Sunday, January 5, 2020

THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR MUSLIM MURDERERS - "Under the Iran deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), some of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."

"Under the Iran deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), some of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."

Double Exposure: The Dems Coddling of Criminals and Iranian Terrorists

This week, the Democrats have been revealed as the party that exposes us to (1) criminal mayhem (often anti-Semitic) on the streets of New York and (2) terrorism everywhere as they consistently ignored it, indeed, paid off the perpetrators with pallets of airlifted unmarked bills and praised the worst of its perpetrators. The President has the magical power, it seems, to get idiots and criminals to expose themselves.
Mayhem on the Streets of NY  
Beginning on the first of this year, New York's “no bail no jail” law, enacted by the Democratic legislature and put into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo went into effect. The law allows those arrested for a large variety of crimes, including some that create serious consequences for others -- like third-degree assault, making terrorist threats, selling firearms to minors, money laundering to support terrorism and grand larceny -- to be released immediately on no bail. One assumes if they later refuse to appear for a court hearing they might well also be released on their own say-so. The new law provides that hindering prosecution, after all, is a no-bail crime.
It may be true that some low-level crimes for which poorer arrestees cannot afford bail, means they languish in jail until trial, but this law is so poorly crafted that it includes crimes for which bail is warranted no matter what the economic condition of the person arrested, for otherwise there is no penalty for immediately repeating the criminal acts. Criminals learn there are no consequences for their actions. Of course, it won’t much affect the rich, who glide about in chauffeured cars and live in gated communities or buildings guarded by doormen, but the middle class surely are impacted. Once, again these misguided efforts to coddle the underclass have the effect of remaking our cities and states on a feudal model where the rich are protected and serfs who work and pay taxes  are in constant danger from brigands and murderers.
Days before the law went formally into play, a series of horrific anti-Semitic attacks on Orthodox Jews began. (Many more such acts, including harassment on subways and streets, were filmed and appear online though not in the press.) 
As I understand it, the courts must release the defendant without any inquiry into the likelihood of the defendant’s fleeing the jurisdiction. “In theory, the bail system is meant to balance three competing objectives: (1) allow all but the most dangerous criminal defendants to go free before trial, (2) ensure that defendants appear at all required court proceedings, and (3) protect the public by preventing new crime.”
The consequences of this ill-conceived law were readily apparent. Seth Barron writes at City Journal:
In advance of January 1, when the new reforms officially come into effect, judges and prosecutors statewide have begun easing into the new regime by proactively letting remanded prisoners out of jail and by releasing newly arrested serious criminals on their own recognizance. For instance, on Friday, Tiffany Harris of Brooklyn slapped three Jewish women in the face, yelling anti-Semitic imprecations. She was arraigned on Saturday and released without bail; she was arrested for assaulting someone else on Sunday. On Saturday, Steven Haynes, a Brooklyn man lying on the sidewalk, attacked and pummeled a police officer who asked him to get up. Charged with a series of crimes, Haynes was released by a judge and was back on the street within a few hours. In Rockland County -- where the Hanukkah machete attack occurred -- Jorge Flores-Villalba, an unlicensed driver, killed a pedestrian on Christmas Eve and fled the scene. He was released without bail on Christmas Day.
Police and other critics of the hastily enacted and sloppy criminal-justice reforms have been warning New Yorkers for months that the scene is being set for mayhem. But neither Governor Andrew Cuomo -- who now promises to enact “domestic terrorism” legislation in response to the Monsey attacks -- nor the legislature have moved to fix the new bail laws. Mayor Bill de Blasio has introduced a plan to offer incentives like gift cards or baseball tickets to induce offenders to return to court. “In a world where we want speedier trials and we want the justice system to work, if small incentives are part of what actually makes it work, then that’s a smart policy,” said the mayor. The day after the Monsey attack -- perpetrated, like almost all the recent anti-Semitic violence in New York, by an African-American -- de Blasio blamed President Trump. This echoed his June comments that “the right-wing movement” represents “the violent threat” of contemporary anti-Semitism.
Mayor de Blasio expresses the defeatism and denial that has infected the state’s entire political class regarding public safety. Having accepted the bogus argument that minority communities are disproportionately policed and “criminalized,” our leaders have seemingly surrendered the will to protect the communities -- largely these same minority neighborhoods -- most ravaged by crime. The only option left is to pursue the debunked logic that policing is driven by implicit racial bias, and that crime is caused by inadequate funding of social programs. 
Should those who enacted this idiotic law pretend they were unaware of these consequences, or the media downplay the fact that a subset of blacks influenced by anti-Semites linked to Democrats commit most of these crimes, the record belies that defense.
Back in 1992, Obama’s friend Professor Skip Gates warned of the dangers of Black anti-Semitism,  Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright have been leaders in stirring this pot and yet no Democratic leader has called them on it. Indeed, most seek their endorsement and support. Linda Sarsour, the new anti-Semite on the block, is an ally of Mayor de Blasio. Obama named her one of his “Champions of Change.” Don’t look to the media to report honestly about this Democrats' tradeoff of black underclass votes for Jewish votes. Don’t expect leftists of any background to call them on it. 
People like Farrakhan are not “fringe figures,” they are key players in the Democratic effort to round up votes. As by online friend Alex Bensky writes:
He comes to Detroit every year or so and fills the arena with twenty thousand people, while local black leaders jostle for prominent seats. A black guy I know decided to see for himself a couple of summers ago when fifteen thousand filled an outdoor theater. He said the crowd was very enthusiastic, equally so when Farrakhan went into the Jew stuff, applauding and cheering as for anything else he said.

Both local gazettes limited themselves to observations at the end of their stories that Farrakhan has sometimes said things "that some people consider anti-Semitic." The local black weekly gives him extensive and admiring coverage and doesn't mention the Jew-hatred at all.

Imagine a comparable situation -- a caucus of Republicans in Congress has close and longstanding ties with an out and out racist who can command the presence of thousands wherever he goes. My guess is the media's coverage would have a different tone.
Even the media’s go-to namers of hate organizations, the money scamming Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) failed to acknowledge it either. They remain silent on the terror attacks against Jews.  Instead they list as hate groups such outfits as the David Horowitz Freedom Center and ACT for America.
Precision bombings in Iraq Expose the Democrats’ Love Affair with Iranian Terrorism
Precision bombing in Iraq killed the number-one terrorist in the world, far more dangerous to U.S. personnel and interests than Osama bin Laden was when he, a frail, isolated old man, was killed: Qassem Suleimani. 
“General Suleimani was the architect of nearly every significant operation by Iranian intelligence and military forces over the past two decades, and his death was a staggering blow for Iran at a time of sweeping geopolitical conflict.”
Also killed, according to Iran, were General Hussein Jaafari Naya, Colonel Shahroud Muzaffari Naya, Major Hadi Tarmi, and Captain Waheed Zamanian. Other reports include Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi paramilitary leader, who attacked American and Western embassies and was the founder of a group responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq.
And there were reports late Friday that Shibi al Zaydi, leader of the PMU (Popular Mobilization Units, Iranbacked militias) was confirmed dead after another U.S. air strike. Yet another strike eradicated six Shiite militia leaders near Baghdad.
The Democrats’ response had been laughable when not contradictory. Just as the impeachment effort exposed Joe Biden’s corruption, the attack on this sweeping retaliation against Iran and Iranian-backed terrorists exposes how closely the Democrats have been coordinating with the thugs in Iran.
Obama liked and aided Iran. A little history fromLee Smith:
The White House’s so-called nuclear talks with Iran over the last 18 months were never about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Like everyone else in the Middle East, the Iranians understood that when Obama failed to strike Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in September 2013 for crossing his redline against the use of chemical weapons, there was no way the president would ever order military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. When Obama took that option off the table, he signaled to Iran that he wasn’t going to stop them because he thought there was no way to do so. When he leaked information about the Stuxnet worm, he suggested that he could help with Israel, too.
The negotiations were about something else entirely -- they were about what Obama has described as a new geopolitical equilibrium, which would stabilize the Middle East and allow the administration to further minimize its role in the region. The way Obama described it publicly, this new security architecture was going to balance Iran against traditional American allies, like Saudi Arabia. However, it soon became apparent that the White House wasn’t really balancing at all, but had rather chosen one team over the others, Iran. Obama made his preference for Iran and its allies clear -- in Lebanon, Syria, and most obviously in Iraq where the White House ordered air strikes on ISIS positions that allowed various Iranian-backed outfits, under the leadership of Qassem Suleimani, to take Tikrit.
Obama liked Suleiman and praised him as an example to Arabs (ibid ):
The Arabs need to learn from Iran’s example. In fact, they need to take a page out of the playbook of the Qods Force  --  by which he meant developing their own local proxies capable of going toe-to-toe with Iran’s agents and defeating them. The president seemed to marvel at the fact that from Hezbollah to the Houthis to the Iraqi militias, Iran has such a deep bench of effective proxies willing to advance its interests. ​
He did this though the man was responsible for hundreds of deaths in Iraq. Muhandis was no slouch in the terror game either, a key player in the Iranian-backed militias and Hezb’allah operation in Lebanon.
Whether out of fondness for Suleiman or paralysis I can’t say, but it is reliably reported that Obama foiled Israeli’s own assassination plan earlier and “reached out to Iran with news of Israel’s plans.”
Daniel Greenfield credibly argues that with respect to the attacks on our consular facility in Benghazi and the latest embassy attack in Baghdad, "the Obama Administration's policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come home to roost" 
Melanie Phillips, a shrewd observer, predicts that these acts herald a new realignment in the Middle East. 
The killing of Soleimani may now encourage further destabilizing demonstrations, not just in Iran itself but also in Lebanon and Iraq whose people have also been mounting unprecedented protests against the Iranian militias and Shia clerics responsible for the fanatical religious oppression of the people. The hitherto unthinkable US killing of Soleimani may now spur all these people to redouble their efforts to bring the tyranny down. [snip]
President Jimmy Carter was paralysed by the 444-day Iran hostage crisis. President Clinton vacillated between sanctions against Iran and appeasement. 
Most infamously, President Obama did a deal with the regime which would have allowed it to develop nuclear weapons after at best a ten-year delay, and which opened the way for millions of dollars to be funnelled into Iran to finance its continuing terrorist attacks, regional aggression and genocidal agenda against Israel.
Faced with attacks on American assets, Carter ran away, Clinton prevaricated, Obama actually helped fund them – but Trump ruthlessly and decisively killed the attacker. America is now back as a force to be reckoned with. 
Consider as well that in these attacks no civilians were killed or injured; Iranian sovereignty was not violated and no American serviceman was wounded or killed. (Iran must be weighing how deeply spies have penetrated their forces, mustn’t they?)
To the Democrats’ bleats that they weren’t consulted (it would have been like sending alerts to the ayatollahs) they’ve searched through their Oughta be a Law books to complain that the attacks were not approved by Congress. I don’t recall this argument when Obama launched 2,800 strikes on Iraq and Syria. In any event, the Pentagon reports that in the real law book, the present airstrikes were authorized by 10 U.S. Code Sec. 127e as support of special operations to combat terrorism.
Fear of Reprisals by Iran are Overblown
History and present circumstances suggest the warnings about Iranian reactions are overblown. Iran’s forces are stretched deeply, its economy reeling under the Trump sanctions and domestic unrest grows every day.
At Frontpage, Kenneth Timmerman observes
We have two historical parallels to compare to Thursday’s events: Operation Praying Mantis in April 1988, when U.S. naval forces sank 1/3 of the Iranian navy in a matter of hours after repeatedly catching them dispersing naval mines against international oil tankers in the Persian Gulf; and the presumed Israeli assassination of Iranian-Lebanese terrorist Imad Mugniyeh in Damascus in February 2008.
In both cases, we were told Iran and their proxies were going to counter-attack with devastating lethality. Hundreds of Americans and Israelis were going to die. Thousands! The entire region was going to explode.
In the end what happened? Absolutely nothing.
That’s what I predict here as well.
The Iranians have been lulled into thinking they can act with impunity in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Finally, the United States has drawn a firm hard line on their bad behavior.
This is exactly what we needed to do.
I believe the Iranian people will draw the obvious conclusion that this once powerful regime has feet of clay. Expect bigger anti-regime protests inside Iran in the coming weeks, and popular revolts against Iranian interference in Lebanon and Iraq as well.
How Do I Know the Dems are Scared?
Because at the end of the week they rolled out their designated liar Susan Rice, who on Rachel Maddow’s show said that the Obama administration would have done the same thing had they had this kind of intelligence. Echoing Professor Margot Cleveland -- this obvious lie by a notorious liar reveals Obama’s poor choice of intelligence chiefs and “creates a dilemma for Dems who are blasting this action.”
Hocus Pocus -- once again Trump gets the Democrats to strip and expose their naked idiocy, hypocrisy, cupidity, and fecklessness.

