm,” Dao told Al Jazeera of her experience in the port city of Yanbu. “It was the same every day – a slice of lamb and a plate of plain rice. After nearly two months, I was like a mad person.”
According to statistics from Vietnam’s labor ministry, there are currently 20,000 Vietnamese workers in the kingdom, with nearly 7,000 working as domestic staff for Saudi families…
The same harsh conditions which Vietnamese have endured have also been reported by the Filipino, Indonesian, and Sri Lankan workers, in Saudi Arabia. And they have also been endured by domestic workers in the the Emirates and Kuwait. In addition to the harsh working conditions, there is the persistent threat of sexual assault by their Arab masters. Some domestic workers have been raped and murdered by their Arab employers. Yet it has been almost impossible to bring employers to justice for such crimes.
Some who escaped have recounted slave-like working and living conditions.
“I understand that as [domestic] workers we need to get used to difficult working conditions,” said Dao, who is vocal on social media about her experience. “We didn’t ask for much, just no starvation, no beatings, and three meals per day. If we had that, we would not have begged for rescue.”…
“As soon as I arrived at the airport in Riyadh, they (employees from a Saudi company providing domestic workers) pushed me into a room with more than a hundred of others,” she said. “When my employer picked me up later, he took my passport and employment contract. Most women I’ve talked to here experience the same thing.”
By seizing the workers’ passports, the Saudi employers have complete control over them. They cannot leave the country, nor move about inside Saudi Arabia, nor go to work for another employer. And if they don’t have their employment contract, which has been seized by their employer, they have no way of knowing if the onerous conditions they endure violate the contract’s provisions. They are captives of their employer in every sense.
Like Dao, she said she was given one meal a day and worked 18-hour shifts.
Another domestic worker, who requested anonymity, showed Al Jazeera her contract stipulating a nine-hour working day – a standard given the contracts are composed by Vietnam’s labour ministry.
Dao shows notes from the Arabic lesson she took before her trip. Vietnamese domestic workers are entitled to classes on language, skills and culture but the sessions are poorly executed, say the workers.
When Linh asked to be moved to another family – a workers’ right according to their contracts – staff at the Vietnamese broker company shouted at her and tried to intimidate her.
She went on a hunger strike for three days until her employer agreed to take her back to the Saudi company…
Leaving an employment contract carries a hefty fine, plus the price of a ticket back to Vietnam, if the worker is unable to prove abuse at the hands of their employers.
The cost of quitting is usually between $2,500 and $3,500.
If workers get, at best, $388 per month, that means that if they manage to persuade their employer to give them back their passports and to let them leave, they will still have to come up with between seven and nine months of salary that must be paid back. And that assumes that they will be paid the highest amount ($388/month) and will have all other expenses, during that period of seven-to-nine months, paid by their employer.
Tuyet told her partner in Vietnam by phone that she is being abused by the family she works for in Riyadh.
Bui Van Sang’s partner, Tuyet, works in Riyadh.
He said she is being beaten and starved.
The Vietnamese broker company asked him for $2,155 for her return, but refused to put anything in writing, he claimed.
Her phone has been taken away and Sang is only able to contact her every two to three weeks, “when her employer feels like [allowing her]”.
These domestic workers are totally at the mercy of their Arab employers. They cannot even contact anyone in the outside world unless the employer “feels like [allowing her].” They are, essentially, prisoners whose brutal living and working conditions are set by the employer, who answers to no one. That constitutes slavery, whether or not it is called by that name.
By the time he had raised the $2,155, the Vietnamese broker company demanded double the payment, he said.
He travelled 1,500km from his southern Vietnamese home province of Tay Ninh to the capital, Hanoi, to beg the broker, but was turned away….
The Vietnamese brokers are akin to slave traders. They round up the “slaves” (domestic workers), hold out the promise of decent work and pay which, once those they traffic in arrive in Saudi Arabia, is simply ignored. The slaves have been delivered, the brokers paid by the Saudi employers, and the living conditions, of 18-hour days, with one meal a day, are now the norm. For beatings and sexual assaults, there is no recourse for these Vietnamese domestics. Meanwhile, Saudi employers hold onto those passports without which these workers cannot leave the country.
There are no independent organisations in either Saudi Arabia or Vietnam which ensure the safety of domestic workers.
In the past few years, reports of abuse have prompted Saudi authorities to suggest amendments to existing labor regulations, but rights groups say they fall short.
Whatever regulations are talked about, Saudi employers still do pretty much what they want in setting the conditions of work for domestic helpers.
Workers and their relatives have to rely entirely on the Vietnamese broker companies for support.
Linh, the domestic helper in Riyadh, said when she contacted the Vietnamese company that brought her there, they told her the employment contract is only valid in Vietnam, not in Saudi Arabia.
In other words, the Vietnamese brokers, having been paid by the Saudi employers, have washed their hands of the Vietnamese workers sent to Saudi Arabia. The employment contracts on which these domestic workers were relying are, they now admit, worthless in Saudi Arabia. These women have no guarantee of any rights; whatever their Saudi employer wishes to impose is what they must accept. Hence the 18-hour days, seven days a week, and the single meal each day. How is this not akin to slavery?
“They [the Vietnamese companies] are supposed to protect our rights, but all they do is yell at us,” Linh said by phone. “Now I just want to leave the country. If I go to the police, at least they’d bring me to the detention centre, and I’d be deported and allowed to leave.”
She recently livestreamed a video detailing the treatment that she and many fellow Vietnamese domestic helpers face while working in Saudi Arabia.
The video has been viewed 113,000 times.
“Many women I know here just want the same thing – they just want to leave,” she said. “But they are afraid, threatened, and don’t even dare to speak out.”
Their fear is palpable. If they complain of their working conditions, will they be beaten by their employers? Will they be given even more unpleasant or difficult tasks? Will the 18-hour day become a 20-hour day, as one Vietnamese man reported his wife had had to endure, that is with only four hours of sleep allowed? Will even the one slice of meat they are now given be reduced still further, or will they perhaps not be given meat at all? Will they no longer be allowed to call home even twice a month? Not all Saudi employers are simon-legrees, but a great many appear to be. The point is that domestic workers ought to have rights enshrined in the Saudi law, but they do not. And the conditions which they endure are scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
The Saudis are not alone in such mistreatment of their domestic workers. The Kuwaitis and the Emiratis have been difficult masters, too, but the conditions of domestic workers appear to be especially harsh in Saudi Arabia. The mentality that lies behind this mistreatment rests on two things. First, there is the deep belief that slavery is legitimate, given that Muhammad himself owned slaves, and does not become illegitimate in Islamic societies just because Western pressure has led to its formal prohibition. The slave-owner mentality remains. Second, these domestic workers — Vietnamese, Filipino, Thai, Indonesian, Sri Lankan — are almost all non-Muslims, and the treatment they receive is commensurate with their description in the Qur’an, as being “the most vile of creatures.” It would be interesting to compare the working conditions of the non-Muslim domestic workers in Saudi Arabia with those who, from Indonesia, are themselves Muslim. But that’s a subject for another occasion.
Tulsi Gabbard: U.S. Government ‘Is Hiding the Truth’ on 9/11 Terror Attacks
Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to the difficulties Chris Ganci and Brett Eagleson, two relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were having in their quest to obtain more information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.
Gabbard accused the federal government of undermining efforts of achieving more transparency, which she said was being done at the behest of Saudi Arabia.
Partial transcript as follows:
CARLSON: This is one of those issues I don’t think is partisan. It doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t be partisan in any sense.
GABBARD: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: It’s an American issue. Why would the U.S. government ever side with the Saudi Kingdom of all countries against our citizens?
GABBARD: This is the real question that’s at stake. This story that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have said, well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally. They’re a partner in counterterrorism, turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re undermining our National Security interests. They are — as you said, they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi extremist ideology.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.
And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own government that is hiding the truth from Chris and Brett and the many other families of those who were killed on 9/11. For what? Where do the loyalties really lie?
CARLSON: So I was thinking in the commercial break that of the number of people I know personally, not abstractly, but have had lunch with in this city who are taking currently money from the Saudi Kingdom or their allies in the Emirates, the Gulf States, and I wonder if that maybe play some role, like a lot of people on their payroll here.
GABBARD: Yes. We talk about the foreign policy establishment in Washington.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: We talk about the political elite, the military-industrial complex. We hear things from some of those people, well, you know, hey, we sell a lot of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So you know, if we burn bridges with them, then who are we going to sell our weapons to? Where are we going to get that money from?
All of these excuses that have nothing to do with the interests of the American people, with our national security interests. And that’s — I’m proud and honored to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with these 9/11 families in demanding this truth because, yes, it is about truth and justice and closure for all of them now as we approach 20 years since that attack on 9/11. It’s also about our National Security.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: Safety and security of the American people.
CARLSON: I’ll never forget right after 9/11, living here in the City of Washington, our airports were closed. All airports were closed in this country.
GABBARD: Yes.
CARLSON: And learning that chartered flights of Saudi citizens had been allowed with U.S. government approval to take off and run back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned by authorities here and thinking you know, if I tried to do that, I’d be in prison. Why are we giving preference to Saudi citizens over our own citizens?
GABBARD: Exactly. It makes no sense if you think about what would happen if we actually had leaders who were putting the interests of our country above all else. You follow the money trail. It goes back to the military-industrial complex.
You look at how many of the think tanks here in Washington who send so-called experts to go and testify before Congress who are funded by Saudi Arabia to spout their talking points.
You saw how the legislation that we passed in Congress. I was proud to vote for legislation that allowed families like Chris and Brett’s to sue Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia trotted out all of their lobbyists to say why that would be so dangerous, so dangerous for our interests, for them to be allowed to seek justice for their families.
This is about standing up for our country. This is about standing up for our principles and our freedoms and for the truth.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
Lloyd Billingsley
Since his election to the presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has targeted Donald Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him from office. Now comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the previous president.
“Middleman helped Saudi give to Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29 report by Alan Suderman and Jim Mustian, billed as an Associated Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural through an “intermediary,” Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.” One campaign, not identified, took donations “in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives” and a political committee, also unidentified, “took donations from a person Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged, Zuberi pleaded guilty to “falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first brush with the law.
“Elite Fundraiser for Obama and Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline on Bill Allison’s August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign Policy. The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is Zuberi a major fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come under fire for accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with interests before the U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted from “straw donors” set up by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted of election law violations.
Zuberi also used straw donors in more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those mysterious campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani has “talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was taken down shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.” Mr. Zuberi “lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation of U.S. law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom he interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a lengthy period of time.”
According to Suderman and Mustian, “Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the writers, “I’m deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They might start by looking in the right place.
Unconventional candidate Donald Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign. Trump had no need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and those he invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing to anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of” Schiff, as Judge Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence in plain sight that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Two years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is nowhere in sight. Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the Mueller probe, is best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal investigation of those who launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and election officials should be looking.
Did Clinton Foundation donor Imaad Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails Hillary Clinton deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any texts from Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad smashed up with hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely careless? And so on. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign intervention, right out in the open.
Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with voter-registration and participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida, Chicago, and elsewhere. As Ebrard told Francisco Goldman of the New Yorker, in 2016 he “decided to get more involved” by working on get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
A powerful foreign national openly interferes in an American election, and nobody calls him on it. Now that Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea, the FEC and DOJ should look into it.
Congress overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do ... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11 attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks, based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy, the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday, is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
DO A SEARCH FOR BARACK OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS. OBOMB DIDN'T BECOME A SOCIOPATH THE DAY HIS CORRUPT TERM BEGAN.
How Obama is Running America’s Response to Oct. 7
"They hold the Iran file."
November 23, 2023 by Lloyd Billingsley 31 Comments
|
Like Robert Spencer, many people wonder why Joe Biden and his henchmen “are considering sending $10 billion to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the chief funder of Hamas.” David Samuels had some thoughts on the subject in “The Obama Factor,” a landmark Tablet interview with David Garrow, author of Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama.
“Why are they still fixated on Iran after the Iran deal failed, it’s premises are exploded?” wonders Samuels, Tablet’s literary editor. “I don’t follow the Iranian stuff super carefully,” Garrow replied, “but I have been puzzled at the Biden administration’s continuing attachment to the Iran deal.” Samuels is on to it.
“The easy explanation, of course, is that Joe Biden is not running that part of his administration. Obama is. He doesn’t even have to pick up the phone because all of his people are already inside the White House. They hold the Iran file. Tony Blinken doesn’t.”
“Rob Malley was the guy on that,” Garrow recalls.
“Rob Malley is just one person,” responds Samuels. “Brett McGurk. Dan Shapiro in Israel. Lisa Monaco in Justice. Susan Rice running domestic policy. It’s turtles all the way down. There are obviously large parts of White House policymaking that belong to Barack Obama because they’re staffed by his people, who worked for him and no doubt report back to him. Personnel is policy, as they say in Washington, which to me is a very odd and kind of spooky arrangement. Spooky, because it is happening outside the constitutional framework of the U.S. government, and yet somehow it’s been placed off the list of permitted subjects to report on. Which is a pretty good indicator of the extent to which the information we get, and public reactions to that information, is being successfully controlled.” For Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winner for Bearing the Cross, this is a serious matter.
“Well, for Barack, everything has to be a success,” Garrow explains. “Everything has to be a victory” and the composite character has been at it for a while.
The former Barry Soetoro, who spent early years in Indonesia, believed that it was possible to negotiate with an Islamic regime that in 1979 took 52 Americans hostage and held them captive for 444 days. The regime’s mantra is “Death to Israel! Death to America!” but toward the end of his second term, the composite character took his support for the regime to a new level.
Obama sent a planeload of cash to the regime, the chief funder of terrorism in general and Hamas in particular. With all his people in the White House, as Samuels noted, he continues the funding. “Everything has to be a victory,” Garrow explains, so by his own standard, Obama wants the Iranian-Hamas axis to win, but that’s not all he wants.
“He wants people to believe his story,” Garrow told Samuels. “For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction – Oh God, did that infuriate him.” All told, Garrow finds that Obama is “not normal, as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.
After reading Rising Star, Samuels still finds Obama, “deeply sympathetic as a person” and identifies with him emotionally. On the other hand, “there was something about this fictional character that he created actually becoming president that helped precipitate the disaster that we are living through now.”
That was in early August, before 10/7, the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. The “genocidal pogrom,” as Bari Weiss put it, sent armies of anti-Semites into the street calling for the annihilation of Israel and the killing of Jews everywhere. Shortly after the attack, the composite character said the attack was “horrific” but issued no outright condemnation of Hamas.
On the other hand, Obama decried the “occupation,” the term Osama bin Laden used three times in his 2002 letter to America now making the rounds on social media. “What is happening to the Palestinians is unbearable,” the composite character also said, striking moral equivalence between the Hamas terrorists and their Jewish victims. As David Garrow said, he’s not a normal person and not a normal politician.
In 2008, the composite character promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. That transformation continues through Joe Biden, who is now being pressured by Obama’s narrator, David Axelrod, to step aside, possibly to make way for Michelle. She was unreadable in college, as the late Christopher Hitchens noted, but she now has two auto-hagiographies in the best Axelrod style.
If the composite character gets a fourth term through Michelle, the disaster we are living through now will continue. The free and prosperous nation Americans have known will cease to exist. The former Barry Soetoro will continue to fund the Iran-Hamas axis, and everything has to be a victory. So in his final solution, Israel also disappears. And all the peaceful protesters around the world will cry out, “Allahu Barackbar!”
Lloyd Billingsley
Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Yes I Con: United Fakes of America, Barack ‘Em Up: A Literary Investigation, Hollywood Party, and numerous other works.
Reader Interactions
Hamas Chief Thanks Iran for ‘Victory’ Following Israel Hostage Deal
24 Nov 2023531
5:30
Hamas terror leader Ismail Haniyeh graciously thanked the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, on Thursday for its “firm support” against the ongoing military operation by Israel to eradicate the group in its stronghold of Gaza.
Haniyeh appeared to credit Tehran’s theocratic rulers for playing a role in an agreement with the Israeli government to pause the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operations in Gaza and free some convicted terrorists in exchange for Hamas freeing some Israeli hostages.
Hamas is believed to have taken about 250 hostages during an unprecedented string of atrocities committed on October 7, in an event the genocidal jihadist group refers to as the “al-Aqsa Flood.”
That day, a wave of Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and went on door-to-door killing rampages, killing entire families in their own homes, raping and torturing random civilians, and filming themselves desecrating the bodies of their victims.
EVIL: See the Aftermath of Hamas Attack on an Israeli KINDERGARTEN
Joel B. Pollak / Breitbart News
At a music festival taking place that day, Hamas terrorists opened fire on concertgoers, gang-raped women on site, and similarly brutalized the corpses of those they killed. Forensic evidence suggests the use of rape as a weapon of war and the gruesome killing of children as young as infants, found decapitated and burned.
A spokesman for Hamas, Ghazi Hamad, told the BBC on October 7 that the group had “direct backing” from Iran in orchestrating the attack. Iran’s regime threw a massive street party, replete with fireworks, in Tehran on October 7 to celebrate the mass killing of innocents, in which attendees chanted “death to America” and “death to Israel.”
The IDF launched an operation into Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, shortly thereafter to rescue the hostages taken and neutralize Hamas’s ability to orchestrate another similar attack.
That operation is expected to pause for four days beginning on Friday. Hamas terrorists claim they will release a group of hostages hours after the pause begins; it remains unclear exactly who among the missing will be released, nor does the public know the exact location where the hostages are expected to be freed.
File/Gaza Hamas leader Ismail Haniya (3rd-R) waves upon his arrival at a rally marking the 31st anniversary of Hamas’ founding, in Gaza City December 16, 2018. (SAID KHATIB/AFP/Getty Images)
Israel agreed to the deal after being pressured by the administration of President Joe Biden, according to White House officials.
“The President recognized very early, the only way, the only realistic way to get a humanitarian pause in place — and we support humanitarian pauses irrespective of a hostage deal — is through an agreement to bring the hostages home,” White House Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk said on Wednesday, claiming Biden supported “humanitarian pauses irrespective of a hostage deal.”
The Biden administration uses the term “humanitarian pauses” instead of “ceasefire” to refer to a halt in the fighting.
Haniyeh did not describe the pause as “humanitarian” but, rather, a “political and military” victory in his public remarks alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian on Thursday. Iran’s PressTV referred to the “humanitarian pause” as a “ceasefire.”
“This is a political victory that was achieved based on the victory of the resistance in the field and the enemy failed in achieving its goals except for the killing of women and children and citizens and destroying their houses,” Haniyeh reportedly said.
“Despite the initial opposition to the ceasefire, the United States, understanding the realities of the battlefield, was finally forced to surrender to the will of the Palestinian people and the will of the world nations,” he claimed, “and the positive vote of 120 countries to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for a ceasefire with Hamas, which shows the US dominance over the international order has diminished.”
Hamas’ political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh speaks during a rally held in solidarity with Palestinians outside Doha’s Imam Muhammad Abdel-Wahhab Mosque, amid the escalating flare-up of Israeli-Palestinian violence. (Mahmoud Hefnawy/picture alliance via Getty)
Haniyeh specifically thanked Iran for its “firm support” and Amir-Abdollahian for “active diplomatic support” in international venues for Hamas’s cause in general. Hamas is a genocidal organization whose original charter called for the destruction of Judaism and Christianity and “complete destruction of Israel.”
In his remarks alongside Haniyeh – with whom he met in Doha, Qatar – Amir-Abdollahian celebrated the atrocities of October 7, claiming they “shook the world” and “the dimensions of victory and achievement of the Palestinian nation were much bigger and tipped the strategic balance in different dimensions in favor of Palestine and the detriment of the usurping Zionist regime.”
Amir-Abdollahian interpreted the hostage deal as a sign “the US and the Israeli regime failed to achieve the least in the military field and were forced to negotiate indirectly with Hamas for a ceasefire and the release of their prisoners.”
“It Is Evil”: U.S. Diplomat Breaks Down Witnessing Aftermath of Hamas Attack in Israel
Chargé d’Affaires a.i. Stephanie Hallett via Storyful
The president of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, similarly proclaimed that the agreement was a “humiliating defeat” for Israel in remarks on Thursday.
“If we want to make an analysis after over 40 days … we must say that the enemy suffered a humiliating defeat and that the Palestinian people and resistance scored a great victory,” the Iranian state outlet Fars News quoted Raisi as saying. “The resistance managed to incapacitate the fake regime and frustrate it with no air, naval and ground forces.”
Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.
Anti-immigration protesters set bus ablaze in Dublin following knife attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ujQE34PueM
THE SAUDI MUSLIM INVASION OF AMERICA
Images of 9/11: A Visual Remembrance
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/11/images-911-visual-remembrance/
Osama bin Laden’s Evil Legacy
By Peter Olsson
Even though Bin Laden/Zawahiri of Al Qaeda and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of ISIS are dead, on anniversaries of 9/11 -- and now Hamas’s October 7th event -- a haunting and important question lurks. Why do many young Arabs, Muslims, and even Americans continue to become entranced with Osama bin Laden's Pied Piper music of radical fascist fundamentalist Muslim Jihad? Via TikTok, thousands of American youths recently embraced Osama bin Laden's twisted "Message to the World" over social media.
It is also important to try to understand the uniquely chilling social-psychological fit between the religiously saturated but distorted charismatic leadership of a man like Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda/ISIS, and the group psychology of communities where he and his colleagues and mentors recruit devoted terrorists. Afghanistan is once again becoming an Al Qaeda and ISIS haven as is Yemen, where Bin Laden’s father was born.
It is a serious mistake to glibly label and dismiss deceased men like Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as simply dead mass murderers, psychotics, thugs, psychopaths, or criminals. In painful truth, they are often perceived as Robin Hood-like figures and spiritual Pied Piper spiritual heroes for many people in the unreformed fundamentalist Muslim world. Even American homegrown terrorists who want to attack America and the West often express profound admiration for the martyred Osama bin Laden. For American leaders to imply that Al Qaeda, Hamas, or ISIS are defeated because their leaders are killed is like saying Christianity died when Jesus Christ was crucified.
We can see in Osama bin Laden`s life trajectory evidence of what has been called “Dark Epiphanies” in destructive cult leaders. (Olsson, 2017, Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time p. 11-12). These later life experiences reify and magnify their earlier molding experiences of disappointment, neglect, shame, and humiliation influenced by parents and other childhood defective role models. In adolescent or young adult life phases, antiheroes are often chosen to rebel against and counteract disappointment or humiliation/shame experiences with parental figures and home communities.
Hamas, ISIS, and Al Qaeda’s appeal has a potential unique “fit” for normal adolescent rebelliousness. Anna Freud said of adolescents, “On the one hand, they throw themselves enthusiastically into the life of the community, and on the other, they have an overpowering longing for solitude. They oscillate between blind submission to some self-chosen leader and defiant rebellion against any and every authority. They are selfish and materially minded and at the same time full of lofty idealism.” [Freud, A. Pp 137-138.) What would be normal adolescent rebellion and protest for some young people, becomes terrorist actions under Hamas, ISIS, and Al Qaeda’s tutelage. The Arab world’s turmoil creates many young adults who are in the phase of what psychoanalysts call “prolonged adolescence.”
In addition to enlisting well-educated youth as future leaders, radical Islamists like Osama also recruit poor and less-educated Muslim “foot soldiers” through religious Madrassah schools and some young-adult mosque programs and activities. Osama’s personal suffering, use of his and his father’s wealth to help fellow Muslims, his supposed bravery and heroism in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan, made his rebellious jihad appealing to disaffected Arab and Muslim youth. The Madrassah-type “schools” in Pakistan for example, offer economic advantages and spiritual inspiration to families and Muslim communities that have few alternatives. Even via TikTok, many thousands of American youths recently found Osama bin Laden’s treacherous and destructive “Letter to the World” bizarrely inspiring.
Osama bin Laden’s role as a terrorist leader allowed him to act out his unconscious inner narcissistic rage at his father, mother, siblings, rejecting homeland and Saudi Arabia’s oil customer/ally/friend America. In this sense, he became like most destructive cult leaders. Their deepest motives have to do with power, control, revenge, and overcoming a desperate fear of aloneness and meaninglessness. They gain a sense of power and mastery over their own childhood psychological deformities and feelings of insignificance by becoming overwhelmingly significant and powerful in the lives and destinies of their followers.
Apocalyptic Scenarios: Group-Self Death and Rebellious Martyrdom in Terror Cults
Rebellious charisma in a terror leader meshes with the followers’ masochism and narcissistic passive-receptiveness to his charismatic influence. The leader-follower patterns in terror cults like Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS are remarkably similar to what is seen in apocalyptic cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
The group death or martyr scenario gives the terror-cult group a special, exciting, and dramatically triumphant defining martyr myth. It becomes a source of “underdog” heroism, and paradoxical group cohesion and identity. For bin Laden, the motivating apocalyptic scenario was his assertion that all Muslims in the world are being threatened by the West, particularly by Americans and Jews. In a book bin Laden wrote in 1998, he called the faithful to a global jihad, a “new vision” that demands the deaths of all Americans and Jews, including children. To attain this cynical and religion-perverting vision, any violence is justified, from terrorist bombings to suicide missions.
Evil is defined initially by the leader bin Laden via fatwa, but gradually becomes co-authored within the group-self as their own group salvation death myth. The codependent leader holds the martyr death myth out to the followers as magical reward. The terror cult leader also holds the death myth over the heads of the followers to magnify the special domain of his “mana” power and self-importance. The leader is needed for the dramatic destructive action that is being planned, for which no one individual takes personal responsibility. The leader experiences the ultimate “celebrity” and fantasized triumph over his lifelong insecurity, hurts, and fear of aloneness.
The future generations of Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezb’allah’s terror cult franchises will not be eliminated by bullets, missiles, or “smart bombs.” The future foreign policies of America need to be informed about the social-self psychology of the terrorist group and its leaders’ spiritual-political power messages. Devastated communities, families, and wounded group-selves in war-torn nations continents away are ignored at our peril. Billions of military aid dollars given to Middle East “friends” may not be worth the enemy-accumulating consequences. “Nation-building” may be impossible, but we cannot just walk away from financially and spiritually devastated societies. Genuine foreign aid helps wounded world communities find ways to rebuild their own dignity and group self-confidence. Hopefully without the “help” and inspiration of malignant Pied Pipers like Osama bin Laden and their heirs. Our own American youth require the charisma and spiritual leadership and inspiration of our diverse founding father heroes who need to be read and studied and not torn down by spiritually empty professors.
Image: TherealMrGreer
Our forgotten first war against Islamic terrorists
Most Americans seem to have forgotten our first war against Muslims. In the late 18th century, our objection to Islamist practice was their piracy and slaving against our ships and sailors in the Mediterranean Sea.
In 1794, provoked by Algerian captures of American ships, our Congress authorized construction of the first six ships of the U.S. Navy, including the U.S.S. Constitution, still in commissioned service and now docked in Boston.
In 1795, our diplomats negotiated treaties with the Muslim states of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli to pay them tribute for the privilege of free passage.
But in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional money and declared war on the United States. The United States Marines defeated the Pasha’ forces with a combined naval and land assault. That short foreign conflict is remembered in the Marines’ Hymn in the words “to the shores of Tripoli.”
Earlier, in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- two prominent Founders of our country -- were in London seeking agreements with Muslim states on the North African coast of the Mediterranean Sea. On March 28th they wrote a letter to John Jay, then the American Secretary for Foreign Affairs, reporting on their difficulties:
…We had a conference with the Ambassador of Tripoli, at his House.
The amount of all the information we can obtain from him was that a perpetual peace was in all respects the most advisable, because a temporary treaty would leave room for increasing demands upon every renewal of it, and a stipulation for annual payments would be liable to failures of performance which would renew the war, repeat the negotiations and continually augment the claims of his nation and the difference of expence would by no means be adequate to the inconvenience, since 12,500 Guineas to his Constituents with 10 pr. Cent upon that sum for himself, must be paid if the treaty was made for only one year.
That 30,000 Guineas for his Employers and £3,000 for himself were the lowest terms upon which a perpetual peace could be made and that this must be paid in Cash on the delivery of the treaty signed by his sovereign, that no kind of Merchandizes could be accepted.
That Tunis would treat upon the same terms, but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
Then the Americans asked the Muslim diplomat what justified his country’s seizures of ships and making slaves of their crew or passengers. The answer given by the Ambassador of Tripoli in 1786 was consistent with the 1988 Covenant of Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) on the right of Muslims to wage war on those who professed a different faith:
…The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
That it was a law that the first who boarded an Enemy’s Vessell should have one slave, more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate Valour and Enterprise, that it was the Practice of their Corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their Enemies that very few ever stood against them, that he verily believed the Devil assisted his Countrymen, for they were almost always successful.
That testament by the Ambassador of Tripoli as to a generic, universal, Muslim right of war against non-believers predated by 215 years the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, which killed 2,996 American civilians, and by 237 years the Oct 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israeli civilians.
Image: Library of Congress
Of course, he did not send them any photos of the worst atrocities he witnessed. Piles of bodies were the most he would allow himself, and Israeli tanks set on fire, but not beheaded babies or eyes gouged out, or naked girls who had been tortured and then raped to death.
Everybody Loves Islam
And they rushed to show their love after October 7.
November 21, 2023 by Robert Spencer 3 Comments
|
[Make sure to read Robert Spencer’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
After Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7, all the various factions of the world rushed to show how much they loved and admired not the victims of the attacks, and certainly not the state that they lived in, but instead, the belief system and ideology that inspired and motivated the attacks themselves: Islam. Left, right, and center, everybody loves Islam now, and that love is growing more intense by the day.
The left, of course, has loved Islam for many years now. Even before 9/11, Islamic groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) adopted the left’s tactic of charging that all critics of Islam, including even foes of jihad terror who were simply exposing the motives and goals of the terrorists, with “racism” and “bigotry.” Muslims, CAIR and its allies contended, were an oppressed class, victimized for being “brown,” despite the fact that there are Muslims, and Islamic jihadis, of all races. A new sin, “Islamophobia,” was invented to intimidate people into thinking it was somehow wrong to oppose jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women.
The left embraced this wholeheartedly, leading to a lasting alliance that has given us the winsome and patriotic Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Ramallah), and a society-wide fear of the personal and professional ruin that can come from being accused of “Islamophobia.” This alliance is showing some signs of strain lately over the left’s obsession with normalizing insanity, sexual deviance, and perversity, but the Oct. 7 attack showed that the bond between the left and Islam is still strong. Leftists eagerly purvey Hamas’ propaganda about how many civilian casualties have resulted from Israel’s defensive action in Gaza, and Israel is drawing increasing fire from leftist leaders including Canada’s Justin Trudeau and France’s Emmanuel Macron
The strains in the leftist/Islamic alliance, meanwhile, have awakened a new love for Islam on the right. Many social conservatives have noted that Muslims are among the only groups in the U.S. standing up against the delusion that a man can become a woman and vice versa, and that those who wish to do so are of perfectly sound mind. Muslims are also among the few who are resisting the left’s insistence on placing pornography in primary schools. This has led some patriots to imagine that a new alliance can be formed between pious Muslims and social conservatives; this is, in fact, not a new idea on the right, but one that no less a luminary than Dinesh D’Souza advocated as far back as 2007.
The fallacy of this kind of thinking, however, is that even if Muslims are willing to make common cause with non-Muslim social conservatives, this will not lead them to abandon the tenets of their faith that call for them to make war against and subjugate unbelievers. The shared distaste for the left’s perversions and delusions cannot be and will not become the basis for a new accord that will allow Muslims and non-Muslims to live together in peace. The Islamic imperative to “fight them until persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39) will remain.
Antisemites on the left and the right, meanwhile, have always loved Islam for its deep-rooted hostility to the Jews. The Qur’an even projects that hostility upon its target: “You will find the Jews and the idolaters the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe.” (Qur’an 5:82) We saw this most recently, and most revoltingly, demonstrated in the TikTok craze for Osama bin Laden’s 2002 letter to America, which excoriates the Jews for supposedly oppressing the Palestinians, and declares: “The first thing we are calling you to is Islam.” Nick Fuentes and others who have hijacked the “America First” slogan to contextualize and justify their Jew-hatred and Israel-hatred love Islam for being so tremendously negative toward the group for which they blame virtually everything. Marxist professors who have always hated Israel for being a standing rebuke to the left’s collectivism and destruction of individual cultures (and of individuality itself) love Islam for lending itself quite well to collectivism and hating Jews just as much as they do.
And so one of the most striking aspects of the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 massacre is that while antisemitism is resurgent all over the U.S. and Europe, individuals and groups on all points of the political spectrum are falling all over themselves to affirm their love for Islam. Jewish and pro-Israel students have been physically menaced on campuses including Cooper Union in New York City, Arizona State University, the University of California San Diego, and Tulane. That’s happening against the backdrop of increasingly harsh criticism of Jews and Israel from people as supposedly ideologically divergent as Max Blumenthal and Candace Owens. The societal trend is clear: everybody loves Islam, and everybody hates the Jews.
Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 26 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest books are The Critical Qur’an and The Sumter Gambit. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Reader Interactions
Horowitz Takes Us into the Mind of the Enemy
What makes the Woke Left tick.
November 21, 2023 by Bruce Bawer 10 Comments
|
[Order David Horowitz’s new book, The Radical Mind: The Destructive Plans of the Woke Left: HERE.]
“The belief that the world is marching towards justice, and that to be a progressive means one is ‘on the right side of history,’” writes David Horowitz in his important new book, The Radical Mind: The Destructive Plans of the Woke Left, “is a delusion that will justify any and every atrocity, and already has.”
Nobody knows this better than Horowitz. Born into a Communist family, he was at the very center of the action during the Vietnam War and Black Power movement. After his epochal autobiography, Radical Son (1996), which rivetingly recounted his career in, and ultimate departure from, the left, he published a number of books – with titles like Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery and Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left – that anatomized the left’s ongoing assault on American norms and values. And in the wake of his monumental, eight-volume compilation The Black Book of the American Left, he’s written a series of brief, eminently cogent bestsellers that are the Trump era’s version of Thomas Paine’s indispensable Revolutionary-era pamphlets Common Sense and The American Crisis.
To wit: Dark Agenda (2019) explored the left’s war against America’s Christian roots; Blitz (2020) cataloged Trump’s magnificent presidential record and the left’s brazen attempt to misrepresent it; The Enemy Within provided an overview of “woke” America, with a special focus on cancel culture, the war on whiteness, and the rise of Critical Race Theory; and I Can’t Breathe took on Black Lives Matter – its poisonous ideology, its deep-seated hypocrisy, and, not least, its roster of ersatz martyrs, from Trayvon Martin to George Floyd, whose purported victimization has been used to undergirl a fraudulent narrative of systematic racism and police brutality.
Admittedly, some of us didn’t need to be told that BLM was a crock, that CRT is hogwash, or that Trump had been a terrific president. And happily, more and more Americans are recognizing the left-wing narrative – from the climate-change hoax to the “insurrection” lie, from the Biden crime family cover-up to the trans fantasy – for the Big Lie that it is. But tens of millions still believe the legacy media’s tall tales. ((And while they continue to believe, the left continues to consolidate its hold on the Democratic Party, the legacy media, the elite universities, major corporations, and the higher levels of the military and intelligence agencies. Which is why The Radical Mind – in which Horowitz once again takes on the left with clarity, urgency, and undiminished vigor – matters so much.
In order to make one of his key points, Horowitz takes us back to the Vietnam War. As that conflict dragged on and the protest marches grew in size and number, the ability of the U.S. to prosecute the war was weakened, leading eventually to a messy, mortifying withdrawal. And what happened then? The Communists moved in and slaughtered millions. And what, asks Horowitz, did the leaders of the American peace movement do in response to this monstrous genocide, in which the victims vastly outnumbered U.S. war casualties? Nothing. They’d passionately protested the war, but never commented on the postwar butchery. Why? Because, as Horowitz underscores, they were never really opposed to war or in love with peace – they were opposed to America and in love with Communism.
That’s the crucial insight: they weren’t antiwar; they were pro-Communist. And the insight, as Horowitz adroitly points out, still applies today, mutatis mutandis: establishment Democrats – who’ve left liberalism far behind and embraced Marx – “are not soft on crime. They are pro-crime.” Because crime is social justice in action. Looting is reparation; theft is wealth redistribution.
Understand this and you’ll understand everything. Why illegal aliens were flown for free from the Texas border to cities around the country while U.S. citizens were billed for being airlifted out of Israel after October 7. Why colleges that a year ago were firing faculty for holding mainstream views now defend professors who cheer genocide. Why, as antisemitism has skyrocketed, the Biden administration chose to introduce an initiative against Islamophobia. And why the same Justice Department officials and Soros-funded DAs who gave a pass to Antifa rioters and BLM arsonists are inventing bogus reasons to bring down Donald Trump.
But of course the left has no choice: it has to crush Trump. It’s nothing less than an existential threat to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And who or what, above all else, represents an existential threat to them? Trump, naturally. Of all the politicians who ran for president in 2016, he was the only one who truly challenged the leftist takeover – and the establishment Republicans who were content to be the controlled opposition.
And so they came up with the Russia-collusion hoax – and more. Even some of his purported allies tried to foil his determination to “make America great again.” And still, as Horowitz reminds us, Trump achieved a great deal for ordinary Americans during his four years in the White House. He took the economy to new heights. He engineered historic peace agreements in the Middle East. These and other achievements strengthened America, served its people – and stymied the pernicious designs of the left, whose media minions dropped these triumphs down the memory hole. Democrats have long posed as champions of the “black community,” but in reality, ever since LBJ’s Great Society, they’ve promoted policies that ensured the persistence of black poverty, crime, and joblessness. And they’ve done this because for progressives – as Horowitz writes, making yet another crucial point – “the issue is never the issue.”
Exactly. The issue is never the issue. Since the Hamas invasion of Israel, we’ve seen left-wing student activists – including many who identify as gay and transgender – marching in support of the terrorists. Observers have asked: don’t these kids realize that if they went to Gaza, they’d be dispatched instantly? Maybe so, maybe not. But what they do know – and it’s the only thing that matters to them – is that Hamas, like them, wants to smash the West. Only the revolution matters. Never mind that the revolution, ever since Robespierre, has always ended up devouring its own: such details never stop a true believer. So it is that Greta Thunberg, formerly obsessed with climate change, has now become a champion of Hamas.
So it goes. When Obama “put kids in cages,” nobody on the left cared – but when the practice continued under Trump, they began screaming about it. Under Trump, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border was tiny compared to what it’s been under Biden; but the left-wing compassion for those kids disappeared the moment the doddering Democrat from Delaware shuffled into the Oval Office. As Horowitz states, child trafficking at the border is “a humanitarian crisis without precedent” – yet it’s “sparked no revolt or opposition within the Democratic Party,” because those children’s well-being matters far less to the left than the goal of “changing the demographics and voting patterns of the American electorate” by permitting millions of prospective Democratic voters to cross the Rio Grande.
Since the radical mind now touches virtually every corner of American life, this book covers a lot of territory. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments that, under Obama, were installed at colleges and businesses and in every federal agency? As Horowitz shows, they’re nothing more than Maoist “re-education camps.” He discusses the left’s conquest of even the FBI, CIA, and armed forces, with people like Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin promising, absurdly, to fight “racists” in the military and Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas claiming that our “greatest domestic threat” is white supremacism.
What else? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” get the full Horowitz treatment. So does the grotesquely overrated Sam Harris, who’s supposed to be some kind of philosopher, ethicist, and hero of rationalism but who suffers from one of the world’s severest cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Hunter Biden, said Harris on a podcast last year, “literally could have the corpses of children in his basement” and “I would not have cared….It doesn’t even stack up against Trump University, right?” A chilling assertion, but look at it this way: the cynicism with which the southern border has been left open to all comers, including child traffickers, certainly reaffirms – as did the indifference of Mao, Pol Pot, and others to the loss of innocent lives – that in the minds of many a dedicated leftist, Sam Harris apparently included, keeping the “right” people in power and keeping the “wrong” people out is worth the corpses of any number of children.
“Destroy the old, establish the new.” It’s a motto of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and Horowitz uses it as the epilogue to one of his chapters. Destruction; iconoclasm; pulling down statues of Jefferson and putting up statues of George Floyd: that’s the whole game in a nutshell. Recall Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to “fundamentally transform America.” As Horowitz points out, it all goes back to the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who counseled that the revolution should be advanced not with guns and bullets but rather “by taking over the means of cultural production.” The Sixties radicals whose antiwar marches failed to rock the system heeded this sage advice: after putting away their placards and posters, they went on to influential careers in the cultural field – and (especially) as professors, one of whom, the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, became a mentor to none other than Obama himself.
And it was Obama who, proving indeed to be transformational, took the radicalization of America to a new level, expertly prodding the country into greater and greater division. It’s Obama, too, who, during this Twilight Zone sequel to the unfairly aborted Trump presidency, still seems to be in charge. As we approach yet another election in which the left will, once again, surely do all it can to foil the will of the deplorables, David Horowitz has given us an illuminating invaluable account of these people’s determination to quash everything that’s good about America – a determination that those of us who are true patriots must, in these times when Marxists hold almost all of the reins of power, resolve to resist with all our might. In so doing we’re fortunate to have as a role model this man who had the strength of character to confess that he’d been wrong, and who has, ever since, with incomparable backbone, devoted his life to standing up for the freedom that he once sought to destroy.
Bruce Bawer
Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Reader Interactions
Pro-Palestinian antisemitism was carefully inculcated in the American psyche
I just received an email from a one-time acquaintance, a hardcore non-Jewish leftist married to an equally hardcore Jewish leftist. She assured me that Israel is engaged in an ongoing genocide against Palestinians and faked a massacre to gain sympathy for the latest iteration of this genocidal plan. This person is not a crazy person on a street corner. She is a biologist with a job—and millions across America share this person’s beliefs. How in the world did this happen? Gary Wexler writes that it was part of a deliberate plan sparked by money flowing from the promised peace of the Oslo Accords.
Before I get into Wexler’s essay, let me just say that it’s a very peculiar genocide (a) that sees the population of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank increase from 1.1 million in 1967 to 14 million in 2023 and (b) leaves slightly more than seven million Jews surrounded by approximately 250 million Muslims and/or Arabs. Having said that, how in the world did we get to the point at which seemingly rational people claim that there was no attack against Israel and, instead, that what we’ve heard about October 7 is all part of a nefarious scheme to kill all the Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza.
The alleged goal is to colonize land to which Israel has no entitlement whatsoever (never mind the Jews’ 4,000 years of continuous residency versus the fewer than 200 years the Arabs have been there). Even to state the proposition is to reveal its insanity. And yet…
According to Wexler, once the Oslo Accords came into being, big money flowed into the region. He was one of the people the Ford Foundation hired to start handing out money “to help build a vibrant liberal civil society.”
Image: Pro-Hamas at Harvard. YouTube screen grab.
Wexler describes how the Israelis had wonderful visions of peace and cooperation. Not so the Arabs to whom he spoke. They didn’t mention the word “peace,” denied co-existence, and spoke in coded terms of a continued occupation. In other words, they saw the Oslo Accords as a pause, not an end, to their continued war against Israel.
Wexler tried to explain to Israelis that the Arabs didn’t share their goals, and he asked the Arab organizations with which he spoke questions about “terrorism, cooperation and even budget.” When he brought up those issues, “the interviewee would slam on the brakes.” And every time, Wexler would be told the same thing:
“When you are in Haifa meeting with Itijaa, you can ask that question to Ameer Makhoul.” Itijaa was an Arab civil rights organization. Ameer Makhoul was its executive director. It became clear to me that Ameer Makhoul had some type of control over all the Arab NGOs I was speaking to.
When Wexler and his Israeli colleague, Debra London, finally did meet with Makhoul, they discovered that he had detailed information about every meeting Wexler had previously had with the Arab organizations. Additionally, Makhoul had an equally detailed dossier about all facets of Wexler’s life, a clear intimidation tactic. Then, having put Wexler in his place, Makhoul explained the plan the Palestinians would put into effect under cover of the Oslo Accords and with the money soon to be flowing in:
“And now, Gary Wexler,” he sat down, “let me give you more direct answers.” He looked me straight in the eye. “Just like you were a Zionist campus activist, we will create, over the next years, Palestinian campus activists in America and all over the world. Bigger and better than any Zionist activists. Just like you spent your summers on the kibbutz, we will bring college students to spend their summers in refugee camps and work with our people. Just like you have been part of creating global pro-Israel organizations, we will create global pro-Palestinian organizations. Just like you today help create PR campaigns and events for Israel, so will we, but we will get more coverage than you ever have.”
He stood again this time, right over me. “You wonder how we will make this happen, how we will pay for this? Not with the money from your liberal Jewish organizations who are now funding us. But from the European Union, Arab and Moslem governments, wealthy Arab people and their organizations. Eventually, we will not take another dollar from the Jews.”
The meeting ended, Makhoul called the Ford Foundation to accuse Wexler of threatening him, and Makhoul was eventually arrested as a Syrian spy. But none of that’s important.
What’s important is that Makhoul and those allied with him did exactly as promised: They flooded the world—the media and academia—with anti-Israel propaganda, starting with the Muhammed al-Dura hoax. Writes Wexler:
As the years went on, I began to see what Ameer Makhoul had laid out to me taking shape. The PR coverage was first: The Muhammad al-Durrah incident in Gaza, when a 12-year-old boy was shot to death on the second day of the Second Intifada, capturing global headlines. The Mavi Marmara, the Turkish Flotilla to Gaza that the Israelis stormed, killing several Palestinian activists, grabbing global headlines. I knew the Mavi Marmara was manufactured for the exposure it would gain.
Then the campuses: The creation of Apartheid Week worldwide. The growth of BDS. The student volunteers who began by the thousands to work in the Palestinian territories and its refugee camps. The shocking creation of anti-Zionist Jewish student groups.
What we’re seeing today is not an accident. It’s part of a deliberate, well-funded plan to say that terrorists who bake babies ovens, rape women to death, and torture young children before murdering them have the moral high ground when held up against a liberal democracy that, when fighting a hot war, tries to evacuate the enemy’s civilians. And the plan is succeeding, probably far beyond Makhoul’s wildest dreams.
Teachers Unions for Palestine
Peddling Jew-hate to our kids.
November 21, 2023 by Rebecca Friedrichs and Roger Ruvolo 3 Comments
|
On the same day that thousands of rockets rained down on innocent Israeli citizens, photos and videos emerged of people dancing in the street. This time, those images were not broadcast from Middle Eastern cities but instead filmed right here in the United States.
The examples are well-known. A man in Boston holds up a phone showing a beheaded baby and makes an obscene hand gesture to the camera, recording his laughter. A hijab-wearing woman at a Democratic Socialists of America rally says she’s glad for the Hamas attack and does not consider herself an American. Students in Cooper Union lead a pro-Palestinian rally brandishing anti-Zionist posters, shouting anti-Semitic slogans, and terrifying Jewish students barricaded in the library as anti-Israel protestors bang on the doors.
These offensive messages are orchestrated. The people delivering them clearly have been propagandized to hate Jews. Many of their talking points have a not-so-surprising source: radicalized teachers’ unions.
Leftist support for Hamas is grounded in part in years of propaganda, denouncing Western values, from some of the unionized teachers indoctrinating American children. Those activist teachers belong to unions that exploit the profession and muzzle good teachers, while working to turn our kids into leftist activists.
Teachers’ unions support Black Lives Matter and introduced the group’s messages into our schools after George Floyd’s death. It should be no surprise, then, that just as BLM Chicago released an image of a Hamas parachuter with the caption, “I Stand with Palestine,” student activists cheer Hamas’s evil, too.
A BLM spinoff, BLM at School, called the violence a “direct result of decades of Israeli settler colonialism . . . occupation, blockade, apartheid and attempted genocide” of Palestinians. The statement’s language is reminiscent of a National Education Association (NEA) “new business item” from 2019 alleging “apartheid,” “gross human rights abuses,” and “atrocities” against Palestinians. BLM at School, including its BLM Week of Action, routinely receive the backing of the NEA and American Federation of Teachers.
Year after year, unions here and abroad spare no effort to denounce Israel and promote the Palestinians, whose leaders have never renounced their stated objective to annihilate the Jews and Israel. In 2022, for example, the NEA adopted a business item promising to “support and spotlight the efforts of our fellow teacher union colleagues within the Palestinian and Israeli teachers unions affiliated with Education International.” Education International includes 383 teacher groups from around the world; the General Union of Palestinian Teachers (an arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization) and the National Education Union of the United Kingdom are members. According to the Jewish Chronicle, dozens of Jewish teachers resigned from the National Education Union because of its stance on Israel: NEU leaders reportedly visit the radical GUPT and platform GUPT leaders who say that Israel has massacred Palestinians in a way “worse than the Holocaust itself,” and who have “praised murderers as ‘martyrs.’”
Teachers’ unions in America hold similar views. Two years ago, American Federation of Teachers affiliate United Teachers of Los Angeles backed a resolution condemning Israel. Around the same time, United Educators of San Francisco voted to support BDS—boycott, divestment and sanctions—against Israel, as did Seattle’s public schools. Randi Weingarten, head of the AFT, denounced Jewish critics of her stalling to reopen schools after Covid-19 shutdowns, calling Jews in America part of the “ownership class.” As author Marc Stern noted, had such words come from Louis Farrakhan or a Proud Boys member, they’d be correctly condemned as anti-Semitic.
Union officials may stand strongly against Israel and for Palestine, but most teachers disagree with the leadership, like the Jewish teacher in Los Angeles who said that she feared for her safety after the UTLA vote.
Still, the unions, which draw funding for their political activities from teachers’ dues, have no qualms in peddling anti-Israel views.
Teachers’ unions are among the nation’s most influential labor groups. They are famously successful at helping elect legislators who will codify radical union priorities into laws governing classrooms. It’s thus easy to imagine that more young people in America will embrace their ideas about Israel.
Rebecca Friedrichs is the founder of For Kids and Country and the author of Standing Up to Goliath: Battling State and National Teachers’ Unions for the Heart and Soul of our Kids and Country. Roger Ruvolo is a longtime newspaper editor.
Originally published at City-Journal
Reader Interactions
Taxpayers helped fund Hamas-affiliated organizations
Yesterday, we wrote about the Marxist American millionaires who are residents of China and donated over $20 million to an organization that’s mobilized many of the biggest pro-Hamas marches across America. Today, we’ll take that report a bit further to discuss the Hamas-aligned non-profit organizations that have received hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate foundations, employee giving, and even taxpayers themselves.
Preliminarily, let’s review 501(c) organizations. As taxpayers, we all know that we get write-offs if we donate to a “501(c)(3)” organization. However, there are actually 29 types of 501(c) non-profit organizations. All of them are, in varying ways, exempt from paying some federal and state taxes. This means that they get a lot of bang for the donated buck.
I know that accountants are ripping their hair out over my generalized and probably inaccurate description of what’s going on here, but I just want you, the reader, to get the gist: Organizations under the 501(c) umbrella have tax benefits. This means that 501(c) organizations pay less to the government than they would if they were not 501(c) organizations.
To the extent our federal and state governments spend lots of money, these 501(c) organizations contribute less to these expenditures than non-501(c) regular organizations do. We, the taxpayers, take up the slack, and we’re okay with it for “widows and orphans” charities…but what if the entity is channeling money into terrorism? What then?
Image by Andrea Widburg using a photo from Freepik.
This is a legitimate question because Sam Westrop, writing at Focus on Western Islamism, describes how FWI has tracked over $260 million that has been poured into ostensible 501(c) charities that exist to support Hamas—and that’s not even counting money sent to those organizations directly from taxpayers:
An FWI investigation has uncovered over 260 million dollars sent through the 501(c) system to Hamas-aligned charities in the United States, provided by corporate foundations, employee-giving schemes, partisan community groups and a powerful array of Islamist grant-making foundations that make use of a largely-unregulated nonprofit sector.
FWI’s in-depth investigation has also uncovered new instances of charities seemingly belonging to Hamas’s infrastructure in North America, evidence of terrorism links, and instances of horrendously violently anti-Semitic rhetoric among the officials of leading 501(c) charities across America. Some of these charities and their activities are even funded through the taxpayer, with over $100 million of grants to these charities authorized by the federal government over the past decade.
The U.S. government recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization, making it a criminal act to send funds directly to it. It has also long designated certain Hamas-affiliated people and entities as terrorist organizations themselves. However, there’s always the problem of apparent charities that donate to other charities that donate to Hamas or affiliated organizations. Writes Westrop,
Indeed, radical movements have long used charitable programs and promises of social welfare to build a base of support and help with recruitment. Crucially, as the U.S. government realizes, charities do not have to fund Hamas’s terrorist operations directly to benefit the terrorist organization financially or ideologically.
At a certain point, the chain is so attenuated that it’s not immediately apparent that monies donated in America are directly funding terrorism—although I’m willing to bet that most of the donors to the charities identified in the article are comfortable with indirectly funding Hamas-based terrorism.
The real problem is that the U.S. government has been incredibly lax when it comes to investigating ostensible charities that intertwine charity and terrorism:
Much of the charitable work is indeed real, but it still serves to benefit terror. In Gaza, for instance, decades ago, Hamas came to the fore by distinguishing itself, through its charitable work, from the incompetence and corruption of the PLO. While Palestinian nationalists embezzled millions, their Islamist rivals set up medical clinics, orphanages and summer camps for Palestinian youth, winning grassroots support. Decades earlier, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt pioneered a similar approach.
In the early 2000s, writes Westrop, the U.S. was aggressive about policing organizations that were effectively terrorists handing out largesse. Now, though, the government isn’t doing squat:
Today, however, the law is still simply not being enforced. The activities of terror-aligned charities are largely ignored by law enforcement and policy-makers. Sometimes, the taxpayer even funds these radical charities through a wide array of obscene government grant programs.
Moreover, the problem is probably worse than FWI has exposed to date. The Schedule F forms that are supposed to disclose 501(c)s’ foreign spending have improperly missing information that makes it impossible to figure out how much money really goes to these faux charities. Still, what information is available reveals staggering sums of money flowing to Hamas-aligned charities, which means flowing to Hamas itself.
If you go to the linked article, you can see the nature of these top “charities” benefitting from these funds. It makes for illuminating reading.
U.S. Pro-Islamist Activist’ We Freed From Egypt Defends Hamas
I warned that helping Aya Hijazi was a big mistake.
November 21, 2023 by Daniel Greenfield 3 Comments
|
I warned in 2017 that the campaign for Aya Hijazi would backfire. Aiding Islamists never produces anything good.
Aya Hijazi was also the photogenic face of a campaign against the post-Brotherhood Egyptian government. Media reports described her as an imprisoned rescue worker who had been released from Egypt after administration intervention.
If you believed the stories, Hijazi had learned French and Spanish while in prison. Photos showed her reading Maya Angelou’s ‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings’ behind bars. Snaps from that calculated photoshoot would be used to illustrate countless media sob stories about her plight in prison.
Mohamed Hassanein, her husband, received far less attention. As did the other arrested members of the Belady Foundation which had been accused of using street children in Muslim Brotherhood riots.
Aya’s cause was quickly taken up by all the usual suspects.
Hillary Clinton had met with President Sisi and called for Hijazi’s release. Rep. Gerry Connolly, the go-to guy for Muslim Brotherhood front groups, had blustered, “The Egyptian government mistakes American resolve.” Avril Haines, the former indie bookstore owner who had been appointed by Obama as Deputy Director of the CIA and Deputy National Security Advisor, despite having no relevant experience, met with Hijazi’s family and issued a statement demanding her release.
Six years later, Aya Hijazi is doing the predictable thing.
“I don’t condemn HAMAS and never will,” Aya Hijazi posted on X on Nov. 7, a month after Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis. “I don’t condemn Palestinians who exhausted every peaceful way on earth to end their occupation and save their lives.”
“I condemn anyone who asks the world to condemn HAMAS,” Hijazi added.
“You are morally abhorrent with reverse standards. One for the Whites and ones for everyone else. And your standards of occupation, land theft, besiegement and mass murder don’t apply to me.”
Trump helped get her out, but you’ll never guess whom Aya Hijazi supports.
Trump and his aides engaged in behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts to secure Hijazi’s freedom in 2017 after attempts by the previous Obama administration failed. Hijazi, who was 30 years old at the time, was released after spending three years in Egyptian prison on human trafficking charges and was alleged to have ties to the radical Islamist group Muslim Brotherhood.
“I asked the government to let her out,” Trump told The Associated Press at the time. “You know Obama worked on it for three years, got zippo, zero.”
Hijazi endorsed Biden for president in 2020 in a social media post and claimed that Trump only freed her to bolster his “ego.”
Cynthia Farahat, author of “The Secret Apparatus: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Industry of Death,” told Fox News Digital that “no one should be surprised by Aya Hijazi pro Hamas stance.”
“She has and does indeed support the Muslim Brotherhood, and this is why her comments are often featured positively on their official website, something the Brotherhood only does with its overt and covert members and agents,” Farahat said.
Do not help these people. Do not advocate for them. It will bite you in the ass every time. They are the enemy.
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Reader Interactions
Osama bin Laden’s Evil Legacy
By Peter Olsson
Even though Bin Laden/Zawahiri of Al Qaeda and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of ISIS are dead, on anniversaries of 9/11 -- and now Hamas’s October 7th event -- a haunting and important question lurks. Why do many young Arabs, Muslims, and even Americans continue to become entranced with Osama bin Laden's Pied Piper music of radical fascist fundamentalist Muslim Jihad? Via TikTok, thousands of American youths recently embraced Osama bin Laden's twisted "Message to the World" over social media.
It is also important to try to understand the uniquely chilling social-psychological fit between the religiously saturated but distorted charismatic leadership of a man like Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda/ISIS, and the group psychology of communities where he and his colleagues and mentors recruit devoted terrorists. Afghanistan is once again becoming an Al Qaeda and ISIS haven as is Yemen, where Bin Laden’s father was born.
It is a serious mistake to glibly label and dismiss deceased men like Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as simply dead mass murderers, psychotics, thugs, psychopaths, or criminals. In painful truth, they are often perceived as Robin Hood-like figures and spiritual Pied Piper spiritual heroes for many people in the unreformed fundamentalist Muslim world. Even American homegrown terrorists who want to attack America and the West often express profound admiration for the martyred Osama bin Laden. For American leaders to imply that Al Qaeda, Hamas, or ISIS are defeated because their leaders are killed is like saying Christianity died when Jesus Christ was crucified.
We can see in Osama bin Laden`s life trajectory evidence of what has been called “Dark Epiphanies” in destructive cult leaders. (Olsson, 2017, Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time p. 11-12). These later life experiences reify and magnify their earlier molding experiences of disappointment, neglect, shame, and humiliation influenced by parents and other childhood defective role models. In adolescent or young adult life phases, antiheroes are often chosen to rebel against and counteract disappointment or humiliation/shame experiences with parental figures and home communities.
Hamas, ISIS, and Al Qaeda’s appeal has a potential unique “fit” for normal adolescent rebelliousness. Anna Freud said of adolescents, “On the one hand, they throw themselves enthusiastically into the life of the community, and on the other, they have an overpowering longing for solitude. They oscillate between blind submission to some self-chosen leader and defiant rebellion against any and every authority. They are selfish and materially minded and at the same time full of lofty idealism.” [Freud, A. Pp 137-138.) What would be normal adolescent rebellion and protest for some young people, becomes terrorist actions under Hamas, ISIS, and Al Qaeda’s tutelage. The Arab world’s turmoil creates many young adults who are in the phase of what psychoanalysts call “prolonged adolescence.”
In addition to enlisting well-educated youth as future leaders, radical Islamists like Osama also recruit poor and less-educated Muslim “foot soldiers” through religious Madrassah schools and some young-adult mosque programs and activities. Osama’s personal suffering, use of his and his father’s wealth to help fellow Muslims, his supposed bravery and heroism in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan, made his rebellious jihad appealing to disaffected Arab and Muslim youth. The Madrassah-type “schools” in Pakistan for example, offer economic advantages and spiritual inspiration to families and Muslim communities that have few alternatives. Even via TikTok, many thousands of American youths recently found Osama bin Laden’s treacherous and destructive “Letter to the World” bizarrely inspiring.
Osama bin Laden’s role as a terrorist leader allowed him to act out his unconscious inner narcissistic rage at his father, mother, siblings, rejecting homeland and Saudi Arabia’s oil customer/ally/friend America. In this sense, he became like most destructive cult leaders. Their deepest motives have to do with power, control, revenge, and overcoming a desperate fear of aloneness and meaninglessness. They gain a sense of power and mastery over their own childhood psychological deformities and feelings of insignificance by becoming overwhelmingly significant and powerful in the lives and destinies of their followers.
Apocalyptic Scenarios: Group-Self Death and Rebellious Martyrdom in Terror Cults
Rebellious charisma in a terror leader meshes with the followers’ masochism and narcissistic passive-receptiveness to his charismatic influence. The leader-follower patterns in terror cults like Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS are remarkably similar to what is seen in apocalyptic cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
The group death or martyr scenario gives the terror-cult group a special, exciting, and dramatically triumphant defining martyr myth. It becomes a source of “underdog” heroism, and paradoxical group cohesion and identity. For bin Laden, the motivating apocalyptic scenario was his assertion that all Muslims in the world are being threatened by the West, particularly by Americans and Jews. In a book bin Laden wrote in 1998, he called the faithful to a global jihad, a “new vision” that demands the deaths of all Americans and Jews, including children. To attain this cynical and religion-perverting vision, any violence is justified, from terrorist bombings to suicide missions.
Evil is defined initially by the leader bin Laden via fatwa, but gradually becomes co-authored within the group-self as their own group salvation death myth. The codependent leader holds the martyr death myth out to the followers as magical reward. The terror cult leader also holds the death myth over the heads of the followers to magnify the special domain of his “mana” power and self-importance. The leader is needed for the dramatic destructive action that is being planned, for which no one individual takes personal responsibility. The leader experiences the ultimate “celebrity” and fantasized triumph over his lifelong insecurity, hurts, and fear of aloneness.
The future generations of Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezb’allah’s terror cult franchises will not be eliminated by bullets, missiles, or “smart bombs.” The future foreign policies of America need to be informed about the social-self psychology of the terrorist group and its leaders’ spiritual-political power messages. Devastated communities, families, and wounded group-selves in war-torn nations continents away are ignored at our peril. Billions of military aid dollars given to Middle East “friends” may not be worth the enemy-accumulating consequences. “Nation-building” may be impossible, but we cannot just walk away from financially and spiritually devastated societies. Genuine foreign aid helps wounded world communities find ways to rebuild their own dignity and group self-confidence. Hopefully without the “help” and inspiration of malignant Pied Pipers like Osama bin Laden and their heirs. Our own American youth require the charisma and spiritual leadership and inspiration of our diverse founding father heroes who need to be read and studied and not torn down by spiritually empty professors.
Image: TherealMrGreer
Meet the Photojournalist for CNN and AP Who Went in With Hamas Nazis on October 7
What did they know? And when did they know it?
November 21, 2023 by Hugh Fitzgerald 4 Comments
|
There are many journalists, past and present, known for their anti-Israel animus. There was NBC’s Peter Jennings, who could always be counted on to suavely vilify the Jewish state. Few knew that his girlfriend for many years was the PLO propagandist Hanan Ashrawi. There is the long list of BBC journalists who report on Israel and the Palestinians, regarding the former with contumely and the latter with deep sympathy. These include John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen, Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin, and Yolande Knell. There is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who deeply resents the fact that the Israelis so rarely follow his advice, despite his clearly being the World’s Greatest Authority.
But now there is the case of Hassan Eslaiah, a photojournalist who is not only a Palestinian, but, It has now been revealed, is a supporter and admirer of Hamas Nazis who accompanied the murderers when they charged into Israel on October 7, and rampaged through the kibbutzim. He recorded with evident pleasure the atrocities the terror group’s operatives were committing. He watched as they butchered babies, burned children alive, tortured and raped young girls, slaughtered parents in front of their children, and children in front of their parents; he saw how Hamas members mutilated helpless Jews, gouging out their eyes, slicing off their breasts, cutting off their genitalia, both before and after death. He saw it all, and approved. And this was the man that two of the most important news sources in the world relied on as a photojournalist, to supply images they could use. Of course, he did not send them any photos of the worst atrocities he witnessed. Piles of bodies were the most he would allow himself, and Israeli tanks set on fire, but not beheaded babies or eyes gouged out, or naked girls who had been tortured and then raped to death.
More on Hassan Eslaiah can be found here: “Crossing the lines of integrity with a Hamas-praising photojournalist – analysis,” by Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, Jerusalem Post, November 11, 2023:
CNN hired a photojournalist who just three days before posted videos and photos of himself inside Israel during the Hamas massacre, including with an Israeli tank and a room of bloody, dead bodies.
Gaza photojournalist Hassan Eslaiah crossed into Israel on October 7 to document the Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Israelis. His photos from the scene appeared on several international news outlets, including The Associated Press, the Jerusalem-based watchdog HonestReporting has said.
The watchdog’s story sparked a series of questions and international outcry, ultimately leading to his being let go from the two institutions. [CNN and AP]
However, CNN said in a statement last week that their working relationship with the freelancer began after the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, on October 10. It also noted that despite its decision to stop working with Eslaiah, it did not have “any reason to doubt the journalistic accuracy of the work he has done for us,” as reported by Ynet and confirmed by The Jerusalem Post.
But “journalistic accuracy” from a photojournalist should mean not just whether a particular photo shows what the photographer claims it shows, but whether the entire event is being properly covered by the photos and videos that he chooses to share. Eslaiah was willing to send both AP, as of October 7, and CNN, as of October 10, photos of dead Israelis, including soldiers killed in Gaza, but not any photos that showed torture, mutilations, beheadings of Israelis on October 7. He was willing to supply AP with a photo of a burning tank, but not a baby found baked in an oven.
And from the afternoon of October 7 and for several weeks after he returned to Gaza, he of course was eager to supply photos of dead Palestinian children, the more blood-spattered and gruesome their appearance, the better. Limbs lost were even better. He took shots of tiny corpses, swaddled in white, cradled by mothers uncontrollably weeping. He also took pictures of schools, mosques, and apartment blocks after they had crumbled under Israeli attacks, but offered nothing to indicate that under those buildings there lay a vast network of terror tunnels. Photos, too, of disconsolate Palestinian young males, looking at the ruins of their neighborhoods have been part of his stock in trade. Hassan Eslaiah wanted to arouse sympathy for the Palestinians, and knew exactly how, using his camera as a weapon, to do it.
The Post confirmed that Eslaiah was not fired for his work on the 7th but for a separate but related concern.
It was unclear if CNN knew about Eslaiah’s posts on Telegram before offering him work….
If CNN and the AP had performed due diligence, they would have discovered Eslaiah’s enthusiasm for the “glorious morning” of October 7, when Hamas dealt the Zionists a great blow. One hopes that they simply failed to investigate Eslaiah before hiring him. The alternative — that these news agencies knew about his sympathy for Hamas, and even about his having accompanied the group’s operatives on their rampage through the kibbutzim, and didn’t care — is too painful to contemplate.
Eslaiah took a picture of himself smiling as he hugged Yahya Sinwar, as Sinwar kisses his cheek in a sign of humorful affection.
However, by scrolling through Eslaiah’s personal Telegram channel, the Post has found that Eslaiah posted much more than a tank on the 7th, including items that indicate that not only did he likely know about the planned massacre before it began at around 6:30 a.m., but that he supported the deaths of the innocent Israelis he watched being murdered.
Eslaiah’s first post on October 7 was at 5:59 a.m.: “We wake up to the great gifts of God,” he posted, according to a translation by ChatGPT. “The spirit has returned, and our blessings have increased.”
Within half an hour, he is posting about the rockets being launched at Israel and the sounds of the Iron Dome intercepting them over Khan Yunis. Then, between 6:55 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., he posts multiple variations: “To follow the latest news moment by moment, follow me on my media platforms.”…
At 9:25 a.m., the most gruesome of posts is revealed: a video with his watermark: “Filmed by Hassan Eslaiah” in the center, depicting a room full of dead, bloody bodies.
This particular video does not appear to have been published anywhere else. In the background, you hear a calm voice that sounds like his from other videos, and is spoken in his Arabic dialect, stating the following: “[Animal] carcasses, carcasses. God is great. This is the path to Jerusalem.”…
This was Hassan Eslalah, describing the Israeli corpses as “animal carcasses.” Then he allahu-akbars — “God Is Great” — and mentions the “path to Jerusalem” that apparently Hamas has now opened up. Al-Quds can now be taken back from the perfidious Jews, thanks to Hamas’ great deeds on this day.
Now that CNN and AP, both major news outlets, have revealed themselves to have failed at performing due diligence on Hassan Eslaiah, it is time for them, and for other news outlets, to thoroughly examine the social media presence both of those they are planning to hire, and those already working for them, in order to find out about their possible support for terrorists. Does this mean that employers, such as CNN and AP, should at regular intervals make a sweep of the social media posts both of their reporters and photojournalists, to determine how likely they are to be biased in their reporting?
Yes, I’m afraid it does.
HOW MANY BILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOLLARS HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THIS TERRORIST STATE?
Three-Fourths of Palestinians Support Hamas and Oct. 7 Terrorist Attack, 98% Have ‘Very Negative’ View of U.S.
CRAIG BANNISTER | NOVEMBER 20, 2023
·
·
Font Size
Three-fourths of Palestinians support the terrorist organization Hamas and its deadly attack on Israel last month, a “Wartime Poll” gauging the opinions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip reveal.
The survey was conducted October 31 to November 7 by Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD), after Israel declared war on Hamas in response to the October 7 terrorist attack, in which Hamas killed more than twelve hundred people, beheaded and incinerated babies, raped women and girls, and took hostages they still hold to this day.
Not only do three-fourths (75%) of Palestinians say they support the October 7 terrorist attack, but more than half (59.3%) say they strongly support the attack. “Strong support for the attacks was notably higher among Palestinians in the West Bank (68%) as compared to Gaza (47%),” AWRAD notes.
Three-fourths (76%) also say they have at least a somewhat positive view of the role of the terrorist organization Hamas, with half (48.2%) voicing a “very positive” view of Hamas.
In contrast, less than one percent (0.4%) have a positive view of the role of the U.S., while 97.6% have a “very negative” view of the U.S.
Palestinians are more than three times as likely to believe the Gaza conflict is primarily between “Israel and Palestinians in general” (63.6%) as they are to think the war is between just “Israel and Hamas” (18.6%).
Ninety percent (89.5%) attribute U.S. support for Israel in the confrontation with Palestine to “Hatred of Muslims and Islam.”
Palestinians are equally cynical regarding the prospects of coexisting with Israel, as nine in ten (89.5%) say their belief in that possibility has decreased. Likewise, two-thirds (68%) say their support for a two-state solution has waned.
“The vast majority of Palestinians hate America and support Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel. Remember that next time you see someone waving a Palestinian flag,” Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said in a social media post Monday, reacting to the survey’s results.
No comments:
Post a Comment