The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Netanyahu's message came after Hamas published a third sign of life video of Israeli hostage Elkana Bohbot.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recorded message to Israel, April 19, 2025.(photo credit: Screenshot/YouTube)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the citizens of Israel in a
pre-recorded message on Saturday shortly after Shabbat ended.
The video came as the US and Iran conducted the second round of direct nuclear talks and Hamas published a third sign of life video of Israeli hostage Elkana Bohbot.
“I will not surrender to murderers. Such a surrender would endanger you, the public. If we yield to their demands, all the tremendous achievements we have gained will be lost,” Netanyahu said.
“Hamas
has once again rejected a proposal to release half of the living
hostages and many fallen soldiers. Hamas rejected the proposal and
demanded an end to the war. If we accept Hamas’s demands, it would mean
that Israel can be forced to surrender,” he continued.
The prime minister reiterated that such capitulation would “endanger the country and endanger you.”
Netanyahu
also emphasized that calls from the opposition and protesting Israelis
that the government agree to the return of all the hostages – and only
then, once they are returned, go back to fighting Hamas if they continue
to pose a threat – are unrealistic.
He
said that while Hamas is vicious and cruel, they are not stupid and
will not agree to such a scenario. In addition, the international
community would not allow it, and those advocating for such a tactic do
not understand how international relations work.
“If
we capitulate to the dictates of Hamas now, all the great achievements
of the war, which we achieved with the merit of our soldiers and our
fallen and our heroic injured, all these achievements will disappear. As
your prime minister, I will not surrender to murderers who committed
the worst massacre against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
Surrender like this will endanger the country and endanger you.”
Iran nuclear weapons talks
The video came as the US and Iran held another round of nuclear talks.
The
prime minister insisted he remains totally committed to preventing Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also attacked those who have
criticized him recently for failing to take military action against
Iran’s nuclear facilities, claiming that those same critics opposed
actions he took against Iran in the past.
“It
is amusing to listen to the criticism of those who opposed the actions I
took to harm and delay Iran’s nuclear program in the past, actions
without which Iran would have had a nuclear weapon 10 years ago,”
Netanyahu said.
The
criticism came following a report that US President Donald Trump
recently blocked an Israeli-proposed strike on Iran’s nuclear
facilities.
The Pennsylvania governor might have been vice president and may yet try for the presidency. That said, the Harrisburg arson still illustrates the way Jews are reviled by the left.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat,
provides an update to the media after an arson attack on April 12, the
first night of Passover, at the governor's mansion in Harrisburg, Pa.,
April 16, 2025. Credit: Commonwealth Media Services.
It seems like a lot longer ago than just
eight months since then-Vice President Kamala Harris tapped Minnesota
Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate. Picking the inept Walz to stand
beside her on the Democratic presidential ticket was one of a series of
blunders that led to her being defeated by President Donald Trump in
November. Indeed, so tone deaf was her campaign to the national mood
that it is highly likely that she would have lost even if she had not
passed over the far more politically adept Pennsylvania Gov. Josh
Shapiro in favor of Walz.
The arson attack by a person who claimed his motive
was support for the Palestinians in their war against Israel on the
governor’s mansion in Harrisburg is a brutal reminder of why Shapiro
didn’t get a chance to help prop up Harris’s doomed campaign.
Shapiro was a far more impressive
candidate than Walz turned out to be. He certainly would have fared
better than Walz in the vice-presidential debate against then-Sen. JD
Vance (R-Ohio). He also might have potentially helped flip Pennsylvania
into the Democratic column. Instead, Trump won the commonwealth’s 19
Electoral College votes by a relatively slim but decisive 120,000 votes.
Though he was as liberal as Walz on most issues, Harris picked the
Minnesotan. The main reason was the widely held perception that Shapiro’s Jewish identity was disqualifying for many in her party’s left-wing base that reviles Israel.
In the end, neither that foolish decision nor a year’s worth of kowtowing to campus antisemites and American Muslim supporters
of Hamas was enough to help Harris engender much enthusiasm from the
intersectional activist wing of the Democratic Party, as working-class
voters of all races turned out to help elect Trump and Vance.
Yet, as the Democratic Party rallies to the defense of elite universities being threatened
with defunding by Trump because they refuse to stop tolerating and
encouraging antisemitism, Jew-hatred remains a problem for Shapiro’s
party.
The arsonist, who reportedly also brought
along a hammer with which he said he planned to assault the governor had
he met him, was mentally unstable and had a criminal history. Yet much
like the way mobs chanting for Israel’s destruction (“From the river to
the sea”) and terrorism (“Globalize the intifada”) have normalized
intimidation and violence against Jews, his ravings about “the
Palestinian people” and opposition to Israel’s war against Hamas
illustrate the impact of the lies being spread about a “genocide” being
committed in Gaza.
It goes without saying that had someone
who was a Trump supporter committed such an attack, the liberal
corporate media would have tied the crime to the president, and it would
have remained a top story for weeks, if not months. Instead, the press
is quickly moving on from the attempt to murder the Pennsylvania
governor, and there are no op-eds in The New York Times or The Washington Post claiming that left-wing Democrats have, at the very least, created an atmosphere in which such violence has become imaginable.
Of course, that’s exactly what Democrats
and much of the press were saying in October 2018 when a crazed gunman,
who blamed liberal Jewish groups for illegal immigration but also
despised Trump because of his support for Israel, attacked a Pittsburgh
synagogue and murdered 11 Jewish worshippers at a Shabbat service.
Indeed, Shapiro himself, then the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was
saying much the same thing himself when he was dropping hints about
blaming Trump in the wake of that atrocity.
Shapiro and Muslims
That Shapiro has become an object of such
suspicion and distaste for the left is ironic. When it comes to Israel,
he is typical of most liberal Democratic officeholders. He was an early
and enthusiastic supporter of President Barack Obama and never wavered
from that position during that administration’s eight years of criticism
of Israel and appeasement of Iran. He has attacked Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “one of the worst leaders of all time.”
On Israel and the war in Gaza, he is far
to the left of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. John Fetterman. Shapiro
has also been actively trying to build bridges to the anti-Israel left.
During the brief period when he was under consideration for the
vice-presidential nomination, he disavowed
two entirely reasonable op-eds he had written when he was a student
because they stated the obvious truth that peace between Israel and the
Palestinians was “virtually impossible.”
And just days before the arson attack on
his home, the governor was being criticized by some in the Jewish
community for his decision to give a $5 million state grant to a Philadelphia mosque—the largest-ever to a Pennsylvania-based Muslim institution—that is notorious as a hotbed of antisemitism. In doing so, Shapiro was sticking to the left’s disingenuous argument that a mythical wave of Islamophobia
was morally equivalent to the unprecedented surge of antisemitism that
has arisen since the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on Oct. 7,
2023. The decision was announced when Shapiro attended an Iftar dinner
at the mosque, where he said the taxpayer funding of the expansion of
the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society was a response to what he described as
“tumult overseas,” adding that “we’re facing a lot of rising hate here
at home.”
Yet none of that has exempted Shapiro from
being the object of hatred from the left. The only reason why he is
disliked by his party’s left-wing base—and considered “egregiously bad
on Palestine” by The New Republic and Slate—is
because of his open embrace of his Jewish identity and refusal to
completely disavow any support for Israel in the manner of far-left
Jewish politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt).
This raises serious questions about more than Shapiro’s political future.
The future for American Jews
Shapiro is one of those Democrats
obviously vying for the leadership of his party’s centrist wing. In his
case, moderation is more a matter of tone than policy, as demonstrated
last July by his graceful reaction to the attempted assassination of
President Trump in Butler, Pa. He remains very popular in Pennsylvania,
something that will likely be boosted by the sympathy for him and his
family after the arson attack. A highly-skilled politician, he is
regarded as a heavy favorite for re-election in 2026 and is already on
the short list of the most serious contenders for his party’s
presidential nomination in 2028.
But it remains to be seen how he will
ultimately fare in a party in which radical Israel-bashers like Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who is inheriting Sanders’s position
as putative leader of the left, seems to best represent the sentiments
of Democrats. They clearly want leaders who are willing to wage war on
Trump and the Republicans, rather than at least trying to appear to want
to unify the country, as Shapiro does.
In the aftermath of Oct. 7, the
vilification of nominally pro-Israel Jews, even Obama-supporting
liberals like the Pennsylvania governor, has been normalized by the
political left on college campuses and in the media. This has created an
atmosphere in which Jewish public figures who do not disavow Israel are
anathema to the Democrats’ intersectional base.
More than that, it also proves that
antisemitism isn’t, as Democrats have long asserted, solely a phenomenon
of the extremist right. Rooted in “progressive” orthodoxies like
critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism, it is
now primarily a feature of mainstream political discourse on the left.
So strong is the hold of these toxic ideas that it has gotten to the
point where liberal institutions like Harvard University would rather
forgo $9 billion in federal funds rather than adhere to the Trump
administration’s attempt to roll back the tide of woke Jew-hatred.
That has not only isolated liberal Jews
who have realized that longtime allies in other minority communities
have largely abandoned them and institutions where they once felt at
home are now hostile environments. It has created exactly the kind of
atmosphere in which Jews of all sorts, whether on college campuses or
even in the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, cannot consider themselves
entirely safe.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek
and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American
political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle
East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think
Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin
Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and
YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor
and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.
He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other
writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and
foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia
University.
Might Trump be backing away from its commitment to eliminate the threat Iran poses to global security?
The appointment, however, of
several officials to key national security positions in the Trump
administration, who vehemently oppose direct military action against
Iran, has raised concerns that the White House might be backing away
from its commitment to eliminate the threat Iran poses to global
security.
In particular, these concerns relate to the recent appointments
to the Pentagon of influential figures such as John Byers for Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (South and South-East Asia), and Michael
DiMino, a former career CIA military analyst and counterterrorism
official, for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East).
Similarly, concerns have arisen that DiMino will be able to use
his position as the Pentagon's new chief Middle East policy adviser to
advance an anti-Israel stance while questioning the Trump
administration's confrontational stance towards Iran.
As with Byers, DiMino was previously linked to the libertarian
Koch brothers, having held tenure as a fellow at the Washington think
tank Defense Priorities, which is funded by the Koch team.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently downgraded Trump's professed
demands by asking Iran just to lower uranium enrichment -- a statement
he quickly had to walk back. Iran has already stated that it could move
its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to "safe and undisclosed
locations," presumably for use at a later time. Russia, in an apparent
burst of generosity, has offered to host the enriched uranium. How kind
of them!
While Trump keeps offering perfect negotiating parameters, such
as, "All hostages must be released by Saturday or all hell will break
out," or, "Iran issue is easy to solve, they cannot obtain nuclear
weapons," his statements always seem to be instantly undermined.
While President Donald Trump keeps offering perfect
negotiating parameters, such as, "the Iran issue is easy to solve, they
cannot obtain nuclear weapons," his statements always seem to be
instantly undermined by officials in his administration. If this
continues, the growing band of isolationists, both media personalities
such as Tucker Carlson and people who occupy senior positions in the
Trump administration, will have won the policy battle -- a victory that
will seriously imperil the US and the wider world. Pictured from L-R:
Carlson, US Rep. Byron Donalds, Trump and J.D. Vance at the Republican
National Convention on July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Fears that the Trump administration is back-tracking on its declared
policy of seeking to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme have deepened
following the appointment of several officials to key national security
positions who are reportedly opposed to launching military action
against Tehran.
Following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
in Washington earlier this month, US President Donald Trump was explicit
about his determination to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.
"Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the talks aren't
successful, I actually think it'll be a very bad day for Iran," Trump told reporters after meeting with Netanyahu.
Trump even suggested that Israel could be the "leader" for any future
military action against Iran if the ayatollahs refused to give up its
nuclear weapons programme.
"If it requires military, we're going to have military," Trump said.
"Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the
leader of that. But nobody leads us, but we do what we want to do."
Prior to the commencement last weekend of talks between US and
Iranian officials in the Gulf state of Oman over Tehran's nuclear
programme, several key members of the Trump administration -- including
the president himself -- further warned that they had no intention of
allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Trump's uncompromising stance on Iran's nuclear aspirations has been
echoed by other senior members of his administration. White House
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz stated
unequivocally last month that the ultimate objective of the talks in
Oman is the "full dismantlement" of Iran's nuclear programme.
"Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire
world can see.... It is time for Iran to walk away completely from its
desire to have a nuclear weapon, and they will not and cannot be allowed
to have a nuclear weapons program. That's enrichment, that is
weaponization, and its strategic missiles program."
The appointment, however, of several officials to key national
security positions in the Trump administration, who vehemently oppose
direct military action against Iran, has raised concerns that the White
House might be backing away from its commitment to eliminate the threat
Iran poses to global security.
In particular, these concerns relate to the recent appointments to
the Pentagon of influential figures such as John Byers for Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (South and South-East Asia), and Michael
DiMino, a former career CIA military analyst and counterterrorism
official, for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East).
Both Byers and DiMino have reputations for opposing direct military
action against hostile states, preferring instead to pursue other, less
confrontational options.
According to Jimmy Quinn, the national security correspondent for National Review:
"Byers, a longtime history professor who oversaw the
Charles Koch philanthropic network's grants promoting libertarian
foreign policy stances at universities... is a self-described proponent
of foreign policy "restraint" — a term popularized by Koch-backed
philanthropies that describes a particular variety of foreign policy
retrenchment."
While Byers' main focus is on China, where he claimed in a recent article for American Conservative
that disagreements between the US and China were primarily caused by
misperception, his position means that he will inevitably be able to
bring his influence to bear regarding other hostile states, such as
Iran.
Similarly, concerns have arisen that DiMino will be able to use his
position as the Pentagon's new chief Middle East policy adviser to
advance an anti-Israel stance while questioning the Trump
administration's confrontational stance towards Iran.
As with Byers, DiMino was previously linked to the libertarian Koch
brothers, having held tenure as a fellow at the Washington think tank
Defense Priorities, which is funded by the Koch team.
Having urged
the Biden administration to "pressure" Israel to deliver more aid to
Gaza, DiMino has argued that the US has "no vital or existential"
interests in the Middle East, and instead advocates a policy of
"offshore balancing" that would enable the Pentagon to withdraw US
forces from Iraq and Syria -- regardless of what adversaries might be
delighted to fill the vacuum.
DiMino's opposition to taking direct military action against hostile
states such as Iran was clearly evident during his participation in a
recent webinar, when he insisted
that Washington's main interests in the region were acquiring natural
resources and countering terrorism, while downplaying the threat posed
by Iran.
"We're really there to counter Iran, and that's really at the behest
of the Israelis and the Saudis," he said, of the U.S. troop presence in
Iraq and Syria.
Instead of taking direct action against Iran, DiMino argues in favour
of pursuing a policy of "offshore balancing." Rather than relying on
the US military to fulfil the role of the world's policeman, other
powers are urged to take responsibility for maintaining regional
balances of power and addressing local issues. Critics argue that such a
policy, if applied to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, would amount to
little more than pursuing a policy of appeasement towards the
ayatollahs, as well as an agreement waiting to be violated.
"I'm absolutely in favor of getting closer to a point of offshore
balancing, reducing US security commitments in the region," DiMino said. "Removing troops is a way to do that."
The highly influential positions held in the Trump administration by
officials such as Byers and DiMino, together with other senior officials
with links to the isolationist, anti-military military agenda supported
by the Koch brothers, Tucker Carlson and prominent Republicans such as
Senator Rand Paul, have now raised significant questions about the Trump
administration's commitment to requiring Iran to dismantle its nuclear
and ballistic missile programmes completely.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently downgraded Trump's professed
demands by asking Iran just to lower uranium enrichment -- a statement
he quickly had to walk back. Iran has already stated
that it could move its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to "safe
and undisclosed locations," presumably for use at a later time. Russia,
in an apparent burst of generosity, has offered to host the enriched
uranium. How kind of them!
Iran has, unsurprisingly, also protested
that it has a non-negotiable right to enrich uranium. The regime will
also doubtless protest that it needs at least some centrifuges to enrich
low-grade uranium for peaceful nuclear energy – an excuse that worked
with President Barack Obama -- and then continue enriching uranium at
unknown locations until it achieves nuclear weapons breakout.
The prominent positions that these advisers, official and unofficial,
hold in the Trump administration, moreover, is all the more surprising
given that many of them, such as Sen. Paul, actively opposed Trump during the presidential election campaign.
Consequently, while Trump himself insists that military action
remains an option if there is not sufficient progress in the talks with
Iran, which are due to resume in Rome at the weekend, there are already
suggestions that Trump is not serious about demanding that Iran totally
dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
Instead, the administration appears to be shifting
its position to one where the focus is on preventing Iran from
developing its nuclear activities to the point where it can produce
weapons -- an objective not so different from the dangerously flawed
JCPOA nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with the
ayatollahs back in 2015.
In addition, just as happened with the JCPOA, there are indications
that Witkoff is focusing only on the nuclear issue, and not also on
broader concerns such as Iran's ballistic missile programme and support
for regional terror groups. Iran produces short, medium, and long-range
missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Iran
has already launched hundreds into Israel, and can reach the entire
Middle East and Europe.
Witkoff, who already admitted,
"Maybe it was me getting duped by Hamas," when the terrorist group
seemed to have agreed to a ceasefire deal which it later denied, still
seems to be causing Trump unintentional embarrassment. Witkoff stated this week that Iran might be allowed to enrich uranium to 3.7%, then quickly had to walk it back.
If a seasoned national security negotiator is not appointed soon for
discussions with Iran (and Russia), the Trump administration's claims
that it wants to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme may prove to have
been nothing but an empty threat, exposing Trump to international
humiliation.
While Trump keeps offering perfect negotiating parameters, such as, "All hostages must be released by Saturday or all hell will break out," or,
"the Iran issue is easy to solve, they cannot obtain nuclear weapons,"
his statements always seem to be instantly undermined by officials in
his administration.
Additionally, the growing band of isolationists, both media
personalities such as Tucker Carlson and people who occupy senior
positions in the Trump administration, will have won the policy battle
-- a victory that will seriously imperil the US and the wider world.
Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt after they allegedly violated his orders by continuing the deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Trump administration on Friday
scored two major legal wins in regard to its deportation flights for
illegal migrants, after a federal appeals court temporarily paused U.S.
District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the
administration, and earlier in the day Boasberg declined to get involved
in a different deportation case.
Boasberg ruled Wednesday
that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in
criminal contempt after they allegedly violated his orders by continuing
the deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has now halted those
proceedings in a 2-1 split in order to provide “sufficient opportunity”
for the court to weigh the administration's appeal, according to The Hill.
The two judges who approved the halt were Trump appointees, while the
lone dissenter was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
“In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable
right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an
administrative stay,” Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote in her dissent.
The order comes after Boasberg declined
to get involved in another deportation case, after attorneys for the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the judge to block any
upcoming deportation flights over the weekend.
Boasberg told the ACLU that he was "sympathetic" to their case, but could not get involved because of a Supreme Court ruling earlier this month.
"It is very concerning, but at this point I just don't think I have
the ability to grant relief to the plaintiffs," the judge said. "I just
don't really see how you're asking me to do anything different from what
the Supreme Court said I couldn't do."
Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.
A wide range of pro-Israel allies represented “ethnicities and nationalities, who have seen their own identities attacked by others,” per an organizer.
About 400 people rallied in Toronto to state that anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred, April 16, 2025. Credit: Amy Fernandes.
Some 400 Jews, Hindus, Christians,
Venezuelans, Iranians, Iraqis and others braved near freezing
temperatures on a windy Wednesday in Toronto to send the message that
anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred.
The non-Jewish allies represented
“ethnicities and nationalities, who have seen their own identities
attacked by others,” Amir Epstein, co-founder and director of the Jewish
civil-rights group Tafsik, which organized the rally, told JNS.
Epstein told JNS that the event aimed to take back the narrative that Jew-haters have corrupted.
“This is the first rally where we are
fighting back against anti-Zionism, and we’re doing it to tell people
it’s just another form of antisemitism,” he said. “For way too long,
we’ve not adopted our own identity, but as Jews, we should define Jews.”
“Our haters should not get to define us
anymore. They seek to define what we are, what we believe, what our
identities are,” he added. “They’ve convinced others that Zionism is
colonialism. But Zionism has been intertwined with Judaism since the
beginning, since Moses. We can and should define ourselves.”
The main theme of the event was to “define
Zionism according to the facts, according to thousands of years of
documented history,” Ali Siadatan, Tafsik’s director of education, told
JNS.
Siadatan, of Iranian descent, gave a speech at the event.
“Throughout the world, a fictional and
nefarious definition is provided that is conspiratorial and false, and
then that is used to persecute Zionists,” he told JNS. “We just wanted
to stand against that and set the record straight—that it’s not a
nebulous idea. It’s a very well-defined idea with deep roots among Jews
and Christians.”
The former Ottawa-area legislator Goldie
Ghamari, a first-generation immigrant, told attendees at Mel Lastman
Square that she isn’t Israeli. “I’m not Jewish. I’m Iranian, born in
Iran,” she said. “I’m also a proud Zionist.”
“Do not let terrorists define your
identity. You are indigenous to Israel. That is your birthright,” she
said. “The silver lining of the genocidal massacre of Oct. 7 was that it
brought our societies, our cultures and our civilizations together.”
Toronto Zionist Council president Guidy
Mamann, activist Esther Mordechai, International Christian Embassy
Jerusalem national executive director Donna Holbrook, activist Michelle
Factor and recent Venezuelan immigrant Alessa Polga, of Ladies of
Liberty Alliance, also addressed attendees.
About 400 people rallied in Toronto to state that anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred, April 16, 2025. Credit: Amy Fernandes.
Salman Sima, a former Iranian political
prisoner who spoke at the event, told JNS that both the mullahs in
Tehran and terror supporters in the West manipulate language.
“The jihadists in Canada are using the
same tactic that the Islamic regime in Iran has been using for over 46
years,” he said. “The Islamic regime covers antisemitism under the
banner of anti-Zionism. This playing with words is so familiar for
Iranians.”
“In 1979, the unity between leftists and
Islamists ruined my beautiful homeland, Iran. The same forces of evil
are working here against our Canadian values,” Sima said. “We don’t want
jihad. We don’t want Sharia law.”
Having lost his freedom once in Iran, Sima told JNS that he doesn’t want to lose it again in Canada.
“For the sake of freedom, we need to fight
together against antisemitism,” he said. “We cannot rely on the
government. The rally was for the people. It was not for politicians
that just do the talking.”
John Spencer, chair of urban warfare
studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, which is part of the
U.S. Military Academy, sent a note to Epstein to read at the event.
“I’m not Jewish, but I am a champion of
truth. And the truth is this. Anti-Zionism is Jew-hatred,” Spencer
stated in the note. “I’ve seen the double standards, the demonization
and the effort to strip Israel of its right to exist. That’s not
justice.”
“That’s antisemitism, repackaged,” he added.
Holbrook, of the International Christian
Embassy Jerusalem, told JNS that she and her organization sought to show
“unconditional Christian support for Israel and the Jewish community.”
They also aimed to “clearly state what Zionism is,” she said.
Yemen reports additional US military strikes on
Saturday evening, this time targeting the capital, Sana'a.
Houthi-affiliated channel "Al-Masirah" reported three deaths.
This
follows a series of US Air Force jets striking several areas in the
Houthi-controlled capital of Sana'a in northeast Yemen, Houthi state-TV
reported on Friday night.
Communist regimes wage war on religion to assert total control, yet the stories of faith, persecution, and resistance remain powerful truths the world must remember.
In the left’s perverse ideology, the status of “victimhood” is to be
prized (especially if it does not actually have to be endured), for it
serves as a powerful cudgel over their alleged “oppressors.” That this
constitutes but another flimsy pretext for leftists to grasp power is
revealed by the fact that actual victims of political persecution are
ignored and erased from the public square and the historical record.
Why? Because these actual victims have experienced religious persecution
by communists.
Be it in the former Soviet Union where the Bolsheviks summarily
executed Russian Orthodox priests and expropriated religious property;
or in today’s People’s Republic of China (PRC) where the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) continues its genocide of the Uighurs and persecution of the Catholic Church; or in Nicaraguan where the Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, FSLN) persists in its “war” on the Catholic Church, the communist imperative to eradicate religion is alive and unwell, and—despite notable, courageous exceptions, such as Bianca Jagger,
who forcefully condemned the religious persecutions waged by regime of
communist dictator Daniel Ortega and “co-president” (and wife) Rosario
Murillo—rarely recorded and reported.
It was not always this way.
It is beyond question that communists hate God. Indeed, they openly
avow their atheism and violently oppress religion to eradicate it.
Consequently, for decades, the vast majority of American liberals were
steadfast opponents of communism and, in fact, provided the first line
of defense against communist infiltration of labor unions and other
American private and public institutions.
No longer.
A 2022 Victims of Communism Foundation poll told a disturbing tale:
30% of Generation Z has a favorable view of Marxism, and just 63% of Gen
Z and Millennials believe the Declaration of Independence better
guarantees freedom and equality than the Communist Manifesto. Truly,
yesterday’s liberal is not today’s progressive, who is largely sympatico
with the aim, if not the means, of communism’s attempts to subjugate
religion to the state.
The modern left has its origins in the French philosopher
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s intellectual cesspool. Suffice it to say for our
purpose here, the left is following his directive to establish a “civil
religion,” the state dogma one must believe over and above any
religious tenets. If one fails to do so, the individual will be “forced
to be free”—a euphemism for punishment and/or execution.
Ergo, the virulently atheistic communists’ ideological imperative to
wage war on God to crush religion beneath their totalitarian boot heel.
Nor, for that matter, will the result be any better in non-communist
nations when religious freedom is subordinated to the state by virulent
secularists erecting their own civil religion and demanding public
obeisance to it, lest one face state-sanctioned consequences. (Sadly,
even in the minds of many leftists who claim to be devout believers,
when push comes to shove, they will subordinate their religious beliefs
to accommodate their leftist ideology.)
Still, why must communists and virulent secularists “coexist” with
religion? We go back to the beginning—the left’s simplistic “life hack”
that gives their lives meaning and (mis-)direction, i.e., the victim vs.
oppressor paradigm, and its imperative to “liberate” from the chains of
the existing, intrinsically inequitable, and, yes, evil society so that
humanity will be perfected and a terrestrial Eden achieved.
The font of this irredeemably “corrupted” civilization that has precluded human happiness is?
God.
Or more accurately, the poisonous superstition called God and the
cults this myth has spawned to oppress and corrupt humanity. Hence, in a
postmodern recreation of man’s fall in the Garden of Eden, believing
only in themselves and their ideology—in sum, believing themselves
gods—communists and their fellow traveling atheists and secular
humanists must free humanity—whether they like it or not—from religion…
from God.
The communists’ logic is elementary and insidious: where there is no
God, one can and must render only unto Caesar, unto the state, unto the
communists.
But there is a God. And His work on earth is in good and faithful hands. To wit:
“I’ve asked the Benedict XVI Institute
to launch a new multiyear project telling the story of these heroic
martyrs of communism—in liturgy and hymns, but also in paintings,
poetry, plays, videos, and essays, partnering with the Victims of Communism museum in Washington, D.C., among others.”
Recognizing the danger communism posed to all religious believers,
Archbishop Cordileone posed the crux of the matter: “Why do so few
Americans pay attention to the horrors of Marxist-leaning regimes? For
me, an even more troubling question is, why do Catholics know so little
about the martyrs and victims of the brutalities of communism?”
The archbishop cited an obvious culprit but expressed that this did not excuse or prevent our power to rectify the situation:
“We have become overly dependent on
secular media and artists to tell our story… As the secular culture
becomes more hostile, or simply indifferent, to religion, it is time to
rediscover the arts as a center for evangelization. We must once again
sing our own songs and tell our own stories so that we can share the
truth, goodness, and beauty of faith with the world.”
It is, then, as it always has been and remains: God’s work on earth
must truly be our own. And we must perform our tasks, regardless of
their arduousness and the hour, for, as Archbishop Cordileone cautions:
“The arc of communism may be long and it
may disguise itself under different names, but it begins with the false
promise that government without God can usher in utopia and ends with
persecution of the Church for daring to speak out against oppression on
behalf of the forgotten…
“Shut down the Church, because otherwise the forgotten and the persecuted will have a voice.”
In America, come this joyous Easter Sunday, the church doors will be
open, as will the doors of any religion that so desires. For those who
enter to worship, let us reverently give voice to the forgotten, the
tormented, and the murdered “modern martyrs of communism.” Through the
grace of our merciful God, may you ever be remembered.
***
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus
G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional District
from 2003-2012, and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy
Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator
for public policy seminars and a Monday co-host of the “John Batchelor
Radio Show,” among sundry media appearances.
The ceasefire is expected to begin on 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday and end at 12 a.m. on Monday
Russian President Vladimir Putin announces Easter ceasefire in Ukraine beginning on Saturday night
The ceasefire is expected to begin on 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday
and end 12 a.m. on the Monday following Easter Sunday, the Kremlin said.
“We assume that the Ukrainian side will follow our example. At the
same time, our troops must be ready to repel possible violations of the
truce and provocations from the enemy, any of its aggressive actions,”
Putin said, according to NBC News.
Ukrainian officials have said the Russian attacks continued on Saturday after Putin's declared the ceasefire.
Trump criticized Powell on Thursday for not cutting interest rates and said he could not wait for Powell's “termination.”
Kevin Hassett, President Trump’s
top economic adviser, revealed on Friday that the White House is
studying ways to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
Kevin Hassett, chair of the White House National Economic Council,
said that the president and his team "will continue to study” the
matter.
Trump criticized Powell on Thursday for not cutting interest rates and said he could not wait for Powell's “termination.”
Free speech for campus radicals, professors get fired for questioning DEI.
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock
exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for
just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Editor’s note: Over the past several decades, few
places in America have become more hostile to free speech than our
universities. Yet in the wake of rising anti-Semitism and the pro-Hamas
campus rallies and occupations that were sparked by the terror group’s
October 7 massacre, university administrators seem to have had a sudden
change of heart.
The Freedom Center is exposing the most egregious perpetrators of
these double standards in free expression as the Top Ten Ivory Tower
Hypocrites. These are universities whose leaders have permitted woke
leftist activists to run roughshod over campus rules and violate codes
of conduct with impunity, while failing to extend even basic free speech
protections to students and faculty with opposing views. Georgetown
University is #4 on our list.
#4: Georgetown University
In the months after Hamas’s barbaric October 7 massacre of innocent
Israeli Jews, Georgetown University, located in our nation’s capital,
played host to many vitriolic, anti-Semitic events and demonstrations.
Led by both students and faculty, these events featured unmistakable
calls for the genocide of the Jews and the continuation of terrorist
violence against Israel.
A mere three days after Hamas’s mass slaughter, kidnapping, rape and
torture of Israeli civilians, Georgetown’s chapter of the Hamas-funded
campus organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, released a statement
that demonized Israel and condoned Hamas’s actions. “Peace cannot exist
without justice, and justice starts with ending the occupation of
Palestine…,” SJP declared. “We cannot live in peace with an apartheid,
zionist regime an ethno-religious – supremacist settler-colonial
political system in power… [SJP] affirms that the anticolonial struggle
for justice is the only way that liberation and peace can become a
tangible reality.”
Georgetown Law SJP joined the Georgetown chapter of the National
Lawyers Guild in releasing a statement which lambasted GU President John
DeGioia for publicly condemning Hamas’s October 7 massacre. The
statement justified Hamas’s atrocious acts of terrorism, stating that,
“As law students, we know that resistance under occupation is a legal
right and is predicated on the violence of occupation. Resistance, armed
struggle, and wars of national liberation are endorsed by international
humanitarian law.”
When Jewish Life and the Georgetown Israel Alliance organized an
event featuring IDF soldiers on campus, SJP together with an array of
pro-Hamas organization mobilized to disrupt the event and then bragged
about their success at impeding pro-Israel speech on campus: “SJP + JVP
+ the Divest Coalition mobilized HUNDREDS of students to come together
and send the university our message: we will NEVER accept genocidal war
criminals on this campus… These IOF soldiers did not enjoy a SECOND of
peace from the moment they stepped foot on our campus… our chants were
so loud that those inside could not even hear the soldiers speak… Our
demands remain the same. Ceasefire. Divest. Free Palestine.”
At a September 2024 rally
held by the Hamas-affiliated campus organization Students for Justice
in Palestine, demonstrators held signs openly promoting terrorism
including one that read “Jews for Intifada.” The sign depicted inverted
red triangles, a symbol of Hamas’ targets for elimination. A separate
“walkout” for Palestine the previous April featured chants of “There is
only one solution; Intifada, revolution.”
Through months and months of these pro-Hamas outpourings, the
Georgetown University administration did virtually nothing to impede the
calls for a Jewish genocide that resounded across the campus. “We
respect the rights of members of our community to express their personal
views and are committed to maintaining the values of academic freedom
and serving as a forum for the free exchange of ideas, even when those
ideas may be controversial and objectionable to some,” a Georgetown
spokesperson told
the media recently, responding to concerns that the Trump
administration might seek to penalize the university for allowing
anti-Semitism to continue unchecked.
This unflinching dedication to free speech is clearly a very recent
development for the university which has garnered national headlines for
persecuting students and faculty who dare to speak out of turn.
Consider the case of law professor Ilya Shapiro, who tweeted his
opposition to Biden’s pledge to select an African-American woman to
serve as the next justice on the Supreme Court. Shapiro believed that
Sri Srinivasan would be Biden’s “best pick” for the Court but noted that
“alas [Srinivasan] doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy
so we’ll get [a] lesser black woman.”
Instead of defending Shapiro’s academic freedom, Georgetown Law Dean
William Treanor called Shapiro’s tweet “appalling” and “at odds with
everything we stand for at Georgetown Law” and placed the new hire on
administrative leave before he was able to teach a single class. The
university initiated a four-month investigation to determine whether
Shapiro had violated Georgetown’s diversity and inclusion policies,
during which time the professor was entirely sidelined at his new job,
Georgetown reluctantly reinstated Shapiro
after the end of the school year and acknowledged that he did not
violate Georgetown’s absurdly restrictive free speech policies—not
because his comments about Biden’s Supreme Court nominee constituted
legitimate political discourse, but only because he was not yet an
official employee of Georgetown at the time of his tweets. The
university used the exoneration as an excuse to scold Shapiro for “your
comments” which “had a significant negative impact on the Georgetown Law
community, including current and prospective students, alumni, staff,
and faculty” and “could have the effect of limiting Black women
students’ access to courses taught by [you] and undermine Georgetown
Law’s commitment to maintain inclusive learning and working
environments.”
Nor was Shapiro’s persecution the only instance of Georgetown’s
brutal repression of free expression. In March of 2021, Georgetown Law
School fired one professor and placed a second on administrative leave
for comments expressing “angst” that African-American students tend to
earn grades near the bottom of the grading scale. Despite the likely
validity of this statement of fact, Georgetown summarily fired the
professor for wrongthink.
Georgetown’s students have also suffered persecution for exercising
their First Amendment rights. In September 2019, the Georgetown
University College Republicans held an event intended to combat climate
alarmism and prove that the global situation is not so dire as many on
the left have claimed. A mob of student protestors crashed the
event and ignored over 40 requests from the police to leave, resulting
in the evacuation of the room and the temporary suspension of the event.
Joking about the incident in a conservative group chat, student Jack
Wagner suggested “Can we call ICE on [the protestors].” Another student
responded in kind, jesting “nah, it’s melting … climate change bro.”
This innocent exchange became the fodder for a campus mob to demand
that Wagner be punished for his private joke. The campus group, Hoyas
for Immigrant Rights, put out a statement claiming
that Wagner’s “words are embedded in racism and white supremacy” and
“ultimately created an unsafe environment for students at Georgetown
University,” and asserting that Georgetown “must hold Jack Wagner
accountable for his words.” Hundreds of students, dozens of faculty
members, and 20 campus organizations signed on to this statement asking
the university to take disciplinary action against a student for a
private and inoffensive joke.
Georgetown University refused to act against students and faculty who
openly promoted terrorism against the Jews while persecuting campus
conservatives for expressing their constitutionally protected speech.
The university has undoubtedly earned its spot on the list of Ivory
Tower Hypocrites.
Sara Dogan is the National Campus Director for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
She has written extensively on issues including academic freedom and
anti-Semitism on campus.
The U.S. president's decision came “after months of internal debate” about whether to pursue a military or diplomatic option.
Israeli Air Force fighter jets conducting a joint
flight with an American B-52 strategic bomber are seen in an image
published on March 6, 2025. Credit: IDF.
Israel intended to strike Iran’s nuclear
facilities as early as May, a plan that would have required American
assistance. But U.S. President Donald Trump decided against an attack in
favor of negotiations, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Trump’s decision came “after months of
internal debate” about whether to pursue a military or diplomatic
option. Even hawkish members of Trump’s cabinet expressed skepticism
that a military strike could destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, resulting
in a “rough consensus” that for the time being negotiation was the
better option, the Times reported.
The Times said it had spoken to
multiple officials who had been briefed on Israel’s plans. Most were
interviewed on condition of anonymity.
Israel, which has long been preparing for
an attack on Iran, with or without U.S. help, sees the current situation
as favorable to a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Israel’s air force has already eliminated
most of Iran’s air defenses, and has severely damaged Iran’s proxy
Hezbollah in Lebanon. The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in
December eliminated a key Iranian ally that acted as a conduit for
Iranian arms to Hezbollah.
According to the Times, senior
Israeli officials pitched a plan to their American counterparts that
would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground Iranian
nuclear sites with a bombing effort that would have involved U.S.
aircraft.
The goal was to set back Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.
However, Israel’s military said the
commando operation wouldn’t be ready until October. As Netanyahu wanted
the timeline for an attack sped up, Israeli planners shifted to a
proposal for an extended bombing campaign, necessitating U.S. support,
the paper reported.
U.S. officials were open to considering
Israel’s plans. U.S. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, head of U.S. Central
Command, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz discussed how the
United States might support such an attack, according to the Times.
U.S. assistance would have focused on
responding to Iranian retaliation against Israel, and ensuring the
attack itself was successful. (U.S. forces assisted Israel in intercepting Iranian missile attacks in April and October of last year.)
Iran’s attacks were ineffective, with most
of its missiles and drones failing to reach their targets. Israel’s
counterattacks against Tehran’s anti-aircraft systems left the country naked to attack, something Israel wants to capitalize on, the Times said.
However, during a meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval Office on April 7, Trump announced that he would pursue talks with Iran.
The Israeli prime minister, in a video released by his office the next day, said an agreement would work only if Iran agreed to completely dismantle its nuclear facilities.
“They go in, blow up the installations,
dismantle all of the equipment under American supervision and carried
out by America—this would be good,” he said.
He warned that Iran may try to play for
time. “The second possibility—that will not be—is that they drag out the
talks, and then there is the military option. Everyone understands
this. We spoke about this at length,” he said, referring to his
discussions with the U.S. president.
Trump agreed on this point, telling the press on Wednesday that he wouldn’t allow talks to drag on. “We have a little time, but we don’t have much time,” he said.
The president also didn’t rule out a
military option, stating that it “absolutely” remains an option. “With
Iran, if it requires military, we’re going to have military. Israel will
obviously be very much involved in that and be the leader in that,” he
said.
Trump has signaled readiness to directly attack Iran before.
On March 17, he accused Iran of
orchestrating attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels and warned that any
further aggression from the group would result in severe retaliation.
“Let nobody be fooled! The hundreds of
attacks being made by Houthi, the sinister mobsters and thugs based in
Yemen, who are hated by the Yemeni people, all emanate from, and are
created by, IRAN,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
The United States has moved significant military assets into the region, including the USS Carl Vinson and USS Harry S. Truman.
Nimitz-class
aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), underway in the U.S. 3rd
Fleet area of operations, sails through the Pacific Ocean on its way to
participate in Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024. Photo by Mass
Communication Specialist 3rd Class Marissa A. Johnson/U.S. Navy.
Last month, the United States sent multiple B-2 bombers to a military base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
With a range of 6,900 miles, the B-2 is
the only stealth aircraft that can carry the GBU-57, a 30,000-pound
“bunker-buster” bomb known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
A panel of experts from the Heartland Institute, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, the American Energy Institute, and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow say there are a dozen reasons to repeal the EPA's endangerment finding. And there are multiple ways to make it happen, none of which will be easy.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin generated a huge buzz last month when he announced his intention to take 31 “historic actions” to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s climate agenda.
Among the regulations he said would be targeted in this
sweeping rollback is the "endangerment finding," an Obama-era artifact
that determined that carbon dioxide emissions pose a risk to health and
human well-being. Under this determination, the EPA granted itself the
authority to regulate those emissions and many climate policies stem
from it. An endangerment finding establishes that a specific pollutant
poses a threat to public health, which, under the Clean Air Act, allows
the EPA to implement regulations to control emissions of that
pollutant.
A panel of experts from the Heartland Institute, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, the American Energy Institute, and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
say that repealing the finding is key to many goals of Trump’s
“unleashing American energy” agenda. In an Earth Day 2025 report, they
listed 12 reasons why the EPA should reverse the finding, including
reindustrializing America, ending over-regulation, promoting
agriculture, reducing government waste, and improving environmental
protection.
Zeldin’s announcement didn’t provide details about what the
priorities would be, nor was any timeline given for the regulatory
rollbacks. Steve Milloy, senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and publisher of “JunkScience.com,” said Wednesday in a webinar on the report that there are a couple of ways the EPA could go about repealing the finding.
The first is through the agency’s rulemaking process. A proposed rule would be published in the Federal Register,
and it would be available for public comment. The agency would then
draft a final rule. After Zeldin signs off on the draft, it would be
published in the Federal Register.
The other way the rule could be repealed, Milloy explained, is under Trump’s “Directing The Repeal of Unlawful Regulations”
executive order, which was signed last week. The order states that
recent rulings by the Supreme Court recognized constitutional boundaries
on the power of unelected bureaucrats. Yet, despite those rulings,
according to the order, some unlawful regulations remain on the books.
Among the court decisions the order cites as priorities for
agency heads to consider in their review of possible unlawful
regulations is the West Virginia v. EPA
Supreme Court case. In the 2022 case, the justices ruled 6-3 that
Congress did not grant the EPA the authority to set emissions limits
based on a shift in electricity generation.
Any rule repealed under the executive order would not be
required to go through the comment period, but could be reversed easily
by future presidents.
Legal challenges
Milloy said that the conventional rulemaking process would
face legal challenges, and if Zeldin went that route, he’d have to take
his chances in court that the repeal would stand. Following Trump’s
executive order, Milloy said Zeldin could terminate the endangerment
finding immediately as being unlawful and against Supreme Court
rulings.
“It seems to me that would be the quickest way and really
the most sensible way, because the endangerment finding is clearly
illegal under West Virginia v. EPA,” Milloy said.
Prior to former President Barack Obama's taking office in January 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA
that greenhouse gas emissions fit the Clean Air Act’s definition of an
“air pollutant.” As a result, the EPA is required to determine if
emissions endanger public health and the welfare of the public, or if
the science is too uncertain to make such a determination.
The Obama administration’s EPA proposed the endangerment
finding in April 2009, just a few months after Obama took office, and it
was finalized the following December. Emails reviewed by Just the News
showed that EPA regulators who helped craft the finding were preparing
to impose the regulatory powers of the endangerment finding even before
the science was wrapped up. The emails also show there was an open
discussion inside the Obama EPA about trying to score a win for liberals
in what was supposed to be a scientific process.
Milloy said that whatever avenue Zeldin takes to overturn
the endangerment finding, it’s going to end up in court. Should Zeldin
repeal the finding under Trump’s executive order and legal challenges
end up in the Supreme Court, Milloy said, the case would be reviewing
the constitutionality of Massachusetts v EPA.
“There's a good chance that that decision would be
overturned, ending EPA regulation once and for all. Litigation after
notice and comment would be less certain,” Milloy said.
Other options
Dr. Sterling Burnett,
director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental
Policy at the Heartland Institute, said another way the rule could be
overturned is through litigation. The attorney general could sue to
overturn the endangerment finding, he said.
By citing West Virginia v EPA, he explained, it would force the court to consider whether West Virginia is in conflict with Massachusetts v EPA. Since regulating greenhouse gas emissions across thousands of sources throughout the entire country invokes the major questions doctrine,
which says that federal regulations with major national implications
require explicit authorization from Congress, Burnett said the high
court would likely side with West Virginia.
Another approach, Burnett said, is for the matter to go to
Congress. “Congress could say greenhouse gases are not pollutants and
shall not be regulated by the EPA unless we say so explicitly,” he said.
Such a law would have to pass both houses, which would likely be a
difficult challenge, Burnett added.
“Honestly, all of these are going to be hard to do,” he said.
Protecting the environment
If the repeal were achieved, the panelists argued, the U.S.
would have a lot to gain. Craig Rucker, president and co-founder of
CFACT, said the repeal would protect the environment, which is under
threat from renewable energy. “The biggest thing the environment has to
fear is environmentalist policies,” he said.
Wind and solar farms, he explained, require large amounts
of space, which destroys species’ habitat, despoils the nation’s coasts,
and endangers whales, among other impacts. He said rules flowing from
the endangerment finding also undermine consumer choice through
appliance efficiency standards, which effectively ban a wide range of
products from some types of dishwashers to wood-fired stoves. A repeal
of the finding, he said, would also eliminate government waste.
“Tremendous sums of money have been funneled to radical
organizations — just waste, fraud and abuse in the name of trying to
protect you from climate change, again, driven by the endangerment
finding,” Rucker said.
Cult-like fascination
Jason Isaac, founder and CEO of the American Energy
Institute, said repealing the endangerment finding is key to energy
abundance. Its repeal, he said, would remove regulatory burdens, which
would speed up access to more LNG terminals “so that we can get
affordable, reliable energy to our allies and friends around the world.”
He said the endangerment finding also led to numerous regulations that create an electric vehicle mandate — from the EPA’s tailpipe emission standards to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
“This wouldn't be in place if it were not for the
endangerment finding and the cult-like fascination with reducing
greenhouse gas emissions,” Isaac said, referring to previous
administrations.
Zeldin has yet to make any moves against the finding, other than to
state he intends to do so. A month before he announced his 31
“historical actions,” he was reportedly asking the White House to strike down the finding. It’s likely just a matter of time before he takes some action against it.