“And then we have to get to work on the healing of our homeland, repairing the many social and cultural injuries and injustices caused by turbo-capitalism.”


"Under the Iran deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), some of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."


Obama Welcomed Terror Leader Behind Iraq Embassy Attack To White House

January 2, 2020 
Daniel Greenfield
Democrats and their media allies are spinning the attack on our embassy in Iraq as Trump's Benghazi. The reality is that it's still Obama's Benghazi.

As this Daily Mail story reminds us
Hadi al-Amiri was Iraq's minister of transport under then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and stood in the Oval Office as part of Maliki's delegation on a visit to the White House in December 2011.
On Tuesday, al-Amiri was among those leading the charge against the US embassy in Baghdad when it was stormed and set alight by pro-Iran militants. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared a photograph of Amiri amid the rioters, condemning him as an 'Iranian proxy,' and calling those shoulder-to-shoulder with him 'terrorists.'
The head of a leading pro-Iran Shia faction, Amiri exerts great power within Iraq's state-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and was highlighted by Pompeo among three other men as the ringleaders of the siege.
A former guerrilla fighter who fought for Tehran in the Iran-Iraq War, Amiri has been accused of terrorism against the US, of helping Iran to ship arms to Bashar al-Assad in Syria and has been pictured bowing before the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Not that Amiri was getting special treatment. The White House of the day had opened its doors to a legion of foreign and domestic Islamists. But it also highlights the degree of collusion between Obama and Iran.
But who helped build up this terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited from US foreign aid directed through Iraq's Interior Ministry.

Obama's Benghazi in Baghdad
How Obama's Iraq treason created ISIS and led to the attack on our embassy In Baghdad.
January 3, 2020 
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
When Shiite members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) attacked the American embassy in Baghdad, in a deliberate recreation of the attack on our embassy in Tehran that had ushered in a new age of Shiite terror, the media was quick to label it 'Trump's Benghazi'.
The parallels are certainly there.

In both Benghazi and Baghdad, Islamist terror militias who we thought were our allies turned on the United States. In both cases, there was nothing surprising or unexpected about this inevitable development to anyone except foreign policy experts and the media.
And, in both Benghazi and Baghdad, the Obama administration's policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come home to roost.
The Islamists who attacked the embassy were not Trump's allies, but Obama's allies.
When Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the Badr Brigade, the former military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, came to the White House, it was in 2011, not 2017.
The close IRGC ally was welcomed by Barack Obama, and played a role in the embassy attack. The IRGC, Iran's global terror hub, had been listed as a terror group by President Trump, a move resisted by Barack Obama dating back to his time in the Senate.
Once in the White House, Obama's policies so empowered and enabled the IRGC that in one of the most infamous incidents in American history, members of the Islamic terror group captured and humiliated American sailors. There is little doubt that the IRGC was the hidden hand behind the embassy attack in Baghdad through its PMF proxies.
The rise of ISIS and the attack on our embassy in Baghdad had their roots in Obama's backing for Iraq's Shiite dominated government in Baghdad. The Bush administration had tried to unite Sunni and Shiite Muslims into a political system that would sideline Al Qaeda on the Sunni side and Iran on the Shiite side. Iraqi civil society was probably always doomed, but Obama's Iraq policy was to turn the country over to the terrorists.
Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. His plan for a quick pullout was to allow Iran a free hand in Baghdad. Iraq's central government dominated by Shiite Islamists loyal to Iran allowed Islamic militias backed and trained by Iran to execute gays and impose Islamic law in the streets. The Sunni tribal leaders who had made the 'awakening' against Al Qaeda possible were ignored when they came to D.C. seeking support against Iran.
While the media went on touting Obama's incredible successes in Iraq, the country split into two terror camps. While the Popular Mobilization Forces rolled up Shiite areas, Al Qaeda in Iraq reinvented itself as ISIS.
Unlike President Trump, Obama chose not to hit ISIS hard. Instead, after Iraq's military collapsed, his administration's anti-ISIS strategy relied heavily on supporting the Shiite PMF militias which included embedded Iranian forces.
Obama had helped birth the Islamic State by backing Iran's takeover of Iraq. Forced to fight ISIS, he doubled down on the same strategy. And that completed the takeover.
The marginalization of the Kurds, whose attempts at creating an independent state were crushed by the Shiite regime in Baghdad, and the Sunnis, who had been caught between Iran and ISIS, ended military opposition to the Iranian takeover of Iraq.
But political protests against the Iranian puppet regime broke out, leading to violent clashes between protesters and PMF thugs, PMF attacks on Americans, American retaliation against PMFs, and the attack on the United States embassy by the PMFs.
Iran's takeover of Iraq, like its involvement in Yemen's civil war, in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, had been funded by the wages of Obama's nuclear sellout. The billions that the Obama administration had directly and indirectly handed to the terrorists of Tehran were used to fund soft and hard influence across the region.
The Iran deal didn't just mean that the terror regime was able to continue building up its nuclear program, but that it could increase its financial commitments to Hamas, help build up Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the PMFs in Iraq.
Iran had four things to offer its Shiite (and occasional Sunni fellow travelers ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda) Islamist allies. These were weapons, training, a global network, and money. Of these money was the most generic, but also the most important.
Islamic terrorism is only partly built on the suicidal fanatics willing to die for Allah. It's mostly built on amateur and professional killers who want to get paid.
Choke off the money and recruitment drops
Under Obama, billions in foreign currency were illegally flown into Iran on unmarked cargo planes, but Trump cut off the cash.
The cash crunch not only weakened Iran's regime, where fresh protests arose, but its terror networks, including in Iraq, began  facing their own cash shortages. And so Iran's rulers, their IRGC hidden hand, and their Islamist PMF proxies decided to send America and the protesters a message.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration had sanctioned the South Wealth Resources Company (SWRC), allegedly a key conduit for the IRGC's ability to smuggle weapons and money in and through Iraq.
The sanctioning of the IRGC itself had met with anger from the Badr Brigade and Hadi al-Amiri. The conflict escalated with Kataeb Hezbollah, a PMF, attacking Americans. The death of an American contractor in a Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack raised the stakes. President Trump struck back with airstrikes against Kataeb Hezbollah. And Kataeb Hezbollah attacked the embassy.
Kataeb Hezbollah is another project of the IRGC and is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was part of the attack on the embassy. Muhandis is the Deputy Commander of PMF who is linked to the 1983 truck bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait which, had it been better planned, could have destroyed the facility.
After the airstrikes, Al-Muhandis warned,  that “the response to the Americans will be harsh."
But who helped build up this terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited from US foreign aid directed through Iraq's Interior Ministry.
Even as Iraq's Interior Ministry was headed by a Badr leader trained by Iranian forces who had been arrested for smuggling explosives used to attack American soldiers, our foreign aid kept flowing through an Iraqi ministry run by terrorists.
The Obama administration was funding terrorists to fight terrorism. It was the same disastrous scenario that had led to the massacre in Benghazi.
The only difference was that the blowback took longer to arrive in Baghdad than it did in Benghazi.
Obama's foreign policy operatives and the media have blamed the embassy attack on Trump's pressure on Iran, rather than on Obama's appeasement of Iran.
This is a variation of the same cynical Obama administration strategy which manufactured a fake intelligence community consensus blaming Benghazi on a protest over a Mohammed YouTube video, instead of a coordinated transnational wave of Islamist attacks coordinated well ahead of time to coincide with September 11.
The Obama administration may be history, but the damage it did still revebrates through the region as the Islamist forces it unleashed continue to tear apart nations and to threaten American lives.


Obama Aide Ben Rhodes: Death of Iran’s Soleimani ‘A Really Frightening Moment’

Pete Souza / The White House via Getty
 2 Jan 20203,244
Ben Rhodes, the former national security aide to President Barack Obama who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, expressed concern on Thursday evening at news that the U.S. killed Iranian terror general Qassem Soleimani.
Soleimani led the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. In that capacity, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and directed Iran’s foreign military adventures, including terrorism. He was killed at the airport in Baghdad, Iraq, early Friday local time, after reportedly arriving in the country late last year to repress anti-Iranian protests. The attack came days after an Iranian-backed militia attacked the U.S. embassy.
The U.S. Department of Defense later confirmed that Soleimani had been killed at President Trump’s “direction.”
Rhodes took to Twitter to warn that the death of Soleimani was “a frightening moment” that could lead to war:

Agree - no question that Soleimani has a lot of blood on his hands. But this is a really frightening moment. Iran will respond and likely in various places. Thinking of all US personnel in the region right now. 

Rhodes also worried about congressional authorization for Trump’s decision — though he had expressed no such concern when President Obama led the U.S. into a controversial war against Mummer Ghadafi in Libya in 2011:

Trump may have just started a war with no congressional debate. I really hope the worst case scenario doesn’t happen but everything about this situation suggests serious escalation to come.

Congress has to assert itself and determine exactly what our Iran policy is. Did we mean to do this? Do we have any plan for what comes next? What is the legal basis for all this?

Rhodes then added that he was specifically worried about President Trump’s “strategy” and competence to lead:

There are real world consequences to having Trump as President. They are becoming increasingly clear and he is the one who is going to have to navigate incredibly complicated and dangerous messes of his own creation. This is not reality TV.

Iraq and Lebanon are just two of the places where we have to be very concerned about the potential Iranian response which could play out over time - not to mention Iran's nuclear program. Again, QS was as bad a guy as there was, but what is the strategy here?

What is the strategy? We have no explanation about what happens now and what we are trying to achieve in a very serious international crisis. 

Under the Iran deal, the Obama 

administration gave Iran access to $100-$150

billion in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 

billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), 

some of which is thought to have funded 

Soleimani’s activities.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

“So, unlike the Obama administration in 
Benghazi, which, again, refused to deploy — 
in fact, misled the American public about 
what happened — here, you have Trump, 
within hours, sending forces to Iraq, and 
now, taking out — possibly — the terror 
commander who organized [and] greenlit that
assault on the American embassy,” Klein 

Aaron Klein: Soleimani Was ‘Bin Laden of Shiite World,’ Killing Him Prevents Another Benghazi

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP, File
3 Jan 202010
Breitbart News Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein described the elimination of Qassem Soleimani, who he labeled the “Osama bin Laden of the Shiite world,” as President Donald Trump’s critical deterrence for Iran crossing the “red line” with Tuesday’s organized assault on the U.S. embassy in Iraq.
Klein said Iran-backed militias could not have carried out the embassy attack without Iran’s permission. He offered his remarks on Friday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.
“Soleimani was basically the Osama bin Laden of the Shiite world,” remarked Klein. “Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, and Soleimani was the commander of that state-sponsor of terror. Today, the [elimination] of General Qassem Soleimani really should be celebrated as … a watershed moment in the war of terror, and [as a] really a great victory for freedom.”
Klein opined, “Iran has been getting away for years now, and unfortunately even in the last few months, with carrying out significant strikes, terror attacks, and actually using their proxies at times to attack America and to attack our allies. Because they believed they were getting away with it, I believe you saw the escalation [of conflict] 48 hours ago at the U.S. embassy in Iraq.”
Soleimani likely directed Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq, estimated Klein. “Make no mistake about it, there is absolutely no way, I believe, that Iran-backed militias could possibly have laid siege to the American embassy in Iraq without a green light [and] without operational instructions from Iran.”
“I think what you’re seeing today with this targeted elimination of Qassem Soleimani was a direct response to the attack on our American embassy and a response to numerous other attacks in which many Americans were killed, and many of our allies were targeted by this terrorism grandmaster,” added Klein.
Klein continued, “The elimination of Soleimani was maybe the biggest foreign policy decision that Trump has made so far. Maybe number one is getting out of the JCPOA. This is a watershed moment.”
Soleimani directed Iran’s foreign terrorist operations for 20 years, noted Klein, including proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
“The Iranians have to be very nervous right now after this killing because they understand that Trump did something that Obama never would, and I think that the Iranians have been put on notice,” assessed Klein.
Klein stated, “I can’t imagine, after attacking our American embassy in Iraq — and again, that’s basically what [Iran] did — what would they do next if they got away with that? The media’s spinning this like, ‘Oh, America eliminated Soleimani. That’s a major red line.’  No, a major red line is attacking our embassy in Iraq. That’s a major red line.”
“This was not a protest,” said Klein of assorted news media’s description of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. “This was an organized assault on our American embassy in Iraq. Massive. What would Iran possibly do next if they already got away with breaching the gate of the American embassy?”
Klein went on, “I think the only reason they didn’t get further is because the embassy was fortified. They couldn’t, although unfortunately American diplomats were holed up in a safe room, which reminds me also of the original Benghazi attack.”
“So, unlike the Obama administration in 
Benghazi, which, again, refused to deploy — 
in fact, misled the American public about 
what happened — here, you have Trump, 
within hours, sending forces to Iraq, and 
now, taking out — possibly — the terror 
commander who organized [and] greenlit that
assault on the American embassy,” Klein said.
“So if we did do something like eliminate this terror commander — this Osama bin Laden of the Shiite world — after our American embassy was attacked, again, what greater red line could you have had that Iran crossed?” asked Klein.
The elimination of Soleimani amounts to a message of deterrence against further Iranian belligerence, estimated Klein.
Klein concluded, “Then Iran would have understood they can get away with anything. Now they know they can’t. Now they know that America, under Trump, is not the America that they experienced for eight years under the Obama administration, and I think they got that message today.”
Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Barack Obama’s plot for a third term for life 
A Muslim dictatorship like his crony paymasters, the 9-11 invading Saudis who have financed him for decades.

“Obama has the totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”
What was Obama’s motive? Simple, he knew if he did that for Hillary, he’d own the next President of the United States, and could blackmail her with the truth till the end of time. It literally would have given him a 3rd and 4th term.
How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.

The Democrats are now officially the party of Jew-hatred. This is largely due to the disastrous presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. PAMELA GELLER
Abunimah’s piece -- and Obama’s numerous anti-Semitic associations -- got little attention. Throughout his life Barack Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others.  PAMELA GELLER

OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
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.”


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.

“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM


The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama

Listen to the Article!

By Allen West | October 7, 2019 | 10:43 AM EDT

Yes, you read the title of this missive correctly.
As a career military officer, we never believed that you win on defense. During the constant, incessant, and insidious attacks on President Trump, I believe there should be a full-fledged attack to evidence the abject, utter hypocrisy of the progressive socialist left. If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.
If in this current frenzy by the left and their media accomplices about Ukraine, the issue is about national security, I can counter that.
Early in 2009, Barack Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. I have no issue with his wanting to have an outreach. But we should all agree that Obama’s requesting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be in attendance, front and center, was ill advised. All one need to do is understand the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern-day Islamic jihadism.
This is the terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Anyone can read the Muslim Brotherhood’s website and realize what their goals and objectives are, and they are not consistent with those of the United States. Yet, Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President, Mohammed Morsi, as he undermined the office of Hosni Mubarak. Sure, Mubarak was not the best, but he was not supportive of Islamic jihadism.
When Morsi won the election, quite questionably, it was Barack Obama who congratulated him and offered US support, to include military aid…to a Muslim Brotherhood backed president. The people of Egypt were indignant, and in the end, revolted against Morsi and overthrew him for a new President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Barack Obama condemned Egypt and its so-called coup, threatening to cut off any US aid…which he was willing to supply to a Muslim Brotherhood backed government.
Second point, Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi. There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi. Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists?
In the aftermath, the Obama administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists. And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi. Amazingly enough a US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was brutally murdered and paraded in the streets, along with Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty during an Islamic terrorist attack. But where was our support to those brave men who fought off the attacks? Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US history, and was never held accountable and responsible? This was not about some anti-Islam video, which was the Obama talking point. And sadly, those four Americans who lost their lives, Barack Obama did not even send a US military aircraft to retrieve their remains.
Third point in the case for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, the off-mike comment by Obama to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Yes, remember when Obama whispered, “tell Vladmir that after my reelection I will have more flexibility”. It was 2012 and no one dared ask of President Obama, that is from the left, what was meant by flexibility? Here was a sitting US President making overt guarantees to Russia. Funny thing, when Obama was in office Russia was not this enemy, dark specter, matter of fact, the Obama administration offered a “reset button” to Russia. Recall in the final presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney how Obama chastised and ridiculed Romney on his assertion that Russia was our number one geopolitical threat? Obama said to Romney that the 80s was calling for their foreign policy back, now the progressive socialist left runs around screaming Russia, Russia, Russia ad nauseum.
When Russia was overrunning Ukraine, and Ukraine asked the Obama administration for support, Obama sent socks and MREs. President Trump has sent A-10s and increased military support to include increased military to military training and cooperation in the Baltic States and Poland. And somehow, we are being told by Nancy Pelosi that we must impeach President Trump for threatening national security and our foreign policy?
Lastly, Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Why then did Barack Obama sent pallets of laundered cash in a blacked out unmarked plane to Iran? And no, it had nothing to do with past weapons deals, those deals, agreements, had been made with the Iranian Republic when the Shah of Iran was the leader. When the Shah was deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, that agreement was null and void. Several US Presidents, Republican and Democrat, had not sent cash to Iran, until Obama. That was, and is, a violation of US Code, Statute, in aiding and abetting the enemy, which Iran used the funds to advance its terrorist support, especially to its proxy army, Hezbollah.
As well, why was it that Obama did not bring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear agreement, before the US Senate as a treaty for ratification? Instead he made it a unilateral executive decision, which is in violation of our US Constitution. There was nothing said about impeaching Obama, but I am saying it now.
I am tired of Republicans playing right into the traps, games, of the progressive socialist left, instead of putting them on defense. I would love to have someone, anyone, ask of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Rashida Tlaib, who wants to use US Marshals to remove Trump administration officials from office, to answer these points I have presented.
The progressive socialist left is mad that they lost the 2016 presidential election. They realize that, as Rep. Al Green said, they will probably not be able to defeat President Trump at the ballot box, unless they use tricks like ballot harvesting. So, what it their only recourse, the Banana Republic, kangaroo court tactics of using impeachment as a political weapon...this is nothing more than an unsophisticated coup.
The case for impeaching Barack Obama was easy, yet the left and their propagandized media dismissed it. Let’s stop allowing the progressive socialist left to dominate the narrative, it is time to put them on defense.
(Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center, supporting its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias. Mr. West also writes daily commentary on his personal website

Pollak: Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack Obama’s

Johannes Eisele / AFP Getty
12 Jul 20193

Everything former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.

In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech. He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville, Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people” hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump specifically condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more “flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru, though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit for Trump’s success in crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked with Obama “to craft the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately defeated ISIS.” In fact, Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was Obama’s point man on Iraq when the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country, leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled. He did not object when Obama called the terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms of solutions to current foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran nuclear deal had been a success — on the very day Iran was reportedto have been cheating all along. He said the U.S. should re-enter the deal once Iran did, offering no idea how to ensure that it did so. On North Korea, Biden promised he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever that means.
He said that he would get “tough” with China, which Trump is already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he would not do). And on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats have on foreign policy.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.



September 9, 2018

See if you can spot the Republican racial nationalism in these pictures.

In his Trump-bashing speech, Barack Hussein Obama accused Republicans of an "appeal to racial nationalism that’s barely veiled". I don't see a whole lot of veils up there.


Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor

Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, managed to snag a front-row seat at Aretha Franklin’s funeral on Friday.
A live broadcast of the Queen of Soul’s funeral shows Farrakhan seated in the same row with Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bill Clinton.

On stage in front at Aretha Franklin’s funeral are Min. Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and former president Bill Clinton … #ArethaHomegoing
Farrakhan is a black nationalist who has called for an end to white men and repeatedly gone on angry rants against Jewish people. (RELATED: Seven Louis Farrakhan Quotes On Jews, Gays, And White People) 
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people. You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again,” Farrakhan said in 2011.

In 2015, he asserted, “White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it.” (RELATED: Louis Farrakhan Issues A Sunday Call For An End To White Men)

"But the Obamas are the center of the most delusional cult of personality that the media has yet spawned. And so we get bizarre pieces like these."

The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for some sort of legacy.  MONICA SHOWALTER



“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM

"But the Obamas are the center of the most delusional cult of personality that the media has yet spawned. And so we get bizarre pieces like these." MONICA SHOWALTER

"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY

OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
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.”


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.

Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack, defeated it.  

The Ground Zero Mosque Project Is Back

The news was buried under two dense paragraphs and five large photos in an article in New York YIMBY about a different project: "Construction has also yet to begin on 51 Park Place, which is slated to become a 71-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot Islamic cultural center."  The infamous Ground Zero Mosque project, a long-buried effort to build a triumphal mosque at the site of the worst jihad terror attack in American history, is back.
Construction has yet to begin, but it will: the shady developer behind the Ground Zero Mosque scheme, Sharif El-Gamal, has been working to build this sinister structure for years.
We defeated the Ground Zero Mosque project once before.  The 16-story mosque that El-Gamal initially planned to build there has not been built.  Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack, defeated it.  Tens of thousands of people came out for our rallies in lower Manhattan against this celebration of this 9/11 attacks, and El-Gamal was beaten in the court of public opinion.
It was a long battle.  President Obama announced his support for the mosque at an Iftar dinner, no less.  Then-mayor of New York City and current presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque as well, claiming hysterically that "if we don't build it, the terrorists will win!"  The media actively campaigned for it — the elites in their increasingly fragile ivory towers relentlessly stumped for the Cordoba mosque (euphemistically called an Islamic center with a prayer space) for years.
And yet despite all this opposition and much more, the people stood up and fought the Ground Zero Mosque and won.  An army of Davids.
But that wasn't the end of the story.  Crains New York reported on El-Gamal's new project in 2015 in a story that demonstrated how the developer was hoping to sneak his triumphal mosque into existence: "Mr. El-Gamal's Soho Properties has proposed a 667-foot condominium tower at lower Manhattan's 45 Park Place.  The glass skyscraper, which has yet to break ground, will include at least 15 full-floor units of 3,200 to 3,700 square feet, and average prices higher than $3,000 a square foot, according to plans released to Bloomberg by the developer."
That sounded normal enough.  But then the article added: "Adjacent to the tower, Soho Properties will build a public plaza connected to a three-story Islamic museum and prayer space."  An Islamic prayer space is a mosque.  The article also said: "An Islamic museum 'is just as much of an insult,' Pamela Geller, a blogger and one of the center's most vocal opponents, wrote in an email.  'It will be like having a museum touting the glories of the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor.'"
I think an Islamic museum at Ground Zero dedicated to the half-billion victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, sharia, cultural annihilations, enslavements, and sharia enforcement is an excellent idea, but is that what Sharif El-Gamal had in mind?  Of course not.  And how did El-Gamal plan to finance this?  The answer was predictable.  The New York Post reported in May 2016 that "the developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down 'Sharia-compliant financing' for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said."
Then in May 2017, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Condo Tower to Rise Where Muslim Community Center Was Proposed."  The Times said that "45 Park Place, a 43-story condominium that will soon rise three blocks from the World Trade Center," was "something of a consolation prize for the developer," as it "replaces the developer's 2010 plan to build a 15-story Islamic mosque and cultural center on this site, an idea that erupted into a national controversy and cable news network bonanza."
In the last couple of years, there has been virtually no news about this "Islamic museum."  But the New York YIMBY story shows that the project has been advancing under cover of darkness.  A 71-foot-tall structure is three stories high, as in the revised plans announced in 2015.
El-Gamal has many friends and allies among New York City's political and media elites.  It is likely that de Blasio city officials and the New York Times and other city papers all met with El-Gamal and agreed to keep the reporting on this project to an absolute minimum, so that it could get built without incurring the righteous anger of the public again.  The first time around, they courted publicity and tried to make El-Gamal a hero.  We demolished that and destroyed their plans.  So now they've clearly decided to go ahead surreptitiously. 
It is disgusting that El-Gamal continues to taunt Americans and poke at America's most egregious recent memory.  El-Gamal was there when we had tens of thousands in the streets opposing his Ground Zero mosque.  He knows how angry and upset people get at these Islamic structures on the site of jihad war.  The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no fewer than 90 times in their last letters.  Will those letters be on display at this Islamic cultural center/museum?
There is an important lesson to be learned here — and one we would be wise to adopt.  They never stop.  No matter how absolutely they lose, how many setbacks they suffer, they keep on pursuing their supremacist goals.
The Ground Zero Mosque project was and is a middle finger to the American people.  There has never been a mosque of reconciliation and healing built on the site of a jihadi attack.  Ever.  It is, on the other hand, an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands.  History is riddled with triumphal mosques built on the sites of jihad attacks or appropriated from other religions: the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and innumerable mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples that were demolished by Muslims all attest to that.
And now it looks as if Sharif El-Gamal is going to be able to build his own triumphal mosque at Ground Zero after all.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report, and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.  Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

The Left Lines Up With the Terrorists


Britain's voters rejected soundly the Labor Party, whose former leader Jeremy Corbyn has called Hamas and Hezb'allah terrorists "his friends" and for whom Hamas expressed reciprocal support.  Americans must similarly ostracize and marginalize politicians, organizations, and religious institutions that give tacit support to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezb'allah, and other terrorist organizations.
There is a huge legal difference (no criminal liability versus up to 15 years in prison), but little moral difference, between giving material support to terrorists and seeking to damage Israel's economy through boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS).  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed Jeremy Corbyn, supports BDS, as do Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and 14 other House Democrats.  So does Jewish Voice for Peace, which I call "Jews for Jihad."
The Presbyterian Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and American Friends Service Committee also deserve to be ostracized, shunned, and boycotted for supporting BDS and therefore (indirectly) Palestinian abuse of not only Jews, but also Arab Christians, women, and LGBT people.  If you want to show proper respect for these organizations, as well as the United Nations, please donate to the One Israel Fund; I did.
Rewarding Terrorism
It is very easy to reward terrorism without providing material or even verbal support for terroristic violence.  Ongoing support for a two-state solution assures the terrorists that there are no long-term consequences, such as permanent loss of their aspirations for independence or even autonomy, regardless of how many treaties they break, how many pizza parlors and Seders they bomb, how many little girls whose heads they bash in with rifle butts, how many Jewish families they cut up with knives, how many rockets they launch at Israel, and how many wildfires they start with incendiary balloons while they talk openly about destroying Israel.  (Noting how wildfires release carbon dioxide while destroying carbon sinks, maybe Greta Thunberg should tell Hamas, "How dare you?")  They have also, like the Nazis, spoken openly about how they want to exterminate all the Jews and rule the world.
Jews might be first on their list, but Sultan Erdoğan has made it clear that Christians and peaceful Muslims are next.  "[T]he borders of Turkey span 'from Vienna to the shores of the Adriatic Sea.'"  (How did that work out for the Turks in 1683?)  The Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers, meanwhile, talks about becoming "masters of the world" and "ruling of the world by an Islamic leadership."  Didn't we hear rhetoric (in German) along those lines back in the 1930s?
Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has nonetheless expressed her willingness to pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution, and J Street also supports a two-state solution.  While Bernie Sanders has condemned BDS and anti-Semitism, he also wants to re-legitimize the United Nations Human Rights Council despite its infestation by totalitarian nations like China, Egypt, and Cuba.  Sanders also calls Israeli settlements illegal.  The Democrat-controlled House voted to reward terrorism by continuing to support a two-state solution.
What Would Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris Do?
The Israeli town of Sderot is so close to the terrorists that its residents have only fifteen seconds to reach a bomb shelter before terrorist rockets arrive.  British civilians in London usually had, in contrast, adequate time to take shelter from Nazi bombs; cruise missiles; and, to a lesser degree, supersonic but radar-detectable ballistic missiles.  The Royal Air Force's response was to turn Dresden and Hamburg into crematoria, and Winston Churchill apparently intended to drop a nuclear bomb on Berlin.  The Nazis fired a total of 3,172 V2 rockets at all Allied targets during the war; the Palestinians have fired more than 20,000 rockets at Israel.
I can see no reason other than pressure from the United Nations, European Union, and pre-Trump United States as to why Israel has not similarly applied Admiral John Fisher's advice to every single rocket launcher, terrorist, and other military target in Gaza: "The essence of war is violence.  Moderation in war is imbecility."  The political and religious Left, on the other hand, continue to reassure the terrorists that they will suffer no meaningful consequences for exactly the same behavior that caused the United Kingdom to go dracarys on every German city within reach of the RAF.
President Trump Slashes Material Support for Terrorists
Thirty-four Democratic senators including Elizabeth Warren, and also Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), signed a letter opposing President Trump's decision to cut $200 million in aid to the Palestinians and another $300 million to UNRWA, which has been complicit in promoting violent hatred of Israel.  The Palestinians' "pay to slay" program provides financial assistance to terrorists and their families.  Money given to the Palestinians, and probably UNRWA, is therefore fungible with material support for terrorists.  "Fungible" means that the Palestinian government can use the aid money to feed its people while diverting its own resources to buy weapons, pay terrorists, and indoctrinate Palestinian children to hate Jews and others, much as the Hitlerjugend indoctrinated German children, "products of the worst educational crime in the history of the world."  (Yes, Dr. Seuss wrote "Your Job in Germany.")  The Palestinian Hitlerjugend includes Tomorrow's Pioneers, "a cheaply-produced children's television program  in which young children are brought onto a pastel-colored set and taught the wonders of killing the inhabitants of Israel."  The show even says openly, "We will annihilate the Jews."  I don't speak Arabic, but I did recognize "Yahud" in that sentence.
Norway has cut funding for violent indoctrination, but most Senate Democrats seem comfortable with giving the Palestinians U.S. taxpayer money regardless of its fungibility with hatred and violence.
Leftists Accuse Trump of Anti-Semitism for Fighting Anti-Semitism
The Simon Wiesenthal Center "Commends President Trump's Executive Order on Anti-Semitism," which will penalize on-campus anti-Semitism.  Progressive Jews, however, denounce Trump's order as defining Jews as a separate nationality (it doesn't), while one critic complained that Trump's action is "an obvious attempt to kill the BDS 'Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions' movement on college campuses," as if that were somehow a Bad Thing.  The Left has gone even farther by arguing that Trump's executive order somehow violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment says only that BDS-supporters cannot be prosecuted criminally for, as an example, telling Jews to "go back to the ovens."  It does not entitle these people, or organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine or many Muslim Student Associations, to financial support via publicly funded universities, or entry visas for the international students involved.  If terrorist sympathizers want to advocate BDS and praise the Holocaust, they are free to do it without either taxpayer-funded university support or fear of criminal prosecution, just as racist white nationalists can call black people the N-word without fear of prosecution — and without taxpayer support.
Michigan Democrats are meanwhile about to elect a governor who supports BDS and a lieutenant governor who openly supports Hamas.  "Hamas is a legitimately elected party that only rose to power b/c of Israeli aggression & Western complicity/enablement."  The Palestinians therefore proved themselves as unfit to govern themselves as the Germans who legitimately elected the Nazis in 1932.  The fact that Michigan voters, including those who elected Rashida Tlaib, are supporting this pair is another strong argument for Keeping America Great in 2020.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of an American Thinker contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.

President Trump Again Does the Right Thing for the Jewish People


I was honored to be present at the White House on the day President Trump signed an Executive Order protecting Jewish students from the harassment, bullying, and intimidation on American campuses coming primarily from Islamic student associations and leftwing professors and groups.
This harassment of Jewish students has been going on since the beginning of the Obama administration, and for all their supposed good intentions, the Obama presidency and the House under Nancy Pelosi never signed or passed an order or legislation to protect Jewish students on campus who are being uniquely targeted.  Obama’s and Pelosi’s failure to stop this had resulted in an escalation and growing ferocity each succeeding academic year.  I and some other Jewish leaders have spoken out and written about this calamity for years.
President Trump’s Executive Order does not attack free speech. 
YouTube screen grab
Those who as a profession dislike Israel, and those who dislike Jews and use criticism of Israel to demonize Jews and Zionism remain free to spew forth their bias. What is now prohibited is the following: any speech that has as its goal the incendiary purpose of hostile and discriminatory actions against Jewish students.  It is obvious that many of the Islamic and leftwing speakers on campus are fiercely prodding the audience to ostracize Jewish students from campus activities and clubs and to bully and physically and verbally intimidate Jewish students and invade their privacy by harassing them even in dormitories.   The Islamic and leftwing groups scream and pound on locked doors where Jewish students congregate. 
While the ACLU and other groups will go to court against the implementation of the Executive Order, there is no question that if a similar Executive Order were issued to protect black students or LGBTQIA students this would be heralded as a gesture against corrosive hate speech and a plea for tolerance and inclusivity.
There are some Never-Trumpers in the Jewish community who have condemned this Executive Order as anti-Semitic.  These are the same people who condemned President Trump when moving our Embassy to Jerusalem as somehow anti-Israel. In their hatred for our President, they twist pro-Israel and pro-Jewish actions by Mr. Trump as anti-Jewish; yet they saw in former President Obama’s capitulation and giveaways to Iran something “pro-Israel”.  Either their hate blinds them to common sense or their partisanship eases them into making lies for the sake of their political goals.  No one should listen to them.
Groups such as J Street have come out against the Executive Order. It is obvious that J Street wishes the continuance on campus of unfettered anti-Israel pronouncements, calling Israel the worst names possible.  Though criticism of Israel will certainly be allowed to continue, the Executive Order withholds federal funds when speakers advocate for the elimination of Israel or speak of it as an illegitimate state.
No one’s speech is outlawed; but federal funding will not be provided if speech is used to incite against and ostracize Jewish students or defame the very existence of the State of Israel.  Federal funding should have long ago been halted to colleges whose deans and boards, in un-American fashion, continue to promote anti-Jewish campus Islamic groups and continue to hire leftwing professors known precisely for their work toward eliminating the Jewish State.
The Executive Order expands the definitions in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination based not only on race and color but also on ethnicity and nationality.  By expanding these contours, aggressive Muslim and leftwing students will no longer be able to weasel out of their violence and guilt by claiming they are not against the Jewish religion.  If they attack Jews for being Jews, they are attacking them as a people and members of a nationality.  This, according to the President’s Order, is no longer tolerated on campuses wishing to receive federal funds.
Some leftwing Jewish detractors of the President hysterically condemned the President for expanding the definition of Jewishness beyond religion to include nationality.  They are ignorant. Since it began, beyond being a religion, Jews were part of a people.  They were called “The Jewish People.” The Bible, the Torah itself, refers to them as Am Yisrael, which means “the nation of Israel.”  These same liberal Jews were against the recent legislation passed by the Knesset in Israel which labeled Israel a Jewish state and nation.
Our gratitude goes out to President Trump, who has been, without doubt, the greatest friend Israel and the Jewish people have ever had among our presidents and among world leaders.  Those whose partisanship and hatred have blinded them should no longer be viewed as worthwhile or serious participants in our national conversation.  Their toxicity should be contained to themselves.  Let the nation be spared.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero is spokesman for the Conference of Jewish Affairs, president of Caucus For America, author of Push Back, and a frequent guest on Fox News.


"Under the Iran deal, the Obama administration gave Iran access to $100-$150 billion in frozen assets, as well as nearly $2 billion in cash (delivered by cargo plane), some of which is thought to have funded Soleimani’s activities."

No comments: