America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Monday, June 26, 2023
THE PRO-MUSLIM, ANTI-SEMITIC GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY OF GEORGE SOROS, BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN
The Unhinging of America
Twice as Many Israelis Died in One Month of Biden than in One Year of Trump
The numbers show that the secret to peace is to stop funding terrorists.
Each year that Trump was in office, fewer people in Israel were killed by terrorists while every year that Biden has been in office, the number of people killed by terrorists has increased.
2023 looks on track to be the deadliest year in Israel since 2015, under Obama, and the bloodshed is an eightfold increase in Israeli deaths since Trump’s last year in office.
The Biden administration restored Obama’s old policies and doubled down on them. And the death toll in Israel looks the way that it did under Obama. Under Biden, Israelis are dying at similar rates to the way that they did under Obama, but not at all as they did under Trump.
The foreign policy establishment claims that the Trump administration’s foreign policy toward Israel was a failure. And yet during Trump’s last year in office, when all the pro-Israel policies had been implemented, the fewest Israelis were killed in at least a generation.
In one of the least reported events in the region, the violence had all but ended with only three Israeli deaths in 2020. By contrast under Biden, 7 Israelis were killed in just January 2023.
Twice as many Israelis died in one month of Biden than in one year of Trump.
What was the secret to peace that had eluded every previous administration? Simple. The Trump administration stopped funding terrorists. And the terrorists stopped killing people.
This is not speculation. All anyone has to do is look at the death toll year by year.
The killings in Israel mostly held steady from Obama’s final year in office to Trump’s first year in office, but fell 18% in 2018 as the Trump administration began to pull away from the old failed policies of the Democrats and the Bush Republicans.
That was also the year that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson and a Republican congress cut foreign aid to the PLO terrorists and the effects were obvious.
In 2018, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act: named after an Iraq War veteran studying in Israel who was stabbed to death by a terrorist in Jerusalem. The Taylor Force Act cut off a good deal of foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority which limited its ability to fund terrorist attacks.
In 2019, President Trump went even further with a nearly total cutoff of aid to the Palestinian Authority. And the number of terror victims in Israel declined by nearly a quarter.
Not only Israeli deaths were sharply reduced, but casualties among the ‘Palestinian’ terrorists and their human shields fell by more than half from 2018 to 2019.
In 2020, the first year that the cutoff was truly felt, only 3 Israelis were killed.
And only 30 casualties were experienced by the terrorists and their populations.
The Trump and congressional Republican cuts to foreign aid to the PLO terrorists and their political entity had sharply reduced the violence and saved lives on both sides.
Fewer Israelis and Arab Muslims living under Palestinian Authority rule were killed in 2020 than at any time since Obama took office. It wasn’t peace, but it was the closest thing to it.
What should have become a model for moving forward was instead ridiculed and discarded.
When Biden took office, he violated the Taylor Force Act and massively ramped up foreign aid and political support for the terrorists occupying parts of the West Bank and Gaza. And the number of deaths shot up from 3 to 17. Since then deaths from terrorist attacks have increased every year under Biden: nearly doubling by some accounts from 2021 to 2022.
As many Israelis were killed in the first two months of 2023 as in all of 2018. By April, as many Israelis had been killed as in all of 2017: the deadliest year under the Trump administration. As of now, more Israelis have been killed in 2023 than in all of 2018 and 2019 combined.
These numbers show what happens when you fund terrorists and when you stop funding them.
Beyond the raw casualty figures, the number of significant terrorist attacks increased 59% from 2021 to 2022. The number of shooting attacks shot up fourfold by over 200% (while stabbing attacks declined) indicating terrorists who were better armed and prepared.
But even as the bodies piled up, the Biden administration has doubled down on death.
In 2022, Biden met with PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas and boasted that, “when I came to office, I reserved the policy — I reversed the policies of my predecessor and resumed aid to the Palestinians — more than a half a billion dollars in 2021.” And promised over $300 billion more.
Money is the engine behind the violence and the Biden administration is providing the cash.
The PLO’s ‘Pay-to-Slay’ or ‘Martyrs Fund’ program rewards terrorists, regardless of their formal affiliation, including ISIS and Hamas members, with salaries and payments for their families.
Terrorists are paid based on the length of their prison sentence. That means successful killers can earn $2,000 to $3,000 a month in a part of the world where the average salary is around $700 a month. It’s five times more profitable to be a terrorist than a teacher.
“We will neither reduce nor prevent [payment] of allowances to the families of martyrs, prisoners and released prisoners, as some seek, and if we had only a single penny left, we would pay it to families of the martyrs and prisoners,” PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas had insisted.
“You sent a report to Congress that officially certified that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO… have not met the legal requirements for ‘terminating payments for acts of terrorism against Israeli and US citizens,’” Senator Ted Cruz challenged a State Department official.
“They are paying for terrorists to murder Americans and to murder Israelis. And nonetheless, this administration is bringing those terrorist leaders to Washington, is bringing them to cocktail parties to wine and dine political leaders.”
“We are working to bring pay-to-slay to an end,” Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf insisted.
The way to end pay-to-slay is to stop sending money to terrorists. Any foreign aid sent into areas controlled by terrorists, whether in Afghanistan or the West Bank or Gaza, finances terrorism. And if you doubt that, just count the money and then count the bodies.
The Trump administration proved that cutting off money to the terrorists ends the violence and the Biden administration demonstrated that restoring the money also brings back the violence.
Peace in the Middle East is not a dream. Just stop funding terrorists and it can be a reality.
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
Sen. Ted Cruz points out Biden admin is now officially boycotting Israel
This dramatic and important policy change almost slipped by unnoticed (for now), but you can bet Israel’s mortal enemies, the ones who want to drive the Jews into the sea, have noticed and are saving this concession for use when most impactful. But Senator Ted Cruz noticed, and Sunday issued a press release condemning the Biden administration officially boycotting cooperation with Israeli scientific and technical personnel living in Judea and Samaria.
Judea and Samaria in red
The press release reads:
PUBLISHED:06.25.2023
SEN. CRUZ CONDEMNS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ANTISEMITIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ISRAEL
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following statement after the Biden administration instated a boycott against scientific and technological cooperation with Jews living in Judea and Samaria.
Sen. Cruz said,“Joe Biden and Biden administration officials are pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel. Since day one of their administration they have launched campaigns against our Israeli allies that are granular, whole of government, and done in secret.
“This new boycott of Israeli Jews is yet another example. The State Department is telling the entire U.S. government not to cooperate with Jews in Judea and Samaria. And of course it was sent to Congress in secret, and only revealed because reporters found out.
“The Biden administration defends funding scientific research in Wuhan with the Chinese Communist Party, but they’re discriminating against and banning cooperation with Jews based on where they live.
“I will do everything possible to reverse this decision and prohibit such antisemitic discrimination by the U.S. government in the future.”
Hat tip: Lauri Regan
Mark Levin: The Democrat Party must be 'obliterated'
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) blasted the Biden administration for imposing an anti-Israel “boycott” following its “outrageous” and “antisemitic” reversal of President Donald Trump’s policy of allowing cooperation between U.S. universities and Israeli institutions in Judea and Samaria.
In a statement released Sunday, Cruz criticized the current administration for “instating a boycott against scientific and technological cooperation with Jews living in Judea and Samaria.”
Cruz, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that President Joe Biden and his administration officials are “pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel.”
“Since day one of their administration they have launched campaigns against our Israeli allies that are granular, whole of government, and done in secret,” he wrote.
“This new boycott of Israeli Jews is yet another example,” he continued.
According to Cruz, the move demonstrates that the State Department is “telling the entire U.S. government not to cooperate with Jews in Judea and Samaria.”
“And of course it was sent to Congress in secret, and only revealed because reporters found out,” he noted.
He also contrasted the policy of the current administration that “defends funding scientific research in Wuhan with the Chinese Communist Party,” yet discriminates against and bans cooperation with Jews “based on where they live.”
He concluded by vowing to do “everything possible to reverse this decision,” as well as “prohibit such antisemitic discrimination by the U.S. government in the future.”
In an earlier tweet, Cruz called the move “sadly predictable but still absolutely outrageous.”
“This is brazen, explicit, obsessive discrimination against Israeli Jews based on where they live and work,” he added.
Subsequently, the Republican Jewish Coalition leadership released a statement from its National Chairman, former Sen. Norm Coleman, along with CEO Matt Brooks blasting the Biden administration’s “shortsighted” foreign policy, which it claimed “reached a new low” as a result of the decision, which they deemed “yet another example of Biden’s adherence to Obama’s anti-Israel Mideast policy.”
“Whether it is pleading with the terrorists in Tehran for a bad nuclear deal, ceding diplomatic ground in the Middle East to China, or releasing an antisemitism policy that undermines efforts to codify a clear and comprehensive definition of antisemitism, the Biden administration continues to be a delight for far-left radicals and a deep disappointment to mainstream pro-Israel supporters,” the statement reads.
The backlash follows the Biden administration’s recent reimposing of a ban prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds going toward research and development or scientific cooperation projects conducted in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).
In 2020, Trump — continuing a series of pro-Israel measures — allowed American researchers to work with Israeli institutions across the 1949 armistice line, ending a de facto boycott that existed prior to Trump.
Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that Judea and Samaria are part of the Jewish “ancestral homeland” to which Jews have been attached for 3,000 years and the notion of banning Jews from settling in those areas is the true “obstacle to peace.”
why would a saudi billionaire pay for obomb's education at harvard? the answer may be in what obomb did for the saudis as president
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.
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.
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
Meanwhile. the media essentially buried Obama's relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers, the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the convicted white-collar criminal Tony Rezko.
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
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
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.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
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
BARACK OBAMA and his SAUDIS PAYMASTERS: Did they build his Muslim tower in Chicago?
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, isno strangerto representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers whorepresentedal Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: DEDICATED SERVANT TO THE MUSLIM DICTATORSHIP OF SAUDI ARABIA - BUT THEN THEY BOUGHT AND OWN THE CLOSET MUSLIM
“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
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
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
“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
He oversaw a historic power slide away from America to China, Russia, and the Islamic terrorists of the world laboring to build their caliphates.”
Glazov’s book includes several contributions on Islam and the Middle East. Highlighting Obama’s hideous 2012 statement at the UN criticizing “those who slander the prophet of Islam,” counterintelligence expert Stephen C. Coughlin recounts the Obama Administration’s purging of counterterrorism pros (largely in response to pressure from terrorist-linked CAIR) and reports that Muslims at DHS, founded to combat Islamic terrorism, shifted its focus 180º to target “Islamophobes” -- that is, American patriots who dare to worry about terrorism. In other essays, former Knesset member Dov Lipman corrects “historical inaccuracies” about Israel in Obama’s memoir A Promised Land, and Greenfield and Clare M. Lopez supply cogent takes on Obama’s treachery toward I
Dissecting Obama
Patriots rot in jail for meandering around the Congress for a couple of hours two years ago while young people are encouraged by their teachers to celebrate Antifa and BLM thugs who have burned houses down. Blacks who love liberty are smeared as “white supremacists” while Muslims who love jihad are depicted as virtuous victims.
Meanwhile. the media essentially buried Obama's relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers, the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the convicted white-collar criminal Tony Rezko.
Americans have an abiding fascination with their presidents, especially with their foibles and secrets. Who lied? Who ordered illegal operations? Who had mistresses?
Thus was the country transfixed by Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the tawdry drip-drip of their liaison. When newly declassified documents revealed hitherto unknown CIA connections to Lee Harvey Oswald, this made a media splash, with Tucker Carlson asking: “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy?”
But that fascination dies when it comes to Barack Obama, the Left’s quasi-sacred figure. About him, no curiosity, please, no gossip, and no hint of impropriety. When he falsely claimed in 1991 to have been born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii, blame fell on a sloppy literary agent. When Stanley Kurtz proved that Obama lied about not being a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party and a candidate for it, the Obama P.R. machine smeared Kurtz and the story disappeared.
When clear evidence showed that Obama had lied about having been born and raised a Muslim, the researcher who made the case was reviled, his investigation scorned, and his argument vaporized.
I should know, as I was that researcher. I wrote five times on this topic in 2007-08, during Obama’s first presidential campaign (three of those times in FrontPageMag.com) and then aggregated all this information, plus new details, in a long and (so far) definitive September 2012 article, “Obama’s Muslim Childhood,” serialized in the Washington Times.
All those writings emphasized that Obama was now a Christian. The first one began with:
“If I were a Muslim I would let you know,” Barack Obama has said, and I believe him. In fact, he is a practicing Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is not now a Muslim. But was he ever a Muslim or seen by others as a Muslim?
I answered in the affirmative and showed how contradictory evidence concerning Obama’s religious background – from Obama’s father and name, from years in Indonesia, from his family, and most of all from himself – conclusively points to his being born and raised a Muslim.
Throughout, I emphasized not the Islam issue but the character issue; if Obama lies about something so fundamental, how can he be trusted? His other lies, such as Kenyan birth and socialist party non-membership, confirm this problem.
Ben Smith in Politico derided my analysis as “the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama’s religion.”
The Spectator called mine the “the worst article on the presidential election” and also deemed it “mad” and “despicable.”
Martin Peretz in the New Republic said I had “simply gone bonkers … and malicious.”
Vice ran an article “Would You Care If Obama Were Muslim?” that responded to my carefully-crafted argument with “BLARGHA BLARGHA BLARGH REPEAL OBAMA BIN HUSSEIN’S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR JOBS.”
The Atlantic published no less than three attacks on the article and me. Mark Ambinder rued “the false notion that Obama is or was ever Muslim.” Andrew Sullivan dismissed my work as “toxins.” Matthew Yglesias ridiculed my saying that I believe Obama is not now a Muslim with “I, for one, believe Daniel Pipes when he says he’s not a child molester.”
And so it went, howling with outrage at the very thought of Obama as a Muslim, mocking and taunting me with ad hominem attacks, speculating about my motives. So relentless was the onslaught, even the conservative press overwhelmingly shied away from the topic. The McCain and Romney campaigns both treated the topic like Kryptonite. The issue of Obama’s lies had no impact on either presidential campaign, both of which – of course – Obama won.
I expect that, at some future time when Barack Obama loses his sacral quality, historians will take great interest in his childhood religious affiliation. They will wonder how, in the information-heavy, politically-riven, and celebrity-mad culture of early twenty-first century United States, so gigantic a biographical inconvenience could be successfully hidden and rendered taboo. They will study how, in a modern democratic society, a determined candidate can suppress even the most important and relevant information.
Americans have an abiding fascination with their presidents, especially with their foibles and secrets. Who lied? Who ordered illegal operations? Who had mistresses?
Thus was the country transfixed by Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the tawdry drip-drip of their liaison. When newly declassified documents revealed hitherto unknown CIA connections to Lee Harvey Oswald, this made a media splash, with Tucker Carlson asking: “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy?”
But that fascination dies when it comes to Barack Obama, the Left’s quasi-sacred figure. About him, no curiosity, please, no gossip, and no hint of impropriety. When he falsely claimed in 1991 to have been born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii, blame fell on a sloppy literary agent. When Stanley Kurtz proved that Obama lied about not being a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party and a candidate for it, the Obama P.R. machine smeared Kurtz and the story disappeared.
When clear evidence showed that Obama had lied about having been born and raised a Muslim, the researcher who made the case was reviled, his investigation scorned, and his argument vaporized.
I should know, as I was that researcher. I wrote five times on this topic in 2007-08, during Obama’s first presidential campaign (three of those times in FrontPageMag.com) and then aggregated all this information, plus new details, in a long and (so far) definitive September 2012 article, “Obama’s Muslim Childhood,” serialized in the Washington Times.
All those writings emphasized that Obama was now a Christian. The first one began with:
“If I were a Muslim I would let you know,” Barack Obama has said, and I believe him. In fact, he is a practicing Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is not now a Muslim. But was he ever a Muslim or seen by others as a Muslim?
I answered in the affirmative and showed how contradictory evidence concerning Obama’s religious background – from Obama’s father and name, from years in Indonesia, from his family, and most of all from himself – conclusively points to his being born and raised a Muslim.
Throughout, I emphasized not the Islam issue but the character issue; if Obama lies about something so fundamental, how can he be trusted? His other lies, such as Kenyan birth and socialist party non-membership, confirm this problem.
· Ben Smith in Politico derided my analysis as “the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama’s religion.”
· The Spectator called mine the “the worst article on the presidential election” and also deemed it “mad” and “despicable.”
· Martin Peretz in the New Republic said I had “simply gone bonkers … and malicious.”
· Vice ran an article “Would You Care If Obama Were Muslim?” that responded to my carefully-crafted argument with “BLARGHA BLARGHA BLARGH REPEAL OBAMA BIN HUSSEIN’S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR JOBS.”
The Atlantic published no less than three attacks on the article and me. Mark Ambinder rued “the false notion that Obama is or was ever Muslim.” Andrew Sullivan dismissed my work as “toxins.” Matthew Yglesias ridiculed my saying that I believe Obama is not now a Muslim with “I, for one, believe Daniel Pipes when he says he’s not a child molester.”
And so it went, howling with outrage at the very thought of Obama as a Muslim, mocking and taunting me with ad hominem attacks, speculating about my motives. So relentless was the onslaught, even the conservative press overwhelmingly shied away from the topic. The McCain and Romney campaigns both treated the topic like Kryptonite. The issue of Obama’s lies had no impact on either presidential campaign, both of which – of course – Obama won.
I expect that, at some future time when Barack Obama loses his sacral quality, historians will take great interest in his childhood religious affiliation. They will wonder how, in the information-heavy, politically-riven, and celebrity-mad culture of early twenty-first century United States, so gigantic a biographical inconvenience could be successfully hidden and rendered taboo. They will study how, in a modern democratic society, a determined candidate can suppress even the most important and relevant information.
Several weeks after the highly questionable 2020 presidential election appeared to put his vice president, Joe Biden, on the path to the White House, Barack Obama told late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert that he would like to have a third term by proxy: “I used to say if I can make an arrangement where I had a stand-in or front-man or front-woman and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff and I could sort of deliver the lines while someone was doing all the talking and ceremony, I’d be fine with that because I found the work fascinating.” [1]
Early on in Joe Biden’s calamitous presidency, it became clear that Biden was indeed someone’s proxy, and that someone was likely Barack Hussein Obama. Even if Barack Obama is not actually directing Biden’s actions from his basement, the Biden administration established itself immediately as the instrument for the resumption of the Obama agenda. What befell America during the Biden presidency was what Barack Obama envisioned for our nation and what he spent eight years setting into motion. Donald Trump did a great deal to reverse the disastrous direction in which the country was heading, but Biden’s team worked energetically to undo all that Trump accomplished.
And so, by May 2021, the United States of America faced a number of crises that appeared suddenly, were largely self-inflicted, and which threaten its survival as a free nation more severely than at any time since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. All of these crises were entirely foreseeable, and completely preventable. And, all of them are the direct result of the socialist, internationalist, and statist policies of Barack Obama.
After having attained the White House by means of an election that was full of irregularities, which were never fully investigated and buried beneath the media’s insistence that only paranoid conspiracy theorists and diehard partisans thought that the election was anything but free and fair, the Biden administration set out to pursue a number of policies that could lead to nothing less than the end of the United States as a republic of laws governed under the Constitution.
Ignoring Congress, despite the fact that both the House and Senate had Democrat majorities, Biden immediately signed over fifty Executive Orders to reverse numerous Trump policies, relax border and immigration controls, subject the nation once again to onerous economic burdens designed to fight the phantasm of “climate change,” exacerbate the hysteria and restrictions of freedom presented as measures to fight the coronavirus, and promote a far-left social agenda. Biden also restarted Obama’s objective of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” with a culture war waged from inside the White House against Americans. Obama had made Americans poor. Biden would leave them even poorer.
Daniel Greenfield states in this book that “Obama powered a historic economic shift that took power away from workers and gave it to Silicon Valley, that took American jobs and shipped them to China, and that took jobs from black teenagers and gave them to illegal aliens.
He oversaw a historic power slide away from America to China, Russia, and the Islamic terrorists of the world laboring to build their caliphates.” During the opening months of the Biden administration, China rapidly became a massive threat to America’s economic wellbeing and standing in the world. Biden’s team emboldened the Communist Chinese to step up their activities toward economic, military, and technological domination of the entire world. This emboldening of China took place as Biden’s team ended the Keystone Pipeline project that had enabled the nation to attain energy independence during the Trump administration. Gas prices soared, and Americans once again experienced gas shortages of a severity that had not been seen since the 1970s. This was the logical outcome of Obama’s energy policies, which mandated the voluntary weakening of the United States and its increased dependence on foreign powers.
Obama had opened up the borders to demographically transform the country; Biden would go even further beyond that to build on his former boss’s legacy. Biden’s administration also worked to weaken national security by opening the southern border. As Matthew Vadum says in these pages, “An insecure border and growing disrespect for the nation’s immigration laws is the ugly legacy that President Barack Obama left behind.” Biden’s team has determinedly taken Obama’s open-borders policies as a blueprint, in a matter of months transforming a relatively quiet southern border into a hellhole of drug and human trafficking, with a massive humanitarian crisis caused by a lack of facilities to accommodate the influx Biden’s team had invited.
As could have been predicted, jihadis also took advantage. The rapid fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban in August 2021 was the foremost example, but Biden’s presidency also increased the jihad terror threat within the United States. In April 2021, US Border Patrol agents announced that they had arrested two Yemenis who were on a terror watch list as they tried to enter the United States. [2] Significantly, shortly after announcing this, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) removed the press release from its website. [3] Apparently the CBP preferred that Americans not know just how serious the crisis at the border really was.
All of this and much more represented a reimplementation of Obama-era policies and programs. And Biden’s team didn’t stop there. Immediately repudiating Trump’s deep and unshakeable support for Israel, the Biden administration returned to Barack Obama’s stance of hostility toward Israel, with blithe disregard for the wellbeing of America’s most reliable ally in the Middle East. The Washington Free Beacon reported in March 2021 that the administration was determined to fund the Palestinians with no regard whatsoever for what they planned to do with the money, up to and including the financing of jihad terror activity: “the Biden administration privately confirmed to Congress last week that the Palestinian Authority has continued to use international aid money to reward terrorists but said the finding won’t impact its plans to restart funding.” [4]
While betraying Israel as Obama did, Biden’s team is also following in his footsteps in providing aid and comfort to one of the most formidable enemies America faces on the world stage: the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Biden administration appears prepared to make virtually any concession in order to induce Iran to return to Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal, which—contrary to media myth—did nothing to hinder Iran’s nuclear program, and a great deal to empower it.
All this is taking place amid unprecedented threats to our First and Second Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and to bear arms. The social media giants and the media have colluded with the Biden team to whitewash the numerous crises into which Biden has plunged the nation, and to silence dissenting voices, most notably that of former President Trump, who have tried to alert the public to the gravity of what is really happening. The social media giants feel free to restrict Trump’s speech and that of other Americans because of legal protections that were put in place during the Obama years.
And so, by November 2021, after enjoying four years of relative peace and prosperity during the administration of Donald J. Trump, the nation faces chronic unemployment and inflation, a border crisis, grave threats to our constitutional liberties, increased violence and lawlessness from the leftist groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter, a weakening dollar, the emboldening of our enemies worldwide, and even worse on the horizon. Biden’s handlers are either catastrophically stupid and incompetent, or actively working to weaken the United States. In either case, the result is the same.
This is the world Barack Obama has made. This is his legacy.
Not so long ago, America had a great economy, the lowest unemployment ever for a range of demographic groups, energy independence, an increasingly secure southern border, a strong international profile, and no new wars. It had freedom. It had national pride. And all because it had a highly skilled president of unabashed patriotism who was devoted to the best interests of his people.
Now we’re being readied to eat bugs while our overlords dine on steaks. To live in “fifteen-minute cities” while they fly to conferences in Fiji. To tighten our belts to prevent rising sea levels while they luxuriate in sea-level mansions in Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard. In a direct challenge to parental authority, common-sense values, and sensible pedagogical priorities, government schools indoctrinate children in Critical Race Theory and transgender ideology. To shatter our sense of security and restrict our freedom of movement, Soros prosecutors turn major cities over to violent felons. Patriots rot in jail for meandering around the Congress for a couple of hours two years ago while young people are encouraged by their teachers to celebrate Antifa and BLM thugs who have burned houses down. Blacks who love liberty are smeared as “white supremacists” while Muslims who love jihad are depicted as virtuous victims.
Then there’s what happened during the pandemic. Churchgoing was banned, violent street protests permitted. Small businesses were forced to close and went bankrupt; giant chain stores stayed open and reaped record profits. Americans, but not illegal immigrants, were ordered to mask and vaccinate. Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi, with imperial condescension, violated their own lockdowns.
In this new world order, “our democracy” means the tyranny of the unelected (including the FBI, CIA, DHS, and DoJ), propped up by a Pravda-like corporate media. Their message? If we want to be known as supporters of equality, models of compassion, and friends of the planet, we’ll knuckle under, obey them, and parrot their progressive creed -- as spelled out in that chilling Independence Hall speech in which Joe Biden, against a Bismarckian blood-red backdrop, demonized MAGA voters as enemies of freedom.
Of course, this dystopia in the making didn’t begin with Biden. It’s a carry-over from the Obama years, interrupted by that Belle Époque, the Trump interregnum. “To understand the crisis of the Biden administration,” observes Daniel Greenfield, “we have to go back to its origins in the Obama administration.” This statement appears in Greenfield’s introduction to an engaging and definitive new collection of essays, Barack Obama’s True Legacy. How He Transformed America,which, under the editorship of Jamie Glazov, does precisely that: it ponders Obama and his appalling presidential tenure from a number of angles, and in doing so gives us what seems to me the most comprehensive and penetrating account yet of who Obama really is, what he did to America, and why.
Political scientist John Drew recalls the Obama whom he met in 1980 when they were both students dreaming of Communist revolution. At first glance, Obama struck Drew as a child of “wealth and privilege”: he “carried himself with the dignity and poise of a model,” he “talked like a white guy,” he came off “like a foreign prince visiting the United States.” Drew also thought Obama was gay -- an impression later confirmed, sort of, by a letter in which Obama wrote: “I make love to men daily, but in the imagination.” Politically, soon enough, both Drew and Obama shifted to “a more practical view,” deciding that politics, not revolution, was “the preferred route to socialism”; Drew eventually left the Left entirely, but, as we know, alas, Obama did not.
New Zealand author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon also reaches some distance into the past, tracing Obamacare to the 1930s, when Quentin Young, a young Communist doctor in Chicago, first began thinking about socialized medicine. In the 1990s he advised Hillary Clinton on health care; later still (he lived until 1992), he collaborated with Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy. As it happens, Young shared his medical practice for two decades with Obama’s personal physician, David Scheiner, and was present at the meeting, hosted by former terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, at which it was announced that Obama, also present, would be running for Congress. Along the way, he played a huge role in shaping Obama’s views on health-care coverage.
Glazov’s book includes several contributions on Islam and the Middle East. Highlighting Obama’s hideous 2012 statement at the UN criticizing “those who slander the prophet of Islam,” counterintelligence expert Stephen C. Coughlin recounts the Obama Administration’s purging of counterterrorism pros (largely in response to pressure from terrorist-linked CAIR) and reports that Muslims at DHS, founded to combat Islamic terrorism, shifted its focus 180º to target “Islamophobes” -- that is, American patriots who dare to worry about terrorism. In other essays, former Knesset member Dov Lipman corrects “historical inaccuracies” about Israel in Obama’s memoir A Promised Land, and Greenfield and Clare M. Lopez supply cogent takes on Obama’s treachery toward Israel and championing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Then there’s Raymond Ibrahim on Obama’s abominable treatment of Middle East Christians: his refusal to use U.S. leverage on their behalf, his resistance to Capitol Hill pressure to address religious freedom, his prioritizing of Muslim over Christian refugees, and his denial that Muslim-on-Christian violence in Nigeria had a religious basis. (Ibrahim quotes Newt Gingrich: “This is an administration that never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists.”) And in three trenchant pieces, Robert Spencer studies Obama’s refusal to label the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist act (thus denying certain benefits to victims and their families), his insistence that the Islamic State had nothing to do with Islam, and his attitude, at the time of the Iran deal, that “the side that needed to show a good faith commitment to peace was not Iran, but the United States.”
There are two strong items on immigration: Loudon considers Obama’s desire to bestow citizenship on millions of illegals, and Matthew Vadum ponders Obama’s view “that immigration…was a right.” And J.R. Nyquist tackles Obama and Russia, pointing out in his opening sentences that Obama’s parents met in a Russian-language class. Why, he wonders, were they there? We know they hated capitalism; did they love the USSR? Certainly, Obama’s Russia policy, posits Nyquist, was “exactly what one might expect from a president who was born of pro-Soviet parents and mentored by a likely KGB agent (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis).” Nyquist also serves up a couple of fascinating anecdotes that, if true, would fill in a big piece of the Obama puzzle: in 1983, a Communist speaker at UC Irvine reportedly said that his fellow Reds were “infiltrating the left wing of the Democratic Party”; in the 1990s, American physicist Tom Fife claims to have encountered Obama at a social event in Moscow where the later was described as being groomed by the Soviets to be America’s first black president.
The closing pages of Barack Obama’s True Legacy take us to the end of Obama’s presidency and beyond. Greenfield reflects on the truly tragic way in which Obama’s “naked racial rhetoric… transformed America” from an essentially post-racial country into the present “war-torn nation deeply divided by race.” In three incisive essays, Joseph Klein indicts Obama for his persecution of General Michael Flynn (who, by the way, contributes a solid foreword to this book); argues that Obama should have been impeached for what Andrew McCarthy has rightly called his singular pattern of “presidential lawlessness” (which Klein catalogs at illuminating length); and details Obama’s nefarious and unprecedented attempt, after his own presidency was over, “to sabotage the legitimacy of his duly elected successor.”
When Donald Trump took the oath of office, most of us thought the Obama era was over. We were wrong. Our 44th president was still operating behind the scenes -- scheming with his old cronies to blunt Trump’s effectiveness, to pack the media with lies about him, to keep the violent far-left wing of the Democratic Party in a constant state of anti-Trump outrage, to engineer his impeachment, and much more; and since Trump’s departure from the White House, Obama has, at the very least, been one of those who have been pulling the strings of the current puppet-in-chief. But of course, all this malicious mischief was nothing new for the man who once said that “the sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”: as Spencer puts it in his savvy afterword, Obama was, from the beginning of his term until, well, this present moment, “actively working against the interests of the United States.” That he managed to do so much damage to this country and its people is breathtaking to behold -- as is the fact that there remains a large cohort of low-information Americans who actually revere this traitor as a paragon of virtue and wisdom.
DIVIDING AMERICA WAS OBAMA AND GEORGE SOROS' GAMEPLAN FOR OBOMB'S PATH TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE.
THERE HAS PROBABLY NEVER BEEN A GREATER DANGER TO AMERICAN THAN OBAMA, UNLESS ONE CONSIDERS JOE BIDEN AND HILLARY CLIONT
“Before Obama,” writes Greenfield, “71 percent of Americans had thought that relations between black and white people were generally good.” A year after the Ferguson riots in 2014, “more than half the country thought relations were bad.” It was the Obama administration that had “started the fires and then led the fire brigade, but instead of water, its hoses were filled with oil.” Upon Obama’s departure from office, Donald Trump inherited a country that wasn’t healed but primed for an even more heated racial conflagration.
Now Obama wants even more power...
Our mostly complicit, compliant, sycophant press has no concern about facts, only Democrat power
Jamie Glazov Talks ‘Obama’s True Legacy’ on the ‘Pro-America Report’
Ed Martin speaks with Frontpage Editor on who is really pulling the strings of the Biden catastrophe.
Ed Martin, President of the Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, recently spoke with Frontpage Editor and host of The Glazov Gang, Jamie Glazov about his new book, Barack Obama’s True Legacy, and how it documents the suppressed details of how the ex-president was—and still is—a major national security threat to America.
[3] Jamie on Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo Show: Obama’s Conversion Moment – When Was it Exactly? and Why can’t the question be asked about his spiritual journey?
[4] J.R. Nyquist: Obama – Groomed by KGB? The curious – and taboo – Tom Fife story.
[5] Obama’s Russia Collusion – The baseless accusations against President Trump begin to make sense.
[6] When Was Obama’s ‘Conversion Moment’? –The eerie and taboo questions that aren’t allowed to be asked.
[7] The Obama Movie That Can Never Be –The eerie issues that can’t be discussed about the worst ex-president’s religious journey.
George Soros is an evil man. In fact, he is one of the most evil men currently shaping American and Western politics, and global events more generally.
To straightforwardly opine in this manner is not to traffic in antisemitism or noxious Jew-baiting. It is simply to share one’s perspective about one of the most influential political donors, “philanthropists” and social activists in the world — someone who doles out countless sums to undermine and reshape in his dystopian image entire countries, spreading across at least five separate continents.
It is frankly astounding that this even needs to be said. I am a Jewish columnist, podcaster and public speaker. As such, I routinely share my opinions as a basic feature of my job. I imagine some of those opinions are provocative — perhaps highly so — for a subset of the population, especially those of a left-of-center bent. Some (very) small percentage of my critics may hate me and hate my opinions because I am Jewish, but it is surely the case that the overwhelming majority of my critics disagree with me on the merits of my ideas and contributions to the public discourse. Unless I have a compelling reason to believe a specific critic is acting out of rank bigotry, I operate from a baseline presumption that the critic is not a Jew-hater, but simply disagrees with my position.
Again, this should be obvious. But for far too many, it is apparently not obvious — at least when it comes to criticism of George Soros.
For years, whenever conservatives, nationalists and traditionalists have criticized the absolutely sprawling influence of George Soros and his left-wing Open Society Foundations umbrella network, Soros’ praetorian guard in the elected official class and corporate press invariably shriek, “That’s antisemitism! You can’t say that!”
What utter tripe.
Soros directly spent $128.5 million during last fall’s U.S. midterm elections, making him that election cycle’s single largest individual donor. He has spent $40 million trying to elect radically left-wing “reform prosecutors” — something he has been fully transparent about, defending it under his own byline in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last summer — across the country. He has been dishearteningly successful in that endeavor, successfully electing 75 district attorneys — such as Alvin Bragg in New York City, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco (since mercifully recalled) and Kim Foxx in Chicago — who oversee a decivilizational (and oxymoronic) prosecutorial agenda of not prosecuting violent and property crimes. Simply put, Soros is more responsible than any man in the world for the descent of some of America’s most iconic cities into anarchic urban hellholes.
The globalist archetype has routinely given massive sums to anti-sovereignty groups that seek to obliterate national borders, from the U.S. to his native Hungary to Israel. Speaking of Israel, the Jewish Soros harbors a unique disdain for the world’s only Jewish state: He has been a massive bankroller of the antisemitic “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” global movement, his foundations have supported internationally recognized Palestinian-Arab terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and he is the single largest donor ever to J Street and its affiliated PAC, which routinely peddle anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian agitprop and exist for the sole reason of providing “Jewish” cover for Democrats to bash Israel.
Who can earnestly contend that this is someone whose influence cannot be criticized on the grounds that it is “antisemitic” to do so?
Amichai Chikli, the Israeli government’s current minister of Diaspora affairs and minister for social equality, certainly objects. Following last month’s kerfuffle wherein Elon Musk compared Soros to X-Men archvillain Magneto (who, like Soros, survived the Holocaust as a child) and asserted that Soros “hates humanity,” the masses predictably accused Musk of making “baseless” claims and furthering “antisemitic conspiracy theories.” But Chikli defended Musk, writing in a May 18 tweet: “As Israel’s minister who’s entrusted on combating anti-Semitism, I would like to clarify that the Israeli government and the vast majority of Israeli citizens see Elon Musk as an amazing entrepreneur and a role model. Criticism of Soros — who finances the most hostile organizations to the Jewish people and the state of Israel is anything but anti-Semitism, quite the opposite!”
Chikli’s welcome sentiments brought to mind a powerful 2022 New York Post op-ed by Rabbi Dov Fischer of the exceptional Orthodox Jewish group Coalition for Jewish Values, who wrote that “it’s a mitzvah (a righteous act) — not ‘antisemitism’ — to castigate George Soros for his radical attempts to undermine public safety and the American republic.” Hear, hear. Many, many other Jews have espoused much the same, both before and since.
It is past time to formalize and operationalize this widely held sentiment. Last week, Will Scharf — a conservative activist, former federal prosecutor and current candidate for Missouri attorney general — and I cofounded a new group, “Jews Against Soros.” You can read more, and sign up for future updates, at our website: JewsAgainstSoros.com. As the website states: “We are Jews who have had enough of George Soros and his malign, leftist influence on American politics. We are Jews who are also sick and tired of the Left accusing anyone who criticizes Soros of being antisemitic. … Leftism isn’t Judaism, and being anti-leftist is not the same as being antisemitic. Period.”
That is not, of course, to say that there is no such thing as antisemitic criticism of Soros. Of course there are some devious memes, classic antisemitic iconography, and so forth. And when that antisemitism rears its ugly head — whether targeted at Soros or any other Jew — Will and I would be the first two to vociferously condemn it. But the overwhelming majority of the criticism of Soros is entirely legitimate on the substance of the dastardly causes he organizes and funds — indeed, that criticism is just and righteous. It is, as Rabbi Fischer wrote, a mitzvah.
You too can do a mitzvah by joining our cause, and by spreading the word that most Jews reject the risible claim that to criticize George Soros is to fan the flames of the world’s oldest bigotry, Jew-hatred. Patriotic, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-sovereignty, pro-rule of law Jews the world over abhor this man. George Soros’ ethnic and religious background must not prevent us from calling him what he is: evil.
He's ‘More Political’ Than His Pops
The younger Soros says he is "more political" than his 92-year-old father, the Democratic Party’s biggest donor.
Biden, long known as Delaware’s “senator from DuPont,” Biden served on committees that were most sensitive to the interests of the ruling class, including the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, a milestone in the deregulation of the banks, and other right-wing measures. After nearly four decades in the Senate, Biden became Obama’s vice president, helping to oversee the massive bailout of Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent restructuring of class relations to benefit the rich. That included the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, based on a 50 percent cut in the pay of all newly hired autoworkers.
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
Meanwhile. the media essentially buried Obama's relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers, the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the convicted white-collar criminal Tony Rezko.
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
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
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.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
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
BARACK OBAMA and his SAUDIS PAYMASTERS: Did they build his Muslim tower in Chicago?
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, isno strangerto representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers whorepresentedal Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: DEDICATED SERVANT TO THE MUSLIM DICTATORSHIP OF SAUDI ARABIA - BUT THEN THEY BOUGHT AND OWN THE CLOSET MUSLIM
“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
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
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
“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
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, isno strangerto representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers whorepresentedal Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
Al Qaeda Lawyer Neal Katyal Blown Out in Supreme Court Ruling
Unanimous Court rejects Katyal's argument that county can seize old woman's home and take all the profits
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a left-wing lawyer after he tried to convince the justices that a Minnesota county was right to take all the profits from the sale of a home it confiscated from an elderly woman.
Supreme Court justices were unconvinced by arguments last month from lawyer Neal Katyal, who once defended Al Qaeda terrorists. Katyal defended Hennepin County, which contains Minneapolis, after it confiscated an elderly woman's condo and took all the profits from its sale over a small unpaid tax. The county received $40,000 from the sale of Geraldine Tyler's condo after the county seized the property in 2015 over $2,300 in unpaid taxes. Tyler, now 94, owed $15,000 in total with penalties and interest on the unpaid taxes.
The High Court ruled that states that seize and sell private property to make up for unpaid taxes cannot keep more from the sales than what a taxpayer owed.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court's opinion. "The county had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover the unpaid property taxes," Roberts wrote, but added that the county "could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due."
The justices appeared unconvinced by Katyal's arguments in April. Justice Neil Gorsuch mocked the lawyer’s argument that expensive properties could be seized for minuscule missing payments. "So a $5 property tax, a million dollar property, good to go?" Gorsuch asked Katyal, who answered in the affirmative.
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, is no stranger to representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
Obama’s threat took two presidential terms to gather momentum; former President Trump temporarily stalled its course, but then Obama managed to get a shot at a third term in 2020 – vicariously through his former Vice President Joe Biden.
JOE BIDEN = BARACK OBAMA'S PATHWAY TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Obama lets the cat out of the bag: He's got plans to make Joe Biden his stooge
marionette stooge for what's in fact a third Obama
term.
DIVIDING AMERICA WAS OBAMA AND GEORGE SOROS' GAMEPLAN FOR OBOMB'S PATH TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE.
THERE HAS PROBABLY NEVER BEEN A GREATER DANGER TO AMERICAN THAN OBAMA, UNLESS ONE CONSIDERS JOE BIDEN AND HILLARY CLIONT
“Before Obama,” writes Greenfield, “71 percent of Americans had thought that relations between black and white people were generally good.” A year after the Ferguson riots in 2014, “more than half the country thought relations were bad.” It was the Obama administration that had “started the fires and then led the fire brigade, but instead of water, its hoses were filled with oil.” Upon Obama’s departure from office, Donald Trump inherited a country that wasn’t healed but primed for an even more heated racial conflagration.
On the cusp of the 2008 presidential election, then-candidate Barack Obama galvanized an ecstatic crowd at Missouri University by claiming that he and his supporters were “five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Not making America great again, but fundamentally transforming her. This unsettling vow, from the man who would later declare that American exceptionalism was no more valid than British or Greek exceptionalism, promised not restoration, but revolution. It made clear that his incoming administration intended to toss the greatest country in the world onto the trash heap of history to make way for a Progressive utopia centered on social justice and on the dismantling of American power.
Obama’s threat took two presidential terms to gather momentum; former President Trump temporarily stalled its course, but then Obama managed to get a shot at a third term in 2020 – vicariously through his former Vice President Joe Biden. Under the decrepit figurehead Biden, Obama and his muses Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett could accelerate the fundamental change he promised. Indeed, it has been cascading to fruition so rapidly that one is reminded of a Hemingway character’s explanation about how he went bankrupt: “Gradually, then suddenly.”
The Biden administration is already securing its place in history as the most disastrous American presidency to date. In less than two-and-a-half years, the angry Divider-in-Chief Biden has presided over more domestic and foreign policy debacles than Barack Obama could ever have hoped for. As General Michael Flynn catalogs in the foreword to a brand new book titled Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America, our nation now faces
chronic unemployment and inflation, a border crisis, grave threats to our constitutional liberties, increased violence and lawlessness from the leftist groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter, a weakening dollar, the emboldening of our enemies worldwide, and even worse on the horizon… This is the world Barack Obama has made. This is his legacy.
All of this and more is addressed in Obama’s True Legacy, a collection of eighteen original essays edited by FrontPage Magazine’s longtime editor Jamie Glazov, and featuring numerous FrontPage Mag regulars such as Daniel Greenfield, Robert Spencer, Joseph Klein, Matthew Vadum, and Raymond Ibrahim, among other contributors.
“To understand the crisis of the Biden administration, we have to go back to its origins in the Obama administration,” writes Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield in his introduction to the book, because the latter’s “impact is not past tense. It is present tense… [W]e are still living through the Obama nightmare.” And that is what these eighteen essays analyze and illuminate. From political scientist (and former Marxist) John Drew’s fascinating account of his college days with the fellow radical in “Obama: The Young Communist I Knew,” to Knesset member Dov Lipman’s closing critique of the anti-Israel lies in Obama’s memoir A Promised Land, Barack Obama’s True Legacy is the definitive one-volume guide to the catastrophic influence on U.S. and world politics of Barack Hussein Obama.
The anti-colonialist Obama waged war against America on a broad range of fronts, and they are seemingly all covered in this book. New Zealand author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon traces “The Marxist Origins and Goals of Obamacare” and “Obama’s Illegal Marxist Immigrant Amnesty Movement.” Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim explains “How Obama Enabled the Persecution of Christians.” Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer focuses on “Obama’s Enabling of Jihad and Stealth Jihad” in addition to his empowering of the monstrous terror group ISIS and his balance-of-power-altering nuclear deal with Iran. Journalist Joseph Klein exposes “Obamagate: The Coup Attempt Against President Trump” and makes the case for “Why Obama Should Have Been Impeached.”
There is much more in Barack Obama’s True Legacy. Award-winning journalist Matthew Vadum lays bare the damage Obama wreaked on America’s border security. Author and former military intelligence analyst Stephen Coughlin details the “Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the US Under Obama.” Clare Lopez, founding member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, explicates Obama’s “Benghazi Betrayal and the Brotherhood Link.” Political analyst J.R. Nyquist shines a light into the dark corners of “Obama’s Russia collusion.”
No account of Barack Obama’s legacy would be complete without addressing, as Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield puts it, his “enabling of racial strife and domestic terror.” Though Obama surfed into the White House on a wave of hope that the nation’s first black president would bring long-awaited racial healing and unity, Greenfield calls the intentional shattering of race relations in America under his watch “Obama’s true enduring legacy.”
“Before Obama,” writes Greenfield, “71 percent of Americans had thought that relations between black and white people were generally good.” A year after the Ferguson riots in 2014, “more than half the country thought relations were bad.” It was the Obama administration that had “started the fires and then led the fire brigade, but instead of water, its hoses were filled with oil.” Upon Obama’s departure from office, Donald Trump inherited a country that wasn’t healed but primed for an even more heated racial conflagration.
“But Obama wasn’t done once he finally left the White House,” writes Joseph Klein in his essay about the Radical-in-Chief’s “Post-Presidential War on America.” Klein details how the ex-President went on to spread disinformation in an attempt to delegitimize his successor Trump, to foment generational war by nurturing “the next generation of community-organizing Obama mini-mes,” to discredit Fox News – the only mainstream cable outlet that leaned right – and to turn Netflix into his own private propaganda mill, all while hypocritically amassing a personal fortune that contradicted his socialist assertion, “At a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”
Obama’s corrosive impact wasn’t limited to our shores. On an international level, for example, Daniel Greenfield addresses, in “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel,” the breakdown in relations between the United States and our close ally in the Middle East. That alliance fractured thanks to a “total divergence of worldviews” – “moral, cultural, and strategic” – between Obama and Biden on the one hand, and Benjamin Netanyahu on the other. “Previous administrations had viewed Islamic terrorists and the Iranian regime as threats. The Obama administration, however, saw them as victims of American foreign policy… Obama believed that Israel, like America, and other allies in the region, was part of the problem.”
And our current administration, of course, shares and perpetuates that anti-Israel perspective. The result is that the entire volatile Middle East is once again a tinderbox, even as that administration exacerbates tensions in other parts of the world too, such as Ukraine, where we risk tumbling headlong into a world war that could have been averted had Donald Trump been elected in 2020.
But the chaos is all part of the plan. As Robert Spencer reminds us in his epilogue to Barack Obama’s True Legacy, Obama was photographed in 2008 clutching a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s book The Post-American World, a finger keeping his place in the pages. Spencer writes,
Zakaria’s book predicting America’s inevitable decline turned out to be a veritable blueprint for Obama’s presidency. Throughout his eight years in office, as this present book abundantly illustrates, Obama seemed determined to make Zakaria’s “post-American world” a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obama went to work from his first day in office to make Zakaria’s wishful thinking about America’s decline become a reality.
Now, in his de facto third term, the shadowy radical continues to exert his subversive influence on the Constitution, the citizens, and the country he is committed to destroying. Barack Obama’s True Legacy could not be a timelier and more important read. As Spencer concludes,
This book stands as a warning and as a primer on just how devastating Obamaism was for the United States and will be again unless vigilant, courageous, and patriotic American citizens stand, determined to employ all lawful means to defend freedom.
Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, focusing on popular culture. He is also the host of an original podcast on Frontpage, “The Right Take With Mark Tapson.”
Reader Interactions
Obama torpedoed U.S. relations with Russia -- to perpetuate lies about Trump, Durham report found
Oh, not about the election of Donald Trump, of course, if his public statements were any indication.
He was supposedly angry, so angry, at Russia and its supposed interference in our 2016 election that he got out his pen and phone and expelled 35 Russian diplomats.
WASHINGTON — President Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election, ejecting 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services.
The administration also penalized four top officers of one of those services, the powerful military intelligence unit known as the G.R.U.
Intelligence agencies have concluded that the G.R.U. ordered the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, with the approval of the Kremlin, and ultimately enabled the publication of the emails it harvested to benefit Donald J. Trump’s campaign.
The Hill reported that it was quite an array of sanctions at the time:
The measures include a slate of economic sanctions, diplomatic censure, and public “naming and shaming.” The president also hinted at possible covert cyber measures but did not provide details.
The president also announced that the State Department will expel 35 Russian intelligence operatives and shutter two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russia for intelligence purposes.
Taken together, the sweeping actions announced by the White House, the Treasury, the State Department and intelligence agencies on Thursday amount to the strongest American response yet to a state-sponsored cyberattack. They also appeared intended to box in President-elect Trump, who will now have to decide whether to lift the sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies when he takes office next month.
Obama even amended his own executive order to extend his powers to sanction, with travel bans and asset freezes on some Russian officials.
Just one problem: The Russians didn't do what the embittered Democrats claimed they were doing -- to Get Trump.
Nothing. They didn't hack the DNC and they didn't collude with Donald Trump to get him elected to the presidency. The charges, the expropriations, the sanctions -- were all for innocent people. Even the Russian state was innocent.
That was what Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse found buried at the bottom of the Durham report.
♦ First, John Durham clearly shows in his 306-page report with a 48-page classified appendix, that Russia did nothing to interfere in the 2016 election. The entire Russian Interference operation was a Clinton fabrication, later enhanced by a Federal Bureau of Investigation who used the fabrication as a cover-up justification to hide their surveillance of the Trump campaign.
♦ Second, accepting the empirical, factual, and inherently true reality of the first point – consider that President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats to retain the Clinton fabrication and FBI lies. Think about this one carefully, the Obama administration expelled Russian diplomats in order to retain a domestic political ruse! President Obama did this *after* CIA Director John Brennan briefed him about the Clinton fabrication.
There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.
♦ Third, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, with the full support of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, indicted 14 Russian entities under completely bogus pretenses. All of that effort was done to assist the Clinton narrative, cover for Obama and then use the special counsel to cover up the Trump targeting operation. The totally bogus construct explains why the fabricated indictments were sealed in the DOJ National Security Division in perpetuity, thereby keeping the fraudulent construct hidden from public review forever.
So Obama's wrath was nothing but a fiction to protect the partisan Democrat narrative that they had been promoting about Trump and the Russians, which originated from the embittered political camp of losing Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.
How would you feel about that if you were a Russian, especially now, reading that it was all a political hoax with you the one chosen to be the whipping boy? You got sanctioned, you got kicked out, you got travel bans, you incurred costs, and some "name and shame" all based on lies.
Might you start thinking of the U.S. as kind of a sleazy, dishonest player on the world scene? Would you have problems trusting them? Might you step up your activities against it? It would seem natural.
The Russians, remember, had already calculated by their own devices that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election and the Kremlin was planning for that, so they were as surprised as anyone that the American voters thought otherwise when the election results came in in November 2016.
That they were blamed for the result and sanctioned for hacking and colluding they didn't do, and knew they didn't do, and knew that Obama knew they didn't do, surely must have made them angry.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially adopted a wait-and-see attitude to see if Trump would set things back to rights, but by March of 2017, three months into his term, Trump had appointed Democrat ally Fiona Hill to be his Russia advisor, and although she was smart enough to generally pooh-pooh the Russia collusion claims in her statements, apparently nothing was done to restore the Russia relations after Obama's partisan fit of pique at Russia's expense.
Net result: By May, Putin expelled 755 American diplomats and staff and expropriated two American properties in retaliation. That was to get the numbers of embassy personnel even, as the U.S had a much bigger official diplomatic presence in Russia than the Russians had in the U.S. That certainly didn't serve U.S. interests to say the least, given that the U.S. must have had a much bigger spy operation going on against Russia than Russia did against the U.S., or, at the least official one which seems most likely.
In other words, how did it serve U.S. interests to falsely accuse and sanction Russia for something it didn't do?
Stuff like that makes countries mad, and fosters considerable distrust. Was that in the U.S. interest? Did that raise our standing and reputation in the world or did it contribute to emerging problems? The Russians were remarkably patient for a while as the accusations were leveled but the lies kept coming and then things got ugly.
It's horrible stuff when we consider the bigger picture, and the picture we see today. Right now, the U.S. and Russia are in a proxy war against one another over Ukraine, with several hideous sideshows involving cowardly and let-the-Americans-do-it allies, as well as huge amounts of money spent at a time of high inflation with little accountability. Our military readiness has been affected just on the supply front. There are odd fires at U.S. food factories over here even as we read reports of strikes at strategic assets inside Russia. The Nordstream II gas pipeline somehow got blown up and somehow nobody knows who did it.
And as this unwelcome, unpopular, and costly entanglement with Russia goes on, China is on the rise, with increasingly aggressive actions amid reports out there that they could beat us in a shooting war. Another inconvenient development: Russia has allied with China.
The worst of this is that it need never have happened. Foreign policy should always be off limits to partisan disputes, but apparently not by Obama. Relations with Russia could have been good and ties friendly. Russia could have advanced economically and moved closer to the West had these sleazy Obama fictions never happened.
Russia has always been torn between leaning east or leaning west, and for most of the 21st century has leaned westward. Keeping Russia friendly to the U.S. would have been a boon for keeping China in check and Russia peaceable. Instead, the Russians were a convenient target for abuse by Democrats and were thrown to the wolves, all to promote the lie that Democrats were "victims" of Russian machinations instead of simply rejected by U.S. voters for their utterly repellent agenda.
That's been an expensive lie for us in the aftermath because any smart superpower should go out of its way to keep as many friends as it can, especially among the those with nuclear weapons. Making Russia an enemy for nothing more than partisan political purposes is not the act of someone who represents America. It's the act of a community organizer, a partisan political hack, a creep who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power, owing to an inability to distinguish the national interest from the partisan interest.
That's the old Obama we know however, and now he's disgraced us on the world stage as a dishonest sleazeball country, not a nation founded on fairness and democracy. His act and the acts of the Deep State were not only detrimental to democracy here, they were very detrimental to foreign policy abroad. False charges open the door to harsher spying, retaliation, and belligerent actions. It was yellow journalism and other schemings on the American side that got us into the Spanish-American war of 1898 when Spain was baselessly blamed for blowing up an American ship in the Caribbean. Any questions as to why Brittney Griner got such a harsh sentence for such a piddly crime in Russia? Or why a young Wall Street Journal reporter sits in some Russian prison on phony espionage charges? What on earth do the Russians think? And how can anyone fail to understand them at least for whatever they are doing with this blotch on our nation's record? Who started this garbage? How do the decent among us make it right?
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.
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.
A Radical Shift
The nightmare Obama brought to U.S. foreign policy.
Editors' note: Walid Phares has a new book out on the difference in foreign policy between Obama and Trump titled: The Choice: Trump vs. Obama-Biden in US Foreign Policy. Below is an exclusive excerpt - Chapter 3 - which illustrates the nightmare that Obama brought to U.S. foreign policy.
Soon after landing in the White House, President Obama initiated two major moves, which by the end of May or early June 2009 indicated where his administration was going in terms of national security and foreign policy. It was obvious to me at the time that the country was veering away from the post-9/11 posture and the so-called War on Terror and heading in the opposite direction of demobilization of America on the one hand and the activation of an apologist policy on the other in order to engage with future partners who were actually at the core of terrorism and extremism.
Most Americans in the early years of the Obama administration focused on the domestic agenda and therefore did not see or understand the much wider change of direction that the new team at the White House was implementing: the eventual dismantling of the War on Terror and with it the war of ideas. In other words, the Obama doctrine was telling Americans that our conflict with the radicals overseas was in error because the conflict was caused by us—and therefore we need not only to cease our efforts of resistance against the jihadists, Iran, and the other radicals but jump on a train going in the other direction, one that would lead us to engaging the foes and finding agreement with each of them in order to transform American policy overseas.
The first major benchmark that indicated a massive Obama-Biden change in foreign policy with implications on national security was Obama’s trip to Egypt in spring 2009 and his address at Cairo University. The main idea of President Obama on the political philosophy level was to inform the American public that the United States has been seen as an aggressor against Arabs and Muslims since 9/11—maybe even decades before that. This perception prevailed on U.S. campuses for decades among leftist academics and intellectuals. It was explained as the American branch of Western colonialism. But the urgency behind this U-turn made by the administration in foreign policy perception was in fact linked to how the United States reacted to the 9/11 attacks.
In my own experiences after the 2001 jihadist strikes against New York, D.C., and elsewhere, the immediate reaction after al-Qaeda suicide missions on American soil was explained by a combination of Far Left and neo-Marxist circles actually accusing the United States of provoking the attacks. During the seven years of the Bush administration, both the Islamist lobbies and their Red allies in America were organizing to oppose any form of American self-defense and thus did oppose both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq while also framing them as neocolonialist conquests.
It was imperative for the Obama team to change the national security doctrine that had been approved by a unanimous and bipartisan 9/11 Commission to align with their own narrative. The reality was that for years, before the Obama victory in 2008, a new alliance was being forged between the Islamists in general (the Muslim Brotherhood and the Khomeinist Iranians in particular) and the core left-wing neo-Marxists within the West in general (and the United States in particular). The Obama group belonged to that core—a subset found mostly on campuses but also in parts of the media.
With the alliance already in place, it made sense for the new administration to unleash its plans as early as possible. Hence, Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo was essentially an open invitation through public acknowledgment of his desire for a partnership between his administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. Though Egypt was ruled by authoritarian President Mubarak, Obama’s visit and his praise of the Ikhwan talking points were the opening salvo of a campaign designed to crumble the Egyptian regime and, later, other Arab governments—and replace them with the Brotherhood. The genesis of the Islamization of the Arab Spring of 2011 thus started in 2009.
The Obama speech at Cairo University, in fact, officialized a partnership between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood, and in general terms with the Islamist movements in the MENA region. One might think that such a move would be checked by the mainstream Republican Party in D.C., but it was not—due to the equal impact of the Qatar and Islamist lobbies on the Republican institution. It did, however, unnerve the conservative sectors of the Republicans both in Congress and in the grassroots while also putting pressure on the traditional liberals in the Democratic Party after the ilk of Joe Lieberman and others.
The major shift towards engaging the Islamists worldwide also opened the door for partnerships with their lobbies and NGOs inside the United States. This led to an unstoppable rise of influence of militant groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which in turn became the spearhead of a campaign to silence the critics against Obama’s new policies in Congress and in the media.
But a shift to align with the Muslim Brotherhood was not the only onslaught of the Obama administration in foreign policy; it was simply the first one. Indeed, in the same month of June 2009, President Obama engaged in a second track that would change another U.S. national security policy, one that was established in the early 1980s: the containment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In early June 2009, President Barack Obama addressed a letter to the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Imam Ali Khamenei, calling on him to begin a new era of cooperation between Tehran and Washington. That letter, which was as apologist as the speech to the Muslim Brotherhood weeks earlier in Cairo, signaled the beginning of a long process that would lead to the negotiation and signing of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. But June 2009 had one more surprise that revealed a third shocking policy shift, one that would divert the country from its longstanding tradition of helping nations facing oppression and seeking freedom.
Indeed, America, in one century—between the First World War, the Second World War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union—had demonstrated its commitment, through blood and treasure, to stand by peoples on many continents as they had been brutalized and oppressed—from Europe and the Middle East to Asia and Latin America. But the events in Iran at the end of June 2009 signaled a drastic third policy change. Millions of Iranians, including many women, took to the streets to protest the suppression by the regime. Many of these protesters held signs in English—one of which called on President Obama by name to help them. Yet to reaffirm that the U.S. would not “meddle” in Iranian politics or stand with the democratic revolution in Iran, a second letter was sent to Khamenei on September 3.
The abandonment by the Obama administration of the Green Revolution in Iran was the benchmark that told me that the American policy of supporting freedom fighters and people’s uprisings against totalitarian governments, the praise for dissidents, and the backing of free societies around the world had ended.
2009 was the year that broke the backbone of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy and rebuilt it into a radical approach inconsistent with the feelings and perceptions of the majority of Americans. Yet most Americans were not informed and educated enough, particularly by their academia and media, to correct such radicalization of policy via their members of Congress—or to elect a new president who would change directions one more time to align policy to once again be consistent with U.S. national security and traditional American liberty principles.
Fears for the Future
Both the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 and the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 provided indications that peoples in the region had reached critical mass in regard to their tolerance for authoritarians and would eventually protest and demand change. Social media has also evolved and has become much more accessible by ordinary people. In my book The Coming Revolution, I predicted that most countries in the Arab world were going to witness social and political unrests, results I had been waiting for, for many years, to push back against the extremists.
I briefed many members of Congress during that same period of time and convinced them that there were authentic forces of change in the region, including seculars, women, and minorities, and that the United States should immediately partner with them as the authoritarian leaders were going down—and fighting a lost battle to support ailing dictators would not be the right battle for the United States.
My concern was that the moment would be squandered as the Obama administration was racing to connect with the Islamists and the Iranians in the region and thus diverting the resources of the U.S. government to the wrong factions instead of helping civil society forces. I observed how the lobbies of our traditional foes were moving with great speed at all levels within the bureaucracies and the administration. I was also receiving many complaints from Middle East human rights and minorities groups that officials and governments were no longer engaging them like the Bush administration had tried to do. In addition, members of Congress in the Republican opposition (who won the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010) were sharing their fears that the administration had abandoned our allies in the region, not just allies among Middle East minorities, but also Israel. So by the end of 2009, early 2010, I could see the whole picture, and it was a dark and dire one.
Professor Walid Phares served as a Foreign Policy Advisor to Presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016. He also served as a National Security Advisor to Presidential Advisor Mitt Romney in 2011-2012. Professor Phares has been an advisor to the US House of Representatives Caucus on Counter Terrorism since 2007 and is the Co-Secretary General of the Trans-Atlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism since 2008. He is also a Fox News National Security and Foreign Affairs expert.
How U.S. Foreign Aid to Iraq Funds Terrorism Against Americans
We send money to Iraq. Iraq funds Iran’s Jihadists attacking our embassy.
In 2020 and 2021, the United States spent over $600 million on foreign aid in Iraq. That’s down from a high of over $2 billion in 2018 and $4.4 billion in 2016. But it still means that we have blown through over $10 billion on Iraq since 2016. That’s long since we officially withdrew.
Meanwhile, where was Iraq’s money going? Iraq’s latest budget dedicates $2.8 billion to Shiite PMU terror militias including Kataeb Hezbollah: an Iran-backed terror group that has been responsible for the deaths of numerous American soldiers.
At the height of the Iraq War, Kataeb Hezbollah was using Iranian IEDs to kill American soldiers. Kataeb Hezbollah is listed as a foreign terrorist organization which makes it a crime for Americans to fund it. But that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from providing massive amounts of foreign aid to Iraq.
While some U.S. conflicts with Jihadists in the region are old news, Kataeb Hezbollah fired rockets at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in 2019, and has bombed U.S. bases in recent years. Kataeb Hezbollah killed two American soldiers in 2020: Army Spc. Juan Miguel Mendez Covarrubias and Air Force Staff Sgt. Marshal D. Roberts.
Politicians and the media have mostly ignored the fact that Americans are continuing to be killed in Iraq, that the Iraqi government is funding their killers, and that we’re funding Iraq.
While Iraq funds Iran’s terror militias, the United States funds the UN Development Programme to “stabilize” Iraq and has invested over $100 million into “conflict, peace and security” funding.
The United States has spent over $1 billion financing the nation’s military while Iraq spends billions financing the Iranian PMU terror militias which are expected to approach a quarter of million Jihadis. The rise of ISIS provided the Shiite regime running Iraq with the perfect excuse for discarding the ISF military built by the U.S. and turning over security to Shiite terror groups.
The foreign policy establishment claims that we need to fund the Iraqi military as a counterbalance to Iran’s PMU militias, but that just allowed Iraq’s government to shift even more defense funding to the Shiite terror groups. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani and his government were backed by the PMU’s and are turning them into an even bigger army.
That’s not surprising since al-Sudani is a second generation member of a Shiite Islamist movement loyal to Iran’s Islamic Revolution. The Shiite Coordination Framework, which is behind the Sudani government, is filled with Shiite Islamists groups with their own militias. For example, the Badr alliance, created by Iran, controls both sizable chunks of Iraq’s military and police forces, as well as one of the larger militias, and has a sizable presence in Iraq’s parliament.
Iraqi democracy consists of Shiite blocs, some Islamists, some fronted by former leaders like Maliki, fighting each other for power and competing for Iran’s favor. Iran has helped them set up militias that, in imitation of Iran’s IRGC and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, also control large portions of the economy, running their own businesses, scoring construction contracts and oil deals.
The foreign policy establishment has refused to acknowledge that Iraq has long since become an Islamic terror state under the political control of Iran and that the only reason it isn’t more of a threat is the constant infighting between the Shiite majority which often turns violent. If Iraq’s Shiite Islamists were ever united under a single leader, like Muqtada Al-Sadr, a perennial player, it will become as much of a threat to the region and the world as Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Instead, we keep sinking more money into Iraq in the hope of a better outcome.
Iraq, until recently, was on the list of the top 5 recipients of U.S. foreign aid. And the Baghdad regime continues to come up with new ways to extract money from U.S. taxpayers.
Last month, Prime Minister Al-Sudani claimed that the Islamic terror state was going green and pleaded for foreign aid to save the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which according to media accounts, was blamed on “climate change”. In fact, the Tigris river is a filthy mess because Sadr City’s Islamists pour tons of filth into it. Five million cubic meters of waste are dumped daily into both rivers from sewage to corpses. That isn’t the work of climate change, but of Iraqis.
The United States provided military aid to the Baghdad regime and its military in order to defeat ISIS. But what we were actually doing was intervening in a Shiite-Sunni civil war while disregarding the fact that the side we were backing was just as much our enemy as ISIS.
While military aid has fallen under the Biden administration after the decline of ISIS, much as in Afghanistan, even humanitarian aid easily finds its way into the hands of Islamic terrorists.
Iran’s PMU militias control large swathes of territory, including farmland, own construction companies and demand payoffs from nonprofits who operate in the areas claimed by them. Humanitarian aid, no matter how seemingly benevolent, to people in terrorist areas, funds terror.
It’s a hard lesson that we have failed to learn in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Like most failed Islamic terror states in the region, Iraq is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy. In an effort to crack down on money from Iraq going to Iran, the Treasury Department restricted Iraqi banks from sending dollars to unknown parties. Since much of the Iraqi economy consists of moving dollars to Iran, this has become a real problem.
Despite the existence of the Iraqi dinar, much of the country uses the dollar. And the United States provides pallets of dollars to Iraq that then go on to Iran. Earlier this year, an Iraqi banker warned that if the rules weren’t suspended, “Within one year, most banks will declare bankruptcy”. That says more about what Iraqi banks really do than about our rules.
And yet no amount of economic problems keep the regime in Baghdad from spending billions on its terror militias. That’s a choice and it should not be subsidized by American taxpayers.
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
Report Decries ‘Merciless Targeting of Christians’ Around the World
ROME — The Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) noted in its annual report Thursday that Christian persecution has been “sharply on the rise” and “its terrible impacts have only begun to be felt.”
“The merciless targeting of Christians — driven by hatred of Christians and the faith itself — emerges as a common denominator in hundreds of testimonies of persecution,” ACN declares in the report.
Today, “almost 340 million Christians around the world — or 1 out of every 7 — live in a country where they suffer some form of persecution, such as arbitrary arrest, violence, a full range of human rights violations and even murder,” the report states.
In its global efforts, ACN “is committed to chronicling and assessing the evolving phenomenon of the persecution of Christians around the world today,” it declares.
File/The body of a Christian resident killed in an attack by gunmen is moved to a hospital in Quetta on April 2, 2018. Four Christians were killed and a child injured in what officials say was a targeted attack against the religious minority group in the Pakistan. (BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty)
ACN also offers a definition of Christian persecution as “the mistreatment, discrimination, oppression, or violence directed towards individuals or communities who identify as Christians or follow the Christian faith.”
Such persecution “involves the infringement of their basic human rights, such as the freedom of worship, expression, and assembly, due to their religious beliefs and practices,” it adds.
Regarding the diverse drivers of Christian persecution worldwide, the report states that Christians are primarily persecuted “because of their faith” but economic and political situations “further deepen this problem.”
“In some countries, Christians are seen as a threat to the ruling government, and their persecution is a way to maintain control,” the report says, observing that some 4.5 billion people around the globe live under authoritarian regimes where religious freedom is not respected.
Moreover, in many countries, “cultural and religious intolerance fuel Christian persecution,” it states, noting that in particular 1.1 billion people live in 21 countries where Islamic extremism is the norm.
Finally, in some countries, Christianity “is seen as a foreign or Western religion, hence it faces hostility and violence,” the report finds, with some 1.5 billion people living in these circumstances in countries like India, where Hindu nationalism is on the rise.
As a continent, Africa is the most violent against Christians due to a rise in violent jihadist activity, the report states, Christians in Africa increasingly “confront extremist, Islamist violence.”
In Nigeria, for instance, there is a concerted effort to “wipe away Christianity,” and between January 2021 and June 2022, Islamist Fulani raiders “attacked Christian villages in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, resulting in the deaths of more than 7,600 Christians.”
At present, there are more than a million internally displaced persons in Burkina Faso, the report adds, “many of whom are Christians fleeing jihadist violence.”
Throughout Africa, “Christians face social alienation and persecution,” ACN observes. In countries like the Central African Republic, “some women are forced into marrying Muslims and end up separated from their children.”
In Sudan, a number of Christians were arrested last year and punished for apostasy, while Church leaders were detained. Meanwhile, in Algeria, “any kind of promotion or public display of Christianity is illegal,” the report states.
Allah has been suspended from the Suffolk County district attorney’s office in Massachusetts, and with good reason. Up until recently, he has been the director of the office’s Community Engagement/Strategic Partnerships Unit, but then Allah was discovered to have made offensive remarks in the past. How can Allah be expected to foster community engagement and strategic partnerships with everyone in the Boston area if he hates some of them? He may get his old job back, but right now Allah is on leave pending a review of the whole situation.
Boston.com reported Sunday that True-See Allah, an official in Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden’s office, is in hot water over “reports that he made antisemitic comments during a 2016 interview.” It seems that back in 2016, Allah appeared on the radio program of “The Allah Team Radio,” which Boston.com describes as “a group that promotes the Nation of Islam, a Black nationalist organization.”
The Nation of Islam is more than just a “Black nationalist organization.” It is one of the most hateful and racist organizations in America today. The Nation was founded in the early 1930s by Wallace D. Fard, an umbrella salesman who has been variously described as an Arab and a Pakistani, who began preaching in Detroit that Islam, or his own adulterated version of it (which included the claim that Fard was the incarnation of Allah), was the original religion of the black man.
Fard attracted a zealous follower in Elijah Poole, who, renamed Elijah Muhammad, took Fard’s message of race hate (most memorably summed up in the assertion that “the white man is a devil”) to black communities nationwide, ultimately converting such luminaries as Malcolm Little, who became Malcolm X, and the boxer Cassius Clay, who became Muhammad Ali.
The Nation is not any recognizable form of Islam that has ever existed in Islamic history, but it does share some of the core elements of Islam, including virulent antisemitism, which may indicate that Nation members hold to other tenets of Islam as well, and are sympathetic to the global jihad. Farrakhan has called in the past for 10,000 volunteers to stalk and kill white people.
Boston.com adds that “during the 2016 interview, Allah said he was introduced to someone who was involved in an effort to bring Reebok to Boston. He described the man as a ‘Jewish guy who’s got short arms and deep pockets.’” It then helpfully explains that “the myth that Jews are greedy and financially stingy has been a component of antisemitic beliefs since medieval times.”
True-See Allah may have a more immediate basis for his hateful beliefs. The Jews in the Qur’an are called the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82). The Qur’an charges them with fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181). It also says that they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); love to listen to lies (5:41); and disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). The Qur’an also says that the Jews are always disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); and wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109). There is much more beyond this as well, including the claim that they are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and the injunction that Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under the hegemony of Islamic law (9:29).
Despite making this antisemitic statement, True-See Allah moved steadily upward. When he made his reference to the “Jewish guy who’s got short arms and deep pockets,” he was Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Reintegration for the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. Then he was named Director of Outreach and Reentry for Massachusetts’ Office of Public Safety and Security. He became a member of the Suffolk DA’s Community Advisory Committee in Feb. 2022.
Apparently no one knew, or no one cared, about his statement during all that time. Allah was just too good not to have around. Boston.com explains that he is “a former gang member who was convicted for playing a part in the 1989 shooting that left a man, MacArthur Williams Jr., paralyzed.” Despite the fact that “Williams later died due to bladder cancer, which his family believed was tied to his paralysis,” Williams’s widow forgave Allah, and in 2015, he was pardoned.
His image as an example of successful rehabilitation thoroughly established, Allah relaxed a bit: “In 2020, Allah reportedly posted an autographed photograph of Farrakhan with his arm around Allah to Facebook.” And now, three years later, he has been placed on leave. Once again we see how unwise it is to hire and promote people based on their identity rather than their ability. Massachusetts officials were so happy to have a Nation of Islam former gang member on staff that they turned a blind eye to years of questionable statements and associations. If Allah had been a white supremacist, he would have been long gone. But he will likely be back on the job at the Suffolk DA’s office before too long.
The Egyptian policeman, Mohamed Salah, who recently murdered three Israeli soldiers serving at the security fence between Egypt and Israel, apparently acted alone. He was not a member of any terror group. But he was prompted by what he read in the Qur’an that he carried with him: a deep hatred of Jews, and a desire to slay the Infidels wherever they might be found. The Egyptian government, having first claimed, baselessly, that Mohamed Salah entered Israel in hot pursuit of smugglers, has abandoned that claim, as it now understands he crossed over expressly to kill Israelis. More on the situation at the border with Egypt, and what should worry Israel the most, can be found here: “‘Smuggling, Not Terror, Is the Real Border Threat,’” by Israel Kasnett, JNS.org, June 11, 2023:
The deadly June 3 attack on Israel’s southern border may have been an isolated incident, but highlighted the larger problem of cross-border smuggling, which is disrupting Israel’s efforts to maintain not only its border with Egypt but also with Jordan.
Efraim Karsh, emeritus professor at King’s College, London, and former director of the BESA Center, doesn’t believe there will be any repercussions from the attack, as Israel views it as an isolated case. He noted that Islamic State has taken responsibility for the incident.
Was the Islamic State really responsible for Salah’s attack, as it now claims? There was nothing he left behind, no notes, no mention of the Islamic State by him on social media, nothing to link him to the terror group. It’s understandable that the Islamic State would wish to get credit for his murders of three IDF soldiers, but Salah looks as if he was a lone wolf.
For its part, Egypt has agreed to compensate the families of the victims.
The Egyptian government wants to do the right thing by Israel, and compensating the families of the soldiers Salah killed will certainly help. It doesn’t want anything to damage its decade-long security cooperation with the IDF. In the Sinai, Egypt relies on Israeli intelligence to help with its campaign against both the remnants of the Islamic State, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas); at times, Cairo has even called on Israel to conduct airstrikes on ISIS in the northern Sinai.
In the early morning of Saturday, June 3, Mohamed Saleh Ibrahim, 22, shot dead Sgt. Lia Ben-Nun, 19, and Staff Sgt. Uri Iluz, 20, at an observation post near the border. In the ensuing manhunt, Staff Sgt. Ohad Dahan, 20, was killed in an exchange of gunfire with the terrorist, inside Israeli territory. Ibrahim, too, was killed in the exchange, and a fourth Israeli soldier sustained minor injuries….
Israel’s Army Radio reported on Sunday that six rifle magazines, a Koran and a knife were found on Ibrahim’s body. According to the report, the presence of the Koran has led the IDF to believe that Ibrahim was motivated by Islamic religious extremism.
However, Egypt claimed that Ibrahim had crossed the border to pursue drug smugglers following an earlier arrest….
The Egyptian government first claimed that Ibrahim had crossed over into Israel in pursuit of drug smugglers, but soon dropped that claim, once it became clear that — armed with a rifle, six rifle magazines cartridges, and a Qur’an — he had always meant to kill the IDF soldiers on duty at the border.
Eyal Zisser, a lecturer in the Middle East History Department at Tel Aviv University, agreed that the attack was an isolated incident that does not reflect the policies of the Egyptian regime.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, he said, “remains committed to the peace agreement with Israel, and the continued close relationship and military cooperation.”
“For Sisi, a policeman brainwashed by extreme Islam is a threat to his regime and not only to Israel, so we can calm down,” he added….
Zisser reminds Israelis that Sisi is just as, or even more, threatened by committed jihadis such as Mohamed Salah Ibrahim, than Israel, and therefore they need not worry about any breakdown in the security cooperation that benefits both Israel and Egypt.
The presence of ISIS on Israel’s southern border, coupled with the persistent smuggling problem, presents a unique challenge for both Egypt and Israel.
In the Sinai, ISIS, as well as local members of Hamas, try to smuggle weapons to terror groups — mainly Hamas, but also the PIJ — in Gaza. The money ISIS earns from such weapons transfers help it to pay its fighters in the Sinai who have been attacking Egyptian soldiers. There are also reports of drugs being smuggled into Gaza from the Sinai, where they are then transferred to Israel; the smugglers, helped by ISIS and Hamas to evade Egyptian and Israeli border guards, share their profits with both groups of terrorists. Both Egypt and Israel have their own good and sufficient reasons to halt the smuggling.
The problem is even worse on Israel’s eastern border.
In one of the most serious cases to date, in April, Israeli authorities arrested Jordanian parliamentarian Imad al-Adwan after finding 12 rifles and 194 pistols in his vehicle at the Allenby Bridge border crossing.
Further investigation revealed that since February 2022, al-Adwan had engaged in the illicit transportation of a diverse range of goods into Israel. This unauthorized activity took place on 12 separate occasions and was facilitated by the misuse of Adwan’s diplomatic passport. Among the items involved in this illegal operation were exotic birds, electronic cigarettes and gold….
There has been a great increase in the number of smuggling attempts from Jordan over the past few years, and weapons have been the main, though not the only, object of such smuggling. Imad al-Adwan, a member of Jordan’s parliament who apparently thought that would make him exempt from search – he thought wrong – made 12 trips into Israel with smuggled goods. On his last such trip, al-Adwan was discovered to have hidden in his car 12 rifles and 194 pistols which, had they not been discovered, would have been delivered to terrorists in the West Bank, and caused great harm to Israeli civilians and soldiers.
The smuggling of weapons into Gaza from the Sinai, and into Israel from Jordan, has reached such dimensions as to constitute a real security threat to the Jewish state. Israel needs to put more resources – both men and technology – into stopping the smugglers in the south and in the east. For those weapons are intended for one purpose: killing Israelis.
Syrian Refugee Stabs Toddlers in French Park
French soldiers secure the area after several children and an adult have been injured in a knife attack in Annecy, in the French Alps, France, June 8, 2023. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
ANNECY, France—Four toddlers and two adults were stabbed in a knife attack in the tranquil French mountain town of Annecy on Thursday, and the government said the suspected assailant was a Syrian refugee.
Two of the children and one adult were in hospital in a life-threatening condition, while the other victims were less seriously hurt.
A video of the attack, taken by a bystander and verified by Reuters, showed the assailant jump a low wall into a children's playground and repeatedly lunge at a child in a stroller, pushing aside a woman who tries to fend him off.
Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne said the suspected attacker, who was in police custody, was a 31-year old Syrian national who was granted asylum in Sweden 10 years ago. He had entered France legally, she said, and was carrying Swedish identity documents and a Swedish driving license.
The local prosecutor leading the investigation said there was no indication that terrorism was the assailant's motivation. He was under investigation for attempted murder.
The four children were just toddlers, aged between 22 months and three years, Annecy prosecutor Line Bonnet-Mathis told reporters.
One of them was a British national, another was Dutch, Bonnet-Mathis said.
As the assailant, who wore a blue-chequered headscarf and sunglasses, slashed at his victims, one bystander tried to stop him by throwing his backpack at him, the video showed.
The incident took place at around 0745 GMT in Le Paquier park in Annecy, a town in the French Alps.
"The nation is in shock," President Emmanuel Macron said on Twitter, calling the attack "an act of absolute cowardice".
MOTHERS CRYING
"He clearly targeted the babies," a witness who gave his name as Ferdinand told BFM TV.
"Mothers were crying, everybody was running," said George, owner of a nearby restaurant.
Another video, also verified by Reuters, showed the assailant, who was shot at by police as they sought to detain him, being overpowered by officers. He was not injured, the prosecutor said.
Several witnesses described Le Paquier park as an usually tranquil place popular with tourists for its stunning views of Lake Annecy and the mountains.
"It's a place where babysitters and parents take young children to play. I often see around 15 toddlers there in the morning, and the atmosphere is fantastic," said Yohan, who works at an ice-cream parlour just opposite the park.
France has been shocked by a number of violent incidents over the past few months, including the fatal stabbing last month of a nurse in the northern town of Reims. Also last month, a drunk driver accidentally killed three policemen.
Macron has denounced what he calls a "de-civilisation process" in the country, while opposition lawmakers say his government has been too lax on law and order.
"Nothing more abominable than to attack children," National Assembly speaker Yael Braun-Pivet said on Twitter. Parliament observed a minute of silence to mark the incident.
That ‘Christian Terrorist’ in France Has Been Recognized
The news was shocking beyond measure: a man went on a stabbing spree at a playground in the French city of Annecy last Thursday, stabbing four three-year-olds and an adult. The attacker shouted “In the name of Jesus Christ” as he did his stabbing and claimed to be a Christian. He even had a made-to-order Christian name: Abdelmasih Hanoun; “Abdelmasih” means “Slave of Christ.”It was suspicious and contrived, but it did seem to confirm the Leftist elites’ claim that the largest terror threat comes from right-wing Christians. There was just one catch: some people have recognized Abdelmasih Hanoun and say that he is actually a Muslim. I know, knock me over with a feather, right?
If the people who say they have recognized Selwan Majd are correct, it would certainly explain the anomalies of this peculiar case, which from the beginning seemed less like an actual case of Christian terrorism than a Muslim’s idea of what a Christian terrorist might be like. The attacker’s shout of “In the name of Jesus Christ” was all too obviously meant to be a parallel to the jihadis’ ubiquitous scream of “Allahu akbar.” But when has any Christian anywhere committed acts of violence while screaming this phrase? It was just too neat, suggesting not so much a Christian terrorist as someone who wanted very much to be thought of as a Christian terrorist.
The Christian name that the attacker used, Abdelmasih, was likewise a bit too obvious as if its whole point here again was to make onlookers aware that this individual was a Christian. During pauses between the attacks, he ostentatiously fingered a cross he was wearing around his neck, as if he wanted to make sure that people noticed it. But try to think of another instance of a cross-wearing Christian shouting about Christ and fingering a cross while stabbing people. This has, of course, never, ever happened, while Muslims screaming about Allah while stabbing people is all too common.
We don’t know why, if this report is accurate, Selwan Majd decided to pose as a Christian and stab random children. He may have been angered and disappointed by the failure of his pose as a Christian to gain him asylum in Sweden and France. Or maybe this was his plan all along: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, famously said “War is deceit” (Bukhari 4.52.268).
Ultimately, however, we may never know the full story of this case, because once it stopped being a case of Christian terrorism, it no longer fit the media paradigm. Another Muslim migrant in Europe runs around stabbing random people? That’s not news; that’s an all too familiar feature of life in the brave new multicultural Europe.
Cole James Bridges went to a high school in Clarkesville, Tennessee and worked at a Papa Johns pizza place near Akron, Ohio before joining the United States Army. Mateo Ventura was a high school student in Wakefield, Massachusetts.
Within a week of each other in June 2023, Bridges pled guilty to plotting to help ISIS kill American soldiers, while Ventura was arrested for trying to provide aid to the Islamic State.
Bridges and Ventura, 20 and 18 years old, like Trevor Bickford, 19, of Maine, who was hit with federal charges this year for attacking NYPD police officers with a machete in Times Square, and Xavier Pelkey, 18, also of Maine, who pled guilty in April after trying to recruit two underage teens for a terrorist attack in Chicago, show the rate at which ordinary American teens are converting to Islam and plotting terrorist attacks.
While we made everyone take their shoes off at the airport and labored to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamic terrorists won the hearts and minds of our children.
Our national security establishment feverishly imagined vast Al Qaeda attack plots while ignoring the real attack. An attack so deep and so wounding that it is far more devastating than September 11. It was an attack aided and abetted by the government, our cultural establishment and entertainment industries which urged Americans to learn about and embrace Islam.
Teenagers like Bridges, Ventura, Bickford, Pelkey and many others did. While Muslim immigrants still make up a significant percentage of Islamic terror plots, they increasingly come from American teenagers who converted to Islam. And, unlike past Muslim terror converts who followed a familiar path from drug dealing to prison to terrorism, these are our boys.
Except they’re not ours anymore.
Bridges lyrically spoke of the Islamic terrorists of ISIS as “brothers who have been fighting to establish a khilafah” or caliphate, and “have inspired me a lot, they’re (sic) love for Allah.”
Ventura wanted to fight a “war on kuffar” or non-Muslims.
Bickford carried an Islamic text and had underlined the words, “fight in the Name of Allah and in the Cause of Allah. Fight against those who do not believe in Allah. Wage a holy war.” He wrote in his journal that he wanted a traditional Muslim burial and did not want to be buried “in the land of the kuffar”. If he died while killing Americans, he did not want to be laid to rest in America.
Pelkey, who changed his name to Abdullah, wrote that he wanted to “burst thru the door of Jihad in america and strike fear in the hearts of these kafirun nothing pisses these american kuffar off and scares em more than a term they use ‘homegrown terrorist.’”
Their plans for Islamic mass murder, Bridges wanted to attack the 9/11 memorial, Pelkey was going to burst into a synagogue separate the adults from the children, and then kill the adults, have received what little attention a broken country has to spare for the kind of story that people don’t even pay attention to anymore. We are so busy fighting each other that we hardly even look up when the next generation converts to Islam and signs up with Al Qaeda or ISIS.
Americans used to associate Islamic converts with black nationalist groups, but this is no longer the case. Latinos, like Bridges (raised by a stepfather, his mother’s last name was Gonzalez), are the fastest growing population of converts, but a quarter of converts to Islam are white.
In the UK, young white Muslim converts like 19-year-old Matthew King, whose mother turned him in after an attack plot on British soldiers, or Lewis Ludlow, who changed his name to Ali Hussain and pled guilty to scouting out targets like St Paul’s Cathedral and Madame Tussauds, are also becoming more commonplace.
There are certain common denominators among Muslim converts as there are among school shooters. Bickford was being raised by a stepfather while Ventura had been bullied in school. Bickford’s father had died of a drug overdose, and Pelkey was living with his mother and an autistic younger brother.
Like most cults, the new mosque recruits are lost and looking for somewhere to belong. Missing fathers and a general sense of alienation are a common theme. America no longer provides a sense of identity and even institutions like the U.S. Army don’t offer any real purpose. Falling through the spreading cracks of an imploding culture, they join gangs, movements and Islam.
What too few Americans understood after the September 11 attacks was that this was a culture war. Foreign Muslim terrorists could kill us by the thousands and perhaps even one day the hundreds of thousands, but even at expanding immigration rates it would take generations for them to demographically conquer us. Unlike Europe, America has a more robust birth rate, in part because of migration from south of the border. We would have to conquer ourselves.
The Bush administration responded to 9/11 with an ambitious effort to democratize the Muslim world, unaware and uncaring of the Muslim world’s parallel effort to Islamize America. The withdrawal from Afghanistan, like the failure of the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS, collapsed the project to democratize the Muslim world. But the Islamization of America is succeeding.
What does Islam offer that we don’t? Patriarchy for fatherless boys, the illusion of belonging to a global Islamic Ummah, the promise of a system of moral order with the creation of the Caliphate, and the escape from a culture that no longer stands for much except comic book movies and politics.
Pop culture and politics have become the religions of a declining nation. In the midst of the culture war, many Americans from both sides have developed hostility and contempt for their own country. Others retreat to imaginary pop culture universes to debate the ins and outs of their devotion to Marvel, Star Wars or Taylor Swift with the intensity once reserved for theology.
Americans are becoming less patriotic and religious and the falloff is most pronounced among the young. It is no coincidence that Islamic recruitment of American teens is booming in areas where traditional organized religion is declining. Is it surprising that Maine, the third least religious state where barely a quarter described themselves as Christians, produced two Islamic terror converts? A decade ago, only 34% of people in the state believed religion was very important. But just because people abandon traditional churches, doesn’t mean that teenagers and twenty-somethings will give up on religion. They will find people who really believe.
And the Jihad really believes.
We are not just losing the military and demographic wars, but the even more important cultural war. America’s political and cultural establishment embraced Islam. And this is the result.
All the episodes of ‘24’ envisioning complicated plots of mass murder were off the mark. What happened instead was that the plotters got on planes, landed and moved here. They set up mosques and schools, they became reporters, executives and members of congress. Like their leftist allies, they fought the war from the inside and we did not so much lose as surrender.
A generation of young men, born after 9/11 and the end of the War on Terror, were urged to learn about Islam, the way they’re encouraged to learn about sex changes. Some castrated themselves and pretended to be women, others joined ISIS instead.
When life looks senseless and meaningless, each day filled with mechanical routines and hollow entertainments, the human soul needs to reach for something that promises more.
America is not becoming irreligious, it is losing its religions and finding new gods. Some of those gods tell their followers to kill the infidels, attack the 9/11 memorial and kill until America is Islamic.
As we take off our shoes at the airport, a new generation is losing its soul.
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.
New Zealand author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon also reaches some distance into the past, tracing Obamacare to the 1930s, when Quentin Young, a young Communist doctor in Chicago, first began thinking about socialized medicine. In the 1990s he advised Hillary Clinton on health care; later still (he lived until 1992), he collaborated with Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy. As it happens, Young shared his medical practice for two decades with Obama’s personal physician, David Scheiner, and was present at the meeting, hosted by former terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, at which it was announced that Obama, also present, would be running for Congress. Along the way, he played a huge role in shaping Obama’s views on health-care coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment