Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Israeli Court Tells the Truth About Palestinian Authority and Terror - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Sanctioned and paid to murder.

On July 9, an Israeli court ruled that the Palestinian Authority was responsible for several attacks by Palestinian terrorist organizations against Israel — a landmark decision that could, and should, have international implications.

The ruling by Jerusalem District Court Judge Moshe Drori – which he submitted as he went into retirement – regarded lawsuits submitted on behalf of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism against the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and senior PLO and PA leaders.

The main question that the lawsuits raised was whether or not the PA was directly responsible for Palestinian terrorist attacks carried out against Israelis. The lawsuits related to 17 different Palestinian terrorist attacks which cumulatively murdered 34Israelis. The attacks occurred in 1996 and between 2000 and 2002.

The question of the PLO/PA’s direct role in terrorism is one that Israeli and U.S. officials have shied away from since the PLO and Israel embarked on the so-called peace process in 1993. The PLO, which was founded in 1964, and its component organizations were the architects of modern terrorism.

The peace process between the PLO and Israel was predicated on the assumption that the PLO would abandon terrorism and advance the cause of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Only then could Israel recognize the legitimacy of the PLO as a peace partner, and begin transferring control over land in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza to the PLO and its leader, Yassir Arafat.

Yet from the moment the PA was first established in 1994, Israel suffered from a steep increase in terrorism. From 1993-2000, when the peace process was in full swing, Palestinians murdered 269 Israelis in terror attacks. That was higher than the number of Israelis murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the 15 years preceding the peace process.

In July 2000, the Clinton administration convened a peace conference at Camp David whose goal was to forge a final peace deal between Israel and the PLO/PA. Israel, led by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians statehood and full sovereign control over Gaza, and sovereign control over 96 percent of the West Bank. Barak’s offer also included massive Israeli concessions in Jerusalem that would have led to the redivision of the city and the transfer of sovereign control over the Temple Mount – Judaism’s most sacred site – to the would-be Palestinian state, led by the PLO.

Arafat rejected Barak’s offer. He returned to the West Bank and ordered the heads of his security services and his Fatah faction of the PLO to prepare for a massive terror campaign against Israel. That campaign began in late September 2000. Israel was only able to defeat the terror campaign in 2004-2005. During the course of the terror war, Palestinian terrorists murdered more than 1,100 Israelis. Some ten thousand Israelis were wounded.

Throughout this entire period and since, Israel, the United States, and (of course) the European Union avoided asking how responsible the Palestinian Authority was for the terrorism raging against Israel.

The reason for their avoidance was clear. If they acted on the evidence, which showed the PA was directly involved in much of the terrorist violence against Israel and its citizens, they would be compelled to accept that the PLO’s pledge to abjure terrorism was a lie.

The PLO remained a terrorist organization. And as its executive arm for controlling the areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that Israel transferred to PLO control, the PA itself was a terrorist organization.

The policy implications of this conclusion were dire. Both Israel and the U.S. would be required to reconsider their recognition of the PLO and the PA and move to designate both as terrorist organizations.

Not wanting to take this action, Israel and the U.S. limited the scope of their sanctions to specific Palestinian terror groups and avoided the elephant in the room. This policy was always problematic because the PLO/PA consistently expressed support for terrorists who attacked Israelis.

In 2002, it became untenable.

Following a massive escalation of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks that claimed hundreds of Israeli victims, in April 2002, Israel launched a counter-terror operation in the West Bank called Operation Defensive Shield. Its goal was to restore Israeli security control over the Palestinian cities and towns that the PA had transformed into launching grounds for suicide bombers. During the course of the operation, Israeli forces took control over Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah. IDF soldiers seized mountains of documents from the stronghold. Those documents showed Arafat directly ordering and paying for terrorist attacks against Israeli targets and signing off on requisitions for arms, ammunition and money to finance terror attacks and terror cells.

The Bush administration, like the government of then-Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, was unwilling to countenance the implications of the documents. So they ignored them. Indeed, then-President George W. Bush became the first U.S. president to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state almost immediately after Israel seized the documents proving the PA’s direct involvement in, and leadership of, the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

It took another 17 years, but in his ruling Drori acknowledged the significance of those documents, and the criminal implications of the PA’s consistent support for terrorists and glorification of their crimes.

Drori determined that the PA and the PLO were directly responsible for the attacks, both due to actions they took before the attacks were carried out, and due to actions they took in the aftermath of those attacks.

The judge also determined that the PA was directly responsible for several of the attacks because it financed them and ordered them to be carried out. He determined that the PA was responsible for other attacks because it glorified and financially rewarded the terrorists who carried them out, and paid pensions to the terrorists’ families.

As the Jerusalem Post reported, only some of the 17 attacks were carried out by groups like Fatah, that are part of the PLO. But while acknowledging that some of the attacks were carried out by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terror groups, which are outside the PLO, Drori ruled that the PA was ultimately responsible for the attacks “based on official PA statements inciting, taking credit for and supporting all terrorist attacks” during the terror war.

Drori noted that “the PA not only provided logistical and financial support to terrorists, but bankrolled terrorists and their families as well as naming streets, squares, schools and sporting events after so-called ‘martyrs’ [that is, terrorists] killed while carrying out attacks.”

Drori further noted that the PA’s so-called “pay to slay” policy, which devotes more than six percent of the PA’s overall annual budget to paying salaries to terrorists jailed by Israel for committing terrorist attacks against Israel, is a form of official sponsorship of terrorism. The PA’s pay scale is sliding: the more Israelis a terrorist kills, the more money he receives. If the terrorist is killed, then his family receives the payments.

From a financial perspective, Drori’s ruling leaves the PA and the PLO liable for damages to Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism. Due to Drori’s retirement, the level of damages will be determined by another judge. But they can reach as high as a billion shekels, or $279 million.

From a political perspective, the implications of Drori’s judgment are harder to predict.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner heads the Shurat HaDin organization, which is dedicated to seeking legal redress for victims of Palestinian terrorism. She filed several of the lawsuits on behalf of terror victims that led to Drori’s ruling.

Darshan-Leitner was firm regarding the implications of the ruling. In a statement to the Post, she said that the Palestinian terror war was an attempt to achieve political ends that the PLO was unable to extract at the negotiating table with Israel. Specifically, she explained, “The Palestinian cause was genocide against Jews in Israel.”

She added that the court’s ruling proved that the Palestinian terror war “was not a popular uprising, but a planned and deliberate war against the civilian population of Israel.”

It should be noted that little has changed since 2002. The Palestinian Authority continues to incite and indeed solicit terrorism against Israel.

The PA’s “pay to slay” policy remains in force today. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas prefers to forego both U.S. financial aid and Israeli financial transfers, which last year were conditioned on the PA ending the payments to terrorists.

Abbas insisted that the payments to terrorists must continue because “we actually sent them, so we are committed to them. We have to pay them.”

If the United States and Israel accept the evidence that led to Drori’s decision, the policy implications are clear. The PLO and the PA are terrorist organizations, not political actors. And they should be so designated and treated accordingly.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

European Union: A Massive Expansion of Top-down Powers - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Von der Leyen's proposals would substantially increase the role of Brussels in virtually all aspects of economic and social life in Europe — all at the expense of national sovereignty.

  • An examination of von der Leyen's main policy proposals reveals that she is calling for a massive expansion of top-down powers of the European Commission. Her proposals would substantially increase the role of Brussels in virtually all aspects of economic and social life in Europe — all at the expense of national sovereignty.
  • Von der Leyen warned that Brussels would overrule EU member states opposed to her tax overhaul... She called for a comprehensive "European Rule of Law Mechanism" to ensure the primacy of EU law over the national laws of EU member states. She warned that there would be financial consequences for member states that refuse to comply.... She called for a change in rules so that the EU could act even without the unanimous consent of EU member states.
  • "What you've seen from Ursula von der Leyen today is an attempt by the EU to take control of every single aspect of our lives. She wants to build a centralized, undemocratic, updated form of Communism that will render [obsolete] nation state parliaments, where the state controls everything, where nation state parliaments will cease to have any relevance at all." — Nigel Farage, European Parliament, July 16, 2019.

Former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who has been narrowly confirmed as the next President of the European Commission, promises an ambitious left-leaning policy program on climate change, taxes, migration and the rule of law. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has been narrowly confirmed as the next President of the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union.

In a secret ballot in the European Parliament on July 16, von der Leyen, a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, received 383 votes, only nine more than the 374 required — the lowest margin since the position of President was established in 1958. She will take over from Jean-Claude Junker in November 2019 for a five-year term.

Before the vote, von der Leyen promised an ambitious left-leaning policy program on climate change, taxes, migration and the rule of law. Many of her pledges — which would require transferring yet more national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels — appeared aimed at enticing support for her candidacy from Greens and Socialists in the European Parliament.

In the final vote, however, the Socialists were divided in their support for von der Leyen and the Greens formally opposed her. Interestingly, von der Leyen won with the support of eurosceptics in Central and Eastern Europe after she publicly criticized the way the EU has treated them due to their opposition to mass migration.

In the past, von der Leyen has called for the creation of a European superstate: "My aim is the United States of Europe, on the model of federal states such as Switzerland, Germany or the United States," she said in an August 2011 interview with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. More recently, however, she appeared to scale back her ambitions: she said that her dream of a federalized EU had become "more mature and more realistic." In comments apparently aimed at appeasing Central and Eastern Europe, she added: "In the European Union, there is unity in diversity. That is different from federalism. I think that is the right way."

An examination of von der Leyen's policy proposals, however, reveals that she is calling for a massive expansion of top-down powers of the European Commission. Her proposals would substantially increase the role of Brussels in virtually all aspects of economic and social life in Europe — all at the expense of national sovereignty.

Following is a brief summary of von der Leyen's main proposals for the next five years, as outlined in a 24-page document titled, "My Agenda for Europe":

Climate Change

Von der Leyen called for the European Union to be "carbon neutral" by 2050. She pledged to propose a "European Green Deal" during her first 100 days in office. The deal would include the first "European Climate Law" to enshrine the 2050 climate neutrality target into law: "Carbon emissions must have a price. Every person and every sector will have to contribute."

She also pledged to introduce a "Carbon Border Tax" that would apply to non-European companies, to ensure that European companies "can compete on a level playing field." In addition, a "European Climate Pact" would "commit to a set of pledges to bring about a change in behavior, from the individual to the largest multinational."

Von der Leyen's social reengineering scheme would be paid for by European taxpayers: A "Sustainable Europe Investment Plan" would "support €1 trillion of climate investment over the next decade in every corner of the EU." She also vowed that the EU "will lead international negotiations to increase the level of ambition of other major emitters by 2021."

Economy, Society and Taxation

Von der Leyen vowed to prioritize the further deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union. She pledged to introduce a "Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and Competitiveness," a "European Deposit Insurance Scheme" and complete a "Banking Union." She also vowed to strengthen the international role of the euro.

She pledged to integrate European economic governance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Von der Leyen proposed a legal instrument to ensure a minimum wage for workers in all 28 EU member states. She also proposed a "European Unemployment Benefit Reinsurance Scheme," a "European Child Guarantee," and a "Work-Life Balance Directive," to "encourage better sharing of responsibilities between women and men."

Von der Leyen also proposed a "European Gender Strategy" to ensure "equal pay for equal work," and pledged to introduce "binding pay-transparency measures." She vowed to set quotas for gender balance on company boards. She also promised a fully gender-equal European Commission: "By the end of my mandate, I will ensure we have full equality at all levels of Commission management. I will accept nothing less."

Von der Leyen vowed to overhaul the European taxation system: "One of the key foundations of our social market economy is that everybody pays their fair share. There can be no exceptions." She promised to prioritize taxation of big tech companies: "If by the end of 2020 there is still no global solution for a fair digital tax, the EU should act alone." She pledged to impose a common consolidated corporate tax base: "Differences in tax rules can be an obstacle to the deeper integration of the single market. It can hamper growth, particularly in the euro area where the economic ties are stronger. We need to be able to act." She warned that Brussels would overrule EU member states opposed to her tax overhaul: "I will make use of the clauses in the Treaties that allow proposals on taxation to be adopted by co-decision and decided by qualified majority voting in the Council. This will make us more efficient and better able to act fast when needed."


Von der Leyen pledged to develop joint EU standards for 5G networks, and to achieve "technological sovereignty" in critical technology areas: "We will jointly define standards for this new generation of technologies that will become the global norm." She added: "In my first 100 days in office, I will put forward legislation for a coordinated European approach on the human and ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence."

Meanwhile, a new EU "Digital Services Act" would "upgrade our liability and safety rules for digital platforms, services and products, and complete our 'Digital Single Market.'" A joint "Cyber Unit" would "speed up information sharing and better protect ourselves."

Von der Leyen also called for a "European Education Area" to "change the culture of education" and a "Digital Education Action Plan" to "rethink education."

Rule of Law, Migration and Internal Security

Von der Leyen called for a comprehensive "European Rule of Law Mechanism" to ensure the primacy of EU law over the national laws of EU member states. She warned that there would be financial consequences for member states that refuse to comply: "I intend to focus on tighter enforcement, using recent judgements of the Court of Justice showing the impact of rule-of-law breaches on EU law as a basis. I stand by the proposal to make the rule of law an integral part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework." She added: "The Commission will always be an independent guardian of the Treaties. Lady Justice is blind – she will defend the rule of law wherever and by whomever it is attacked."

Von der Leyen also called for a "New Pact on Migration and Asylum" in which a reinforced European Border and Coast Guard Agency would take over border control responsibilities from EU member states: "I want to see these [EU] border guards with the ability to act at the EU's external borders in place by 2024."

Meanwhile, a new "Common European Asylum System" would require all EU member states to offer asylum to migrants who request it: "We all need to help each other and contribute." In addition, the European Public Prosecutor's Office "should have more muscle and authority" and "be able to investigate and prosecute cross-border terrorism."

European Defense and Trade

Von der Leyen, who previously called for the creation of a European Army, pledged to take "further bold steps in the next five years towards a genuine European Defense Union." She added: "We need an integrated and comprehensive approach to our security."

She also said: "I believe Europe should have a stronger and more united voice in the world." She called for a change in rules so that the EU could act even without the unanimous consent of EU member states: "To be a global leader, the EU needs to be able to act fast: I will push for qualified majority voting to become the rule in this area. I will work closely with the High Representative/Vice-President to ensure a coordinated approach to all of our external action, from development aid to our Common Foreign and Security Policy."

In the area of trade, von der Leyen said that she would appoint a "Chief Trade Enforcement Officer" to improve compliance and enforcement of EU trade agreements. She also said that she would lead efforts to update and reform the World Trade Organization: "We must ensure that we can enforce our rights, including through the use of sanctions, if others block the resolution of a trade conflict."


Von der Leyen's paper-thin endorsement by the European Parliament showed that she has as many detractors as supporters. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage may be her biggest critic. Addressing the European Parliament, he said:
"What you've seen from Ursula von der Leyen today is an attempt by the EU to take control of every single aspect of our lives. She wants to build a centralized, undemocratic, updated form of Communism that will render [obsolete] nation state parliaments, where the state controls everything, where nation state parliaments will cease to have any relevance at all.
"I have to say from our perspective, in some ways, I'm really rather pleased, because you've just made Brexit a lot more popular in the United Kingdom. Thank God we're leaving!
"But it is in the aspect of defense that I think people's minds should be focused. She's a fanatic for building a European Army, but she's not alone. When it's completed, NATO will cease to exist or will not have any relevance in Europe at all."
Brexit Party MEP Matthew Patten, in an opinion article — "Fanatical Von der Leyen is the Final Nail in the Coffin for Shambolic EU 'Democracy'" — published by The Telegraph, wrote:
"Ursula von der Leyen, the controversial Defense Minister of the Bundeswehr, got the approval of the EU Parliament to become President of the EU Commission by just nine votes.... Here in the EU Parliament, where most deals are stitched up way before any vote, that's as close as it gets....
"It comes after days of intense wheeler-dealing, with Mrs. von der Leyen walking the corridors of Strasbourg and Brussels to lobby for the Presidency....
"Starting with 'we have to do it the European way' and 'the world needs more Europe' her proposals included an EU minimum wage, a capital markets union, a European unemployment insurance scheme, and most controversially, the abandonment of the national veto on foreign policy, another step towards a European Army and handing over the decision to go to war to the EU.
"She also promised the deepening of Europe's economic and monetary union, a common consolidated corporate tax base, to be sympathetic towards an approach from Britain for further delay of Brexit.
"Von der Leyen concluded saying, 'We need to move towards full co-decision power for the European Parliament and away from unanimity for climate, energy, social and taxation policies. She finished with a rallying cry 'Long Live Europe!' — underlining her support for a United States of Europe."
In Italy, von der Leyen's confirmation led to a crisis in the coalition government. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte backed von der Leyen, as did Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement. Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini from the League party opposed her. He tweeted that support for von der Leyen "betrayed" the vote of Italians who wanted change in the European Union.

US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland called on von der Leyen to revive transatlantic trade talks — but warned that the United States was ready to impose tariffs with "immediate financial consequences for the EU" if there is no progress in negotiations. "I'm very optimistic about her leadership and about her willingness to engage constructively with the United States," Sondland said in an interview with Politico.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Rep. Ilhan Omar; Accused Of Immigration, Tax And Student Loan Fraud - Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

Following an extensive three-year investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar by investigative journalist David Steinberg, a House ethics complaint has been filed by Judicial Watch calling for a probe into potential crimes committed by Omar and her brother.

According to the complaint, "Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud."

"The evidence is overwhelming Rep. Omar may have violated the law and House rules.  The House of Representatives must urgently investigate and resolve the serious allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Omar," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. "We encourage Americans to share their views on Rep. Omar’s apparent misconduct with their congressmen."

Laid out in the complaint, as compiled in Steinberg's research:
Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017. In the course of that divorce, Ms. Omar submitted an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” to the State of Minnesota on August 2, 2017 and claimed, among other things, that she had had no contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011. She also claimed that she did know where to find him. The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence. Ms. Omar signed the “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” under penalty of perjury. The very document that Ilham Omar signed on August 2, 2017 bears the following notation directly above her signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116.”
Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname “hameey”, in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.
Rep. Omar’s potential crimes far exceed perjurious statements made in a Minnesota court filing.
Rep. Omar’s conduct may include immigration fraud. It appears that Rep. Omar married her brother in order to assist his emigration to the United Stated from the United Kingdom. The same immigration fraud scheme may have aided Mr. Elmi in obtaining federally-backed student loans for his attendance at North Dakota State University. Mr. Elmi and Rep. Omar simultaneously attended North Dakota State University and may have derived illicit benefits predicated on the immigration fraud scheme.
The State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds. She was forced to reimburse her campaign thousands of dollars. More significantly, the Board discovered that the federal tax returns submitted by Rep. Omar for 2014 and 2015 were filed as “joint” tax returns with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.
Under federal law, specifically, 26 U.S. Code & 7206.1, “Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.” -Judicial Watch

Flowchart (via PowerLineBlog)
Steinberg sums up the evidence (also via PowerLineBlog):
  • Verifiable UK and U.S. marriage records
  • Verifiable address records
  • Time-stamped, traceable, archived online communications (Convictions and settlements based upon social media evidence are commonplace, Anthony Weiner being a notable example)
  • Background check confirmations of SSNs and birthdates
  • Archived court documents signed under penalty of perjury
  • Photos which can be examined to rule out digital manipulation
  • The 2019 Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board investigation, which found Omar filed illegal joint tax returns with a man who was not her husband in at least 2014 and 2015
  • Three years’ of evidence published across many articles — none of which has been shown to be incorrect, or have even been challenged with contradictory evidence from Rep. Omar or any other source
  • Perjury evidence that stands on its own — regardless of whom she married:
    • Long after June 2011, she was clearly in contact with the only man in either the U.S. or the UK with the same name and birthdate as the man she married. She was clearly in contact with several people who were in contact with him.
    • Further, Preya Samsundar did contact him, published how she managed to contact him, and published his email admitting to being photographed with Omar in London in 2015. To be clear: Omar was legally married to an “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” at the time she was photographed next to a man who admits his name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and that he is in the photo.
    • Samsundar published all of this information on how to contact Ahmed Nur Said Elmi a few months before Omar swore to that nine-question court document.
  • Rep. Omar has refused all inquiries from her constituents, elected officials, and media outlets to provide any specific evidence contradicting even a single allegation suggested by three years of now-public information.
  • In fact, Omar has responded by making information less available:
    • In August 2016, after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar posted the allegations, Omar’s verified social media accounts were taken offline.
    • Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s social media accounts were also taken offline.
    • When the accounts returned, a large amount of potentially incriminating evidence had verifiably been deleted.
    • I found and published at least ten additional “before and after” instances of evidence still being deleted in 2018.
  • Omar has released carefully worded, Clintonian statements that denigrate those seeking answers from her as racists. Yet she has repeatedly refused to answer questions or issue anything other than public relations statements.
  • I have a large amount of information that we have not published for reasons including the protection of sources.
According to Steinberg, "I believe Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and me, with our three years of articles, columns and posts, have provided more than enough evidence to give law enforcement authorities probable cause to open an investigation. Now would be the chance for law enforcement, and especially for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s House colleagues, to make a sincere stand against corruption and for the uniform application of the law."

Tyler Durden


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mueller and Comey: A Cozy Relationship - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

The financial relationship between two former FBI directors, James Comey and Robert Mueller goes a long way towards explaining their joint animus to President Trump and their passionate desire to bring down his presidency.

Former FBI Director James Comey, who often can’t recall anything about the crimes committed by himself, his FBI and President Obama’s DoJ, but who lectures pompously and endlessly on ethics in government, recently released a listen of questions he felt former special prosecutor Robert Mueller should be asked at his July 24 Congressional hearings As reported:
Former FBI Director James Comey on Friday released a blog post detailing what questions he would ask Special Counsel Robert Mueller if he was a member of Congress. The revelation comes as Mueller prepares to testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.
Comey said he would focus on two key areas of Mueller's findings: the Trump campaign's relationship with Russia and whether or not obstruction of justice took place.
None of the questions Comey recommended, however, dealt with the long, cozy and lucrative relationship between Comey and Mueller that is at the heart of the FISA fraud and the deep state coup against the incoming Trump administration.

You can figure out how the swamp got the way it is by following the money. No clearer example is found in the financial relationship between two former FBI directors, James Comey and Robert Mueller, which goes a long way towards explaining their joint animus to President Trump and their passionate desire to bring down his presidency.

During testimony last year before Congress changed hands, Comey insisted he barely knew Mueller. Perhaps the most interesting dip into disingenuousness was Comey’s insistence that the man who made him a multimillionaire, Robert Mueller, was merely a passing acquaintance:
“Are you best friends with Robert Mueller?” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked Comey, according to a transcript of the hearing released Saturday by Goodlatte and Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
“I am not,” Comey said. “I admire the heck out of the man, but I don't know his phone number, I've never been to his house, I don't know his children's names.”
Comey added: “I think I had a meal once alone with him in a restaurant. I like him. I am not a -- I'm an associate of his who admires him greatly. We're not friends in any social sense.”
Comey was lying. Their “long-standing relationship” was confirmed by that Trump-loving vast right-conspiracy rag called the Washington Post:
They’ve been described as law enforcement twins and “brothers in arms.”
#COMEY & #Mueller were brothers in arms in famous 2004 standoff over domestic surveillance. Cagey choice by DAG Rosenstein.
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) May 17, 2017
Once again, James Comey and Robert Mueller -- two respected FBI veterans -- have found themselves sharing the same high-profile headlines.
The two men’s working relationship can be traced back to at least December of 2003, when Comey joined Mueller in Washington after he became John Ashcroft’s deputy attorney general, according to a 2013 Washingtonian article about the two men’s long-standing relationship.
“He and Mueller spent many hours together, developing a close partnership -- and watching together the disarray in the government over how to respond to the unfolding war on terror,” Washingtonian notes…
Robert Mueller owes his job as special counsel to long-time friend Comey, who famously leaked government documents written on government computers on government time to the New York Times via a professor friend regarding conversations with President Trump. Comey owes a great deal of his financial wealth to Robert Mueller.

Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute Researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, recently explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves when Comey briefly left government service to work for major government contractor Lockheed Martin:
Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.
“It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason -- aside from his security clearance -- is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”
Bruner continued, “One of these contracts was actually worth a billion dollars, and it was protested formally by the other bidder: IBM… The contracts flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’s private sector employer, Lockheed Martin, and James Comey made many millions over a short period of time.”
Bruner described Comey as “one of the prime examples of this kind of cashing in on government contacts.”
“We followed the money and realized that James Comey made well over ten million dollars from when he left the public sector in 2005 and by the time he returned to serve as FBI director [in 2009],” said Bruner. “He even made over six million dollars in a single year at the top government contracting corporation, Lockheed Martin; they get over $50 billion a year in government contracts.”
Why did Comey lie about that the nature and depth of his relationship with Robert Mueller, which resulted down the road in Mueller’s appointment as special counsel and the fraudulent surveillance and investigation of candidate, president, and common enemy Donald Trump? Maybe we can ask Robert Mueller about that and whether he thinks his financial dealings might warrant a special counsel or an FBI raid at the crack of dawn.

Croppped caricatures of Comey and Mueller by Donkey Hotey

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Patriotism Wins in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Backyard - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

How to win a battle with the Left.

On June 17th, the St. Louis Park City Council voted 5-0 to get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance. On July 15th, just as the abolition was set to take effect, the Council voted 7-0 in a room crowded with American flags and red, white and blue signs, to bring the Pledge back. Outside a giant inflatable bald eagle kept watch.

It was an unlikely victory for patriotism in an implausible place.

St. Louis Park is a small Democrat city in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton beat Trump here 3-1. Rep. Ilhan Omar represents it in the House. The firm at the center of her tax and marriage scandal is based here.

Councilwoman Anne Mavity, who had called for the abolition of the pledge, insisted that the pledge didn’t reflect the city’s diverse values. As part of those diverse values, she had endorsed Rep. Omar.

"Omar," Councilwoman Mavity had said, was a voice for an "unapologetic progressive agenda."

Mavity never did apologize. But at least one member of the St. Louis Park City Council did.

“I’ve concluded that I made a mistake and I’m sorry and I’m asking for forgiveness,” Councilman Steve Hallifan conceded.

The Battle of the Pledge was won by a combination of committed local patriots, who came flying flags and eager to confront the councilmembers who had tried to sneak the issue past everyone by tying it together with a meeting time change and some other procedural minutiae, and by President Trump’s willingness to take on a local issue in a place most people outside Minnesota had never heard of

The City Council had wanted to never hear the Pledge again. Instead its members were forced to listen to patriots chanting it over and over again. Even as the Council attempted to begin its order of business, the Pledge was chanted by the audience accompanied by calls for the councilmembers to stand up.

When Councilwoman Margaret Rog claimed that the protests had endangered the “mental health” of our “wonderful staff”, an audience member shouted, “We pay your salaries.”

One by one, the members of the St. Louis Park City Council announced their surrender, some, like Mavity, Rog and Brausen, in a surly and combative manner, others, like Halifan, humbly.

An army of women, men and children, waving flags of all sizes, and dressed in red, white and blue, had descended on the St. Louis Park City Council. There was red, white and blue eye makeup and necklaces. A giant inflatable bald eagle wearing a banner, “Save the Pledge” wobbled back and forth on the grass. A convoy of red, white and blue jeeps flying flags delivered a petition from 3,000 people to the Council.

The pro-Pledge activists overwhelmed the St. Louis Park City Council by tapping into the protest toolbox so often used by wealthy lefty radicals, but so rarely employed by the country’s silent middle class. The protesters understood the value of symbolism and of disruption. They disrupted Council meetings with impromptu Pledge of Allegiance recitations. They brought children waving flags and veterans holding up Iwo Jima banners. There were Scouts in attendance and lots of American flag clothing.

They captured the narrative, seized the momentum, and won.

St. Louis Park City officials had insisted that all the trouble was caused by folks from out of town. Their position is that there are no Republicans, conservatives or patriots in St. Louis Park.

When Mayor Jake Spano met with Rep. Ilhan Omar, he told her that a Women for Trump rally in the city was mostly the work of outsiders meant to harass Omar in her own district.

But if the councilmembers really thought that the community backed them, why did they back down?

In her remarks, Rog claimed that it would be a shame if the upcoming election was dominated by the singular issue of where the candidates stood on the Pledge of Allegiance.

It wasn’t the outsiders that the councilmembers feared. They didn’t want their radical leftist agenda to be hijacked by an issue on which there was much opposition to their position and little support for it.

It was a tactical retreat.

The Democrats on the City Council had tested the mettle of their community and realized that it was not quite ready to toss away the Pledge of Allegiance, take a knee for the Anthem, and burn the flag.


Councilmembers repeatedly attempted to excuse their abandonment of the Pledge on the grounds of diversity and inclusivity.

“We concluded that in order to create a more welcoming environment to a diverse community we’re going to forgo saying the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting,” Councilman Tim Brausen, who had requested the vote, had argued.

The nature of these diverse groups, often also referred to as non-citizens, was left undiscussed.

Some critics of the Pledge ban had tied the move to Rep. Ilhan Omar. While St. Louis Park is in her district, there’s no direct evidence of that. But Omar and the Pledge ban may be products of the same demographic forces reshaping St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and Minnesota.

St. Louis Park has a growing Somali Muslim population. Last year, in the same room where council members voted to junk the Pledge of Allegiance, two Somali Muslim community organizers had received an award from the city’s Human Rights Commission.

The police department's Multicultural Advisory Committee, aside from its generic activities, hosts an annual Iftar dinner. The St. Louis Park public schools have a Somali liaison and a Somali page.

Councilmembers had claimed that the Pledge needed to go for the sake of diversity.

The Pledge has no conflicts with diversity. But some Muslims do object to it on religious grounds. A pledge in Islam can be legally binding. And, as IslamicWeb puts it, “The Pledge of Allegiance of Muslims is only to Allah.” It adds that, “any person who makes his Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of his country, he is legally responsible to defend that country according to what the political leaders decide. The leaders may decide to invade other countries and commit all types of injustices, atrocities, and crimes.”

CAIR has argued that Islam forbids act of reverence for anyone but Allah, and that Muslims may choose to “opt out of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance”. Other Muslim scholars have argued that the Pledge can be recited with the mental reservation that Muslims are not contravening the sovereignty of Allah, and, thereby, Islamic law.

While Muslim terrorists are able to deceive under Taqiyya to accomplish Islamic goals, they prefer not to break oaths and pledges if they can avoid it. Osama bin Laden had even become upset when learning that Faisal Shahzad, the first Times Square bomber, had admitted to breaking his citizenship oath.

Muslims are the likeliest group in St. Louis Park for whom diversity would conflict with the Pledge.

St. Louis Park City Council members had hoped to accommodate their own distaste for the country, and that of a growing migrant refugee demographic, but instead drew a backlash from the city’s Americans.

Americans fought the Battle of the Pledge in St. Louis Park and struck a blow for patriotism in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s own backyard. They did it by drawing on the same tools with which lefties have won so many battles, they organized, radicalized, personalized, symbolized, disrupted, and they won a battle.

As Rep. Ilhan Omar and the open disdain of the City Council of St. Louis Park show, the war goes on.

The challenge for the patriots and activists will be mobilizing that momentum to continue the fight.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Is There Any Hope For Western Europe? - Mark Tapson

by Mark Tapson

An interview with Bruce Bawer, author of 'While Europe Slept.'

[To order Bruce Bawer's new book, Islam: The Essays: CLICK HERE.]

Years ago as I was awakening from my long Democrat slumber and educating myself about Islam, one of the most eye-opening books that I read was a 2006 page-turner titled While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West From Within, by a gay American living in Western Europe. Not only was it enlightening, but it made me an instant fan of Bawer’s compelling storytelling. In addition to following his subsequent books such as Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind, and even a thriller about Islamic terrorism called The Alhambra, I was fortunate and honored to become friends with Bruce through our mutual work for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Now Bawer has released a new volume with a stark black cover titled Islam: The Essays, a massive collection of well over three hundred of his articles on this crucial subject dating from the fall of 2002 through the summer of 2018. Though he suggests that the reader undertake the book chronologically in order to understand the evolution of his understanding of the topic (“Early on, for instance, I refer to ‘fundamentalist Islam’; soon enough, I drop the word ‘fundamentalist,’ having realized that Islam itself, properly understood, is fundamentalist.”), Bawer is such an engaging, perceptive writer that one can open the book at random to literally any page and find it impossible to stop reading. A chilling chronicle of the Islamization of multicultural Europe over the last 17 years, Islam: The Essays is a must-have for FrontPage Mag readers and for others in need, like I once was, of awareness and insight into the Religion of Peace™.

Bruce Bawer was able to find time to answer a few of my questions about the book and about the Islamization of Europe today.

Mark Tapson: Bruce, you note in your opening essay that it wasn’t until you moved from your native New York to Western Europe in ’98 that what you then called “fundamentalist” Islam became a daily reality for you. How was that daily reality different, and how long did it take you to fully grasp what the Islamization around you meant for Europe and the West? Was there any particular incident that showed you the writing on the wall?

Bruce Bawer: I moved from New York to Amsterdam in September 1998. First I rented a one-room flat in a beautiful part of central Amsterdam, not far from the Rijksmuseum. I spent much of my time wandering around the city and glorying in it, and saw nothing that dampened my enthusiasm. A day or two after New Year’s 1999 I traded up to a charming walk-up in a classic old townhouse on the Oude Schans canal a few blocks east of Dam Square. The view through the high windows was spectacular; again, everything seemed hunky-dory.

I’d been in that flat only a couple of weeks, however, when the landlord, claiming that the guy who had sublet it to me had no legal right to do so, sued both of us, forcing me to relocate pronto to less felicitous quarters in a neighborhood called the Oud West, just west of downtown. From my first day there, every time I looked out the window I’d see one or more women in hijab, each pushing a stroller or baby carriage, and each accompanied by one or more small children. A few doors down from my new place was a storefront establishment with a sign over it reading “neighborhood association” and with a Turkish flag flying over the door. When I walked up and looked inside – I wrote about this in While Europe Slept (2006) – a bunch of nasty-looking non-Dutch faces glared back at me.

Obviously there was something major happening on the outskirts of Amsterdam – something that wasn’t reflected in the newspapers I read and the news programs I watched on Dutch TV. And if this was happening in Amsterdam, I surmised, it was probably happening in other major European cities. Eager to find out more, I hightailed it to the library, where I found a book by some English guy outlining – and celebrating – the recent rise of Islam in Europe, his argument being that Europe, having grown too secular, needed a spiritual component. I already knew enough about Islam – although within the next few weeks and months I learned a lot more – to realize that introducing Islam to Europe on a mass scale would not enhance the native’s spiritual lives but would present them with a host of challenges, some of them potentially insuperable.

MT: You write often about the scourge of multiculturalism and how it aids and abets Islam while inculcating Westerners with a loathing of their own culture. What is the antidote to multiculturalism? What will it take to reverse this indoctrination? 

BB: I’ll get back to you on that one after I finish curing cancer. Seriously, it’s tough. What to do when kids across the Western world are being indoctrinated with multiculturalism from the moment they first enter a classroom? Multiculturalism has captured the schools and universities and mainstream media. Kids are fed a Howard Zinn version of history that, if you were brainwashed with it and never exposed to any other version, would make you hate your country, too. I do see a glimmer of hope in the fact that multiculturalists have gone so far that more and more young people are starting to see through it. I would like to think that writers like you and me can sway a lot of uncertain young minds, but the people who are succeeding at that task on a big scale are people closer to their own generation who give talks at campuses (if allowed) and post videos online (if not deplatformed) that debunk the multicultural narrative. For a lot of young people, moreover, personal exposure to the ugly realities of Islam, which are so utterly at odds with the propaganda they’ve been fed, can help them snap out of their multicultural reveries.

MT: You mention that this collection of essays “reflects certain lamentable developments in the mainstream media” – meaning, of course, its reflexive defense of Islam. Do you see any hopeful sign that either the American or European mainstream media is waking up to the Islam Problem, or are they even more stubbornly entrenched than ever in their denial?

BB: The latter. The New York Times gets worse and worse. Even Fox News punished Jeanine Pirro recently for daring to suggest that Ilhan Omar, hijab and all, might actually be a devout follower of her own religion’s dictates. Part of the problem is that the old-fashioned type of journalist, the street-smart working-class guy who had a healthy suspicion of all elites and a well-developed BS detector and used to be played in movies by guys like Spencer Tracy, has long since died off and been replaced by privileged kids from fancy colleges and journalism schools who have been marinated for years in identity-group ideology and who are often clueless about the real world. In the last couple of years websites that were receptive to articles critical of Islam have seemed to back off from the topic. Why? Cowed by advertisers? Afraid to offend the GOP establishment? Who knows?

MT: Through their immigration policies and willful blindness about Islam, the political and media elites have betrayed the citizens of Europe. Do you think the recent rise of European populism can stem the tide of the continent’s Islamization, or is it “too little, too late”?

BB: The so-called “populists” are winning big scare headlines in the leftist mainstream media, but not enough votes to make a difference. In this year’s European elections, Germans, apparently having forgotten the mass rapes on New Year’s Eve 2015-16, went for the Greens. In France, the weekly street protests bv gilets jaunes seem barely connected to concerns about rapid Islamization. Belgium? Forget it. Sweden? Lost. In Denmark’s 2019 elections, support for the Islam-critical Danish People’s Party dropped like a rock. In the UK, the success of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party was a step forward, but if Brits want to save their country they’ll need to overcome Farage’s silence on Islam. In the Netherlands, Thierry Baudet’s Islam-critical party, founded three years ago, is doing OK, but largely because it’s taking voters from Geert Wilders. And in Norway the once-promising Progress Party, now in government for six years, has long since gone mainstream, leaving critics of Islam without a real home.

The brightest glimmer of hope in Western Europe is in Italy, where Matteo Salvini’s victory last year, like Trump’s in 2016, encouraged serious people across the continent who want their own countries to take such steps. Many also look with admiration to the governments in Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern European countries that have withstood EU demands that they take in Muslim migrants. But is there any real hope for Western Europe? I have to admit to being baffled and frustrated by the continued refusal of these countries’ voters to stand up for their children’s futures, but I have to add that other informed observers are more optimistic than I am.

Mark Tapson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter