Hang All the Members of the Liars’ Club? - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

The lying sharks swim and circle with impunity.

 

Federal prosecutors last week announced the indictment of U.S. Representative George Santos (R-N.Y.) on a host of charges, including misuse of federal campaign funds and wire fraud, almost all of them resulting from his pathological lies.

Certainly, Santos deserved the attention of prosecutors for lying on federal documents and affidavits that may have helped him win a congressional seat as well as personal lucre.

But if that’s the case, why haven’t federal prosecutors also gone after Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? She clearly lied her way into a Harvard Law School professorship and an erstwhile presidential candidacy by claiming, in part, quite falsely she was a Native American, supposedly Harvard’s first indigenous law professor.

Her Senate colleague, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), flatly lied (he said “misspoke”) about being a Vietnam War veteran. He never confessed to “misspeaking” about his résumé until caught. Both senators, apparently like Santos, gained political traction in their various campaigns from such lies, but the two apparently never put them in writing, or at least not as blatantly as did Santos.

New Federal Standards? 

Are federal and states prosecutors now setting a new moral and legal standard by criminalizing Santos’ lies? If true, congratulations—it is long overdue.

Now can we please extend the long arm of the law to reach far beyond a bit player like Santos?

Why not reboot with the really big liars? Their lies far more undermined the integrity of our key agencies and indeed our national security.

So let us start with John Brennan, the former CIA director. He lied on two separate occasions, in one case while under oath before the U.S. Senate. His untruths were not mere campaign finance fabrications. They involved falsely swearing that the CIA did not spy on the computers of Senate staffers (“Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate.”). He also lied that U.S. drone missions in prior years had not killed innocent bystanders (“There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.”).

Brennan, only when caught, admitted to both lies. But he faced zero consequences and, in fact, was soon rewarded with an on-air analyst job at MSNBC.

Then we come to James Clapper, the former director of the Office of National Intelligence. Like Santos, he lied. But unlike Santos, Clapper was under oath to Congress. And further unlike Santos, Clapper was not a small fish, but a whale in charge of coordinating the nation’s intelligence bureaus.

Clapper’s lies mattered a great deal, especially when he swore to Congress that the National Security Agency did not spy on Americans. (“No, sir. Not wittingly.”) When caught, Clapper confessed that he gave “the least untruthful answer.” (“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no.’”). He faced zero consequences for his perjury. And like Brennan, he marketed his anti-Trump phobias into a comfortable cable news gig.

Note well that both Clapper and Brennan likely lied again when they signed the infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter, with a wink and nod suggesting it was a hallmark example of “Russian disinformation.”

Then we come to the former interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He is also currently working as a cable news commentator. McCabe admitted to lying—according to the inspector general, “done knowingly and intentionally”—four separate times to federal investigators, three times under oath. McCabe misled the country in matters that concerned a national election, more specifically lying that he had not leaked to the media to massage media narratives about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is James Comey, another former FBI head, who confirmed McCabe had lied. He simply claimed on 245 occasions to House investigators and members that he either had no memory or had no knowledge, when asked under oath to explain some of the wrongdoing of the FBI during his directorship. Remember, Comey and the FBI signed off on the authenticity of Steele document material to obtain a FISA warrant, when they knew it was unreliable and Steele was not credible. Comey also likely leaked to the media a confidential memo officially memorializing a private conversation with the president of the United States.

Should we include yet another former FBI director? Robert Mueller swore under oath to Congress that he knew little about Fusion GPS (“I’m not familiar with that”) and more or less had ignored the Steele dossier. (“It’s not my purview.”) Mueller’s claims cannot be true because revelations about both were the very catalysts that prompted his own special counsel appointment.

Will the Santos prosecutors go after Anthony Fauci, the recently retired head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?

Fauci seemingly lied under oath to the Senate when he preposterously claimed the money he channeled through a third party to the Wuhan virology lab did not entail support for gain-of-function virology research. (“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”) Many virologists were aghast at Fauci’s claims, since they knew gain-of-function research conducted in China—the point being to skirt U.S. laws—was precisely what the U.S.-subsidized researchers in China were doing.

The Bidens 

Prosecutors are currently looking at the various shenanigans of Hunter Biden, whose lies may even be a match for those of George Santos. Joe Biden’s son apparently lied on his firearms background check affidavit when applying for a handgun purchase—so far, with impunity.

When asked point blank on national television whether his lost laptop was his own—he had signed a receipt for it at the repair shop—Biden refused to give a yes or no answer.

Hunter Biden has apparently de facto lied for years when he purportedly did not report either his entire income or his real business expenses accurately, or that he was the father of a child he conceived with an ex-stripper in Arkansas.

If Hunter’s lies do not match the number of Santos’ prevarications, his were at least far more significant. His lie that the laptop was not his prompted current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a former top Biden 2020 campaign aide, to call up Mike Morell, former interim CIA director. Morell’s mission was to round up as many intelligence authorities as he could to lie on the eve of a presidential election that the laptop had “all the hallmarks” of “Russian disinformation.” He found 51, including himself. Apparently, some active members of the CIA pitched in as well to lend the letter additional authenticity.

Note that Morell swears Blinken called him to solicit signers of the bogus letter, while Blinken claims he did not. So either the current secretary of state or the former interim director of the CIA is lying—or they both are. Again, among the first to sign the fraudulent intelligence letter were Brennan and Clapper. They apparently had earned a reputation as team players, given that both men had been willing to lie under oath to Congress. Misleading the nation again about the laptop to aid Joe Biden’s campaign was small potatoes.

Biden, on spec, promulgated the lie when he said in his second debate with Trump, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it, except his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

A subsequent poll suggested the Bidens’ concocted laptop lies may have influenced voters to side with Biden in the election. If true, that was a lie that should be of far more interest to current federal prosecutors than Santos’ crazy fairy tales.

The Lies of the “Big Guy”

So we come to the greatest prevaricator of all.

Joe Biden flat-out lied on numerous occasions, such as when he claimed that he never discussed the family shake-down business with Hunter Biden.

Joe Biden, in fact, turns up on the laptop as someone deeply connected to Hunter Biden’s quid pro quo companies (“10 [percent] for the Big Guy”). Tony Bobulinksi, a former business associate of Hunter’s, has sworn that Joe and his brother Jim Biden were deeply involved in their foreign leveraging efforts.

A photo shows Joe Biden with Hunter’s “business” associates. Will the current Santos prosecutors turn their attention to the Oval Office occupant’s financial records to determine whether his lavish private homes and lifestyle were viable under his reported stated income?

Biden lied to Americans dozens of times to get elected. The tragic death of his wife in a car accident was not due to the drunkenness and fault of a truck driver. That was a horrific smear designed to shift blame onto an innocent man and gain sympathy for himself.

He lied that his son, Beau, died while serving in Iraq.

Biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after he was caught lying about his college records and plagiarizing a speech from a British politician.

So we know that in the past, Joe Biden’s lies have left a mark on history in a fashion that Santos’ never will.

When Biden prefaces his whoppers with “No joke!” or “This is the God’s honest truth!” and especially when he swears, “My word as a Biden!” then it is a fair bet that he is lying.

When Biden entered office, he lied about the number of Americans previously vaccinated under the Trump Administration and preposterously claimed there had been no COVID vaccine available.

He lied that his loan forgiveness amnesty passed Congress by two votes. In fact, Biden simply declared amnesty by fiat and never submitted the request to Congress at all.

He repeatedly lies that billionaires pay only three percent of their income in taxes on average. He lies about minor details, from giving his Uncle Frank a purple heart to matters of national concern, such as the price of gas when he entered office. It was most certainly not $5 a gallon!

Biden constantly lies about his résumé. He was never a long-haul truck driver. Nor was he a star athlete almost headed for the Naval Academy on a sports scholarship if only Dallas Cowboys legend Roger Staubach had not beat him out. “I was appointed to the academy in 1965 by a senator who I was running against in 1972. I didn’t come to the academy because I wanted to be a football star. And you had a guy named Staubach and Bellino here. So I went to Delaware.”

His house was never almost destroyed by a fire. He was never raised “politically” as a Puerto Rican. Biden never pinned the Silver Star on a Navy Afghanistan war hero for bringing back the body of a fellow soldier from a deep ravine. He was never arrested, either in South Africa or in Atlanta, for demonstrating on behalf of civil rights.

No foreign leader can believe Biden. He never traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He lied about his own Amtrak travel. He lied about his record on inflation and economic growth. He lied about upping Social Security payments. (It was a larger-than-usual automatic cost-of-living increase spurred by his inflationary policies.) He lied about the nature of the Trump tax cuts.

Biden keeps lying that the southern border is “secure” even as nearly 2 million people have crossed illegally on his watch and tens of thousands more are massed to enter the country as Title 42 restrictions are lifted.

He insists that five police officers died at the hands of protestors on January 6, 2021. In truth, the one person we know for certain who died violently that day was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police lieutenant with a checkered record, whose identity was suppressed for months while Babbitt’s past was sullied by the press.

Biden’s defenders hint that either he is cognitively compromised and thus not responsible—as if he has told the truth the last 40 years when he was hale!—or his lies are mere “exaggerations” unlike the “lies” of Trump—as if lying about the death of one’s spouse or son or school record or resume or major legislation or his presidency is a mere “exaggeration.”

As a general rule, since 2015, if any federal bureaucrat or elected official lied in service of opposing Donald Trump, he was exempted from consequences. If not, he was properly held responsible for his lying. So the more that the fake Steele dossier, the Russian collusion hoax, and the Russian disinformation laptop lie warped the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the more the promulgators of those falsehoods never faced any consequences for their untruths.

So, yes, let federal prosecutors go after the lying George Santos to set a precedent that the lying of government officials has consequences.

But in the great scheme of lying things, Santos is a prevaricating minnow who was snagged to great acclaim because the lying sharks swim and circle with impunity.

This article originally appeared at AmGreatness.com.

Victor Davis Hanson

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/hang-all-the-members-of-the-liars-club/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The State Department’s problem with Israel - Mitchell Bard

 

by Mitchell Bard

Since 1967, it has been searching for a formula to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It has failed because it underestimates Arab anti-Semitism and intransigence.

 

The U.S. State Department was determined to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, opposing both partition and recognition. After it failed, diplomats spent decades trying to prevent the development of an alliance. Before the Trump administration, much of its effort was devoted to forcing Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now, State wants to return to the partition idea, fantasizing about creating a Palestinian state that it knows will seek to replace the Jewish state.

Initially, the State Department’s policy towards the Zionists was influenced by the British Foreign Office’s hostility. Like the FO, State was inhabited by anti-Semites whose animus towards the Jews shaped their views. They were complimented by Arabists who saw a Jewish state as an impediment to their vision of the Middle East and, most importantly, access to oil. For both, Israel has always been the root of most evil in the region.

The anti-Semites were mostly gone by the time George Schultz finished his term as Secretary of State in 1989, but the Arabists and their influence have remained, though it has waxed and waned depending on the occupant of the Oval Office. They were dominant in the Obama administration and silenced in former President Donald Trump’s, and now have returned with a vengeance under President Joe Biden.

The most fundamental error in Arabist thinking is that U.S.-Arab relations would suffer the closer America became with Israel. That did not happen because most Arab nations want and need good relations with the United States, regardless of our ties with Israel.

Since 1967, State has been searching for a formula to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It has failed because it underestimates Arab anti-Semitism and intransigence, refuses to acknowledge the role of radical Islam and believes that Israel must be coerced to accept American terms.

Starting with President Jimmy Carter, the Arabists became obsessed with a two-state solution and maintained the fiction that Arab leaders shared their fixation. They knew better because those leaders demonstrated their disinterest in the Palestinians by word and deed, starting in 1948 when the Arab states invaded Palestine to divvy it among themselves, not creating a Palestinian state. Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, and had 19 years to grant the Palestinians independence and never considered it (and the Palestinians and the international community never demanded it).

Daniel Pipes recently wrote about specific instances where Arab leaders made their true opinions known, as in the case of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser, who told a CIA operative that he considered the Palestinian issue “unimportant.” Even Carter admitted, “I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed the desire for an independent Palestinian state.” Egyptian President Anwar Sadat opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and made peace with Israel without getting any concessions for the Palestinians.

Yes, Arab leaders would rant about Israel, but after getting it out of their system, they would get down to what they really cared about, which was typically the real threats they saw to their regimes: Iran and their fellow Arabs.

The State Department was aware of these views and ignored them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry spoke for many of the self-deluding Arabists when he insisted Arab states would not make peace with Israel unless the Palestinian issue was resolved years after Egypt and Jordan had signed treaties. (The 2020 Abraham Accords further proved they were out of touch with Middle East reality.)

After years of it being unthinkable, presidents, starting with Bill Clinton’s appointment of Martin Indyk, appointed Jews to serve as ambassadors to Israel (five of the last seven). Most, however, either started as Arabists or adopted their worldview. The pull of the Messianic possibility of being THE ONE to negotiate lasting peace draws them like a moth to a flame.

The good news from Israel’s perspective is that ambassadors’ influence is limited because the most important bilateral relations are conducted between the prime minister and president.

Still, U.S. ambassadors have often managed to offend their hosts, as the current ambassador Thomas Nides did when he spoke out against the proposed judicial reforms. Of course, he was doing his job in reflecting the administration position, which was made clear by Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Meanwhile, having lost nearly every battle since partition, the Arabists remain unbowed. Their Alamo may now be Jerusalem. Even after Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the embassy, the State Department has remained determined to undermine the decision and reignite Palestinian hopes to establish a capital there as part of the mythical two-state solution. This fantasy should have been extinguished.

To that end, State wants to reopen the Jerusalem consulate—the de facto U.S. embassy to “Palestine”—rather than establish one where it belongs in Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority. Unable to overcome Israeli objections, State has made an end-run by returning to the pre-Trump policy of having the official responsible for Palestinian affairs report directly to State rather than the ambassador to Israel. Though it is not called a consulate, the Office of Palestinian Affairs conducts consular activities in the exact location of the old consulate.

Nides announced plans to leave his post and, reflecting on his two years of service, what was most striking was his statement: “I probably spend more time on Palestinian-related issues. I would say 60 percent of my time is spent on Palestinian [issues].” This is the ambassador to Israel.

Given his focus, it is less surprising that even the embassy caters more to Palestinians than Israelis. If you go to its website and look at the Business, Education & Culture, News & Events and Embassy pages, you will find the pages written in English with a translation only in Arabic. In recent years, the Charge d’Affaires and Deputy Chief of Mission positions were listed as speaking multiple languages other than Hebrew.

State fought tooth and nail to prevent American citizens born in Jerusalem from listing Israel as their country of birth even after Congress passed a law requiring it to do so. The Obama administration took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that only the president could recognize foreign governments. Unfortunately for State, this meant that Trump could decide to issue passports with Israel as the place of birth, and in 2020, the man whose case went to the Supreme Court, Menachem Zivotofsky, received the first such passport.

However, even Trump’s State Department would not fully recognize that Jerusalem is in Israel. Citizens born in Jerusalem can also list the city as their place of birth, which is also the designation for citizens who do not specify their place of birth. Similarly, if you go to the State Department’s appointment system, you are asked to select a Consulate/Embassy Country, and one of the choices is Jerusalem. Thus, State maintains the illusion that Jerusalem is floating in the ether, unattached to any country.

Amazingly, even after 75 years, the State Department hasn’t completely abandoned the fight against the Jewish state.

Mitchell Bard is a foreign-policy analyst and an authority on U.S.-Israel relations who has written and edited 22 books, including “The Arab Lobby,” “Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War Against the Jews” and “After Anatevka: Tevye in Palestine.”

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-state-departments-problem-with-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

FBI whistleblowers to testify on harsh retaliation from bureau, 'weaponization' of clearance process - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Numerous individuals within those organizations have come forward with claims of misconduct at the highest levels, and have often reported severe professional backlash from their superiors in the process.

Watch the Video 

Three FBI whistleblowers will testify to Congress on Thursday about the bureau's alleged retaliatory efforts against them for questioning FBI practices and narratives on sensitive political issues.

As House lawmakers continue to investigate the politicization of federal agencies under the Biden administration, numerous individuals within those organizations have come forward with claims of misconduct at the highest levels, and have often reported severe professional backlash from their superiors in the process.

Just the News has obtained the prepared opening statements of whistleblowers Marcus Allen, Garret O'Boyle, and Stephen Friend, who will testify before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Intelligence Analyst Marcus Allen has alleged that the bureau suspended his security clearance for raising concerns about the factual accuracy of testimony that FBI Director Christopher Wray gave to Congress about the events of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. During a March 2021 hearing, Wray made remarks suggesting that the FBI or law enforcement had not infiltrated certain groups that attracted blame for violence at the Capitol during the incident.

Allen testimony

After viewing a news article suggesting the opposite, Allen wrote to his supervisors asserting that "there is a significant counter-story to the events of 6 January 2021 at the US Capitol. There is a good possibility the DC elements of our organization are not being forthright about the events of the day or the influence of government assets."

Allen, on Thursday, will tell Congress that the bureau subsequently suspended his security clearance, questioned his loyalty to the United States, and accused him of holding "conspiratorial views."

"Despite my history of unblemished service to the United States, the FBI suspended my security clearance, accusing me of actually being DISLOYAL to my country. This outrageous and insulting accusation is based on unsubstantiated accusations that I hold 'conspiratorial views' regarding the events of January 6, 2021 and that I allegedly sympathize with criminal conduct. I do not," his prepared remarks read. "Instead, it appears that I was retaliated against because I forwarded information to my superiors and others that questioned the official narrative of the events of January 6. As a result, I was accused of promoting 'conspiratorial views' and 'unreliable information.' Because I did this, the FBI questioned my allegiance to the United States."

Allen has filed a complaint of retaliation with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General.

"This has been a trying circumstance for me and my family. It has been more than a year since the FBI took my paycheck from me," he will state. "My family and I have been surviving on early withdrawals from our retirement accounts while the FBI has ignored my request for approval to obtain outside employment during the review of my security clearance. We have lost our federal health insurance coverage. There is apparently no end in sight."

Also appearing in hearing will be Special Agent Garret O'Boyle, who has testified that the FBI prioritized investigations into anti-abortion groups in the aftermath of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned the constitutional right to the procedure.

O'Boyle questioned the point of such an approach, noting that it was pro-abortion protesters who demonstrated outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices. He further contended that he was asked to speak to his anti-abortion informant about potential threats against the justices and that the FBI wanted its agents to look into pregnancy centers.

In his prepared statement, O'Boyle will tell lawmakers of the atmosphere the bureau creates surrounding the practice of whistleblowing.

O'Boyle testimony

"Despite our oath to uphold the Constitution, too many in the FBI aren’t willing to sacrifice for the hard right over the easy wrong," his remarks read. "They see what becomes of whistleblowers; how the FBI destroys their careers, suspends them under false pretenses, takes their security clearances and pay with no true options for real recourse or remedy. This is by design; it creates an Orwellian atmosphere that silences opposition and discussion."

In the remarks, O'Boyle recalls the oath he swore to defend the country, but laments that "[m]y oath, however, did not include sacrificing the hopes, dreams, and livelihood of my family: my strong, beautiful and courageous wife and my four sweet and beautiful daughters, who have endured this process along with me."

"In weaponized fashion, the FBI allowed me to accept orders to a new position half- way across the country. They allowed us to sell my family’s home," he continues. "They ordered me to report to the new unit when our youngest daughter was only two weeks old. Then, on my first day on the new assignment, they suspended me; rendering my family homeless and refused to release our household goods, including our clothes, for weeks."

O'Boyle and his family had attempted to move from Kansas to Virginia to accommodate his transfer.

Special Agent Stephen Friend will also testify to his experience blowing the whistle. Friend made a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel alleging that he was suspended for raising concerns about the bureau's alleged manipulation of crime statistics, its treatment of Jan. 6 defendants, and its use of SWAT teams.

Friend's remarks detail his attempts to address his concerns with his superiors.

Friend testimony

"At each level of my chain of command, leadership cautioned that despite my exemplary work performance, whistleblowing placed my otherwise bright future with the FBI at risk. Special agents take an oath to protect the US Constitution," he will say. "The dangers of federal law enforcement overreach where hammered home to me when I was required to attend trainings at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and MLK Memorial. I cited my oath and training in my conversations with my FBI supervisors. Nevertheless, the FBI weaponized the security clearance processes to facilitate my removal from active duty within one month of my disclosures."

"In addition to an indefinite, unpaid suspension, the FBI initiated a campaign of humiliation and intimidation to punish and pressure me to resign," his statement continues. "In violation of HIPPA, individuals at the FBI leaked my private medical information to a reporter at the New York Times. In violation of the Privacy Act, the FBI refused to furnish my training records for several months."

"The FBI denied my request to seek outside employment, in an obvious attempt to deprive me of the ability to support my family. Finally, the FBI Inspection Division imposed an illegal gag order in an attempt to prevent me from communicating with my family and attorneys," he concludes.

The subcommittee hearing follows the publication of Special Counsel John Durham's report earlier this week, which revealed the FBI opened its investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign with no predicating evidence and that key intelligence officials were aware that Clinton campaign had planned fabricate a narrative linking Trump to the Russian government.

Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fbi-whistleblowers-testify-harsh-retaliation-bureau-weaponization

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Game of Debt-Ceiling Chicken - Bruce Thornton

 

by Bruce Thornton

And the cliff we’re speeding towards is an unprecedented default.

 

A feature of divided government, especially when the House of Representatives is not controlled by the president’s party, is “debt-ceiling chicken.” The president’s party tries to bluff, with threats of a default, the House, which is responsible for initiating money bills, into giving the president whatever he wants, usually more money for redistribution, and no cuts to entitlement spending. The House does the same thing, usually pressuring the other party to accept spending cuts.

The cliff they’re both speeding towards is an unprecedented default on the government’s debt, which currently stands at $31 trillion. Each side calculates that voters will blame the other party, which will slam the brakes first as the cliff approaches. This year Joe Biden, or whatever Edgar Bergan or Edith Wilson is actually calling the shots, until a week ago took a hard stand against any negotiations on raising the debt ceiling with a “clean bill” as the early June deadline looms.

The spectators of this show usually decry the “partisanship” and lack of “bipartisan” cooperation the two parties are exhibiting. Yet disputes over the budget illustrate what the Founders had in mind when they crafted a divided and balanced government––to exploit this factional competition, which reflects a flawed human nature and its passions and interests, in order to protect freedom by setting ambition against ambition. Also, this process can force a more careful consideration of a proposed policy, and sift out the dangerous features and a bringing to light better ones.

Money is integral to this process. The desire for gain accompanies ambition and the lust for power. The ensuing disparities in property, as Madison pointed out, are the cause of rival political factions. Control of the public fisc allows factions to pursue their ideological aims at the expense of others.

During the writing of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris similarly identified the major factions as comprising the poor and the rich, those with “great personal property” and the “aristocratical spirit.” The “Rich will strive to establish dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will.” To check the ambition of the “rich,” “the popular [non elite] interest will be combined [against] it. There will be mutual check and mutual security.”

Benjamin Franklin, in the convention’s discussion about compensation for the president, made a similar point in terms of government offices: “There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money,” which when united in one man “have the most violent effects. . . . The struggle for them [in England] are the true sources of factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars.” A power like that of the proposed president will attract “the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.”

These arguments based on a passionate and corruptible human nature explain why the Founders gave the “power of the purse” to the House of Representatives in Article 1.7.1.: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

The fuel of ambition is money, as we have seen over the last two years as the Biden administration has borrowed trillions of dollars in order to subsidize the Dems political clients like public school teachers and corporate “green energy” grifters. Slowing down the growth in the yearly deficits that feed our monstrous debt lessens the Dems’ power to finance bad policies.

But why the House? Remember, originally the Senate was appointed by state legislatures, and so only indirectly accountable to the people. Given that money is the fuel of ambition, the Founders argued that money bills should originate in branch whose members were directly elected every two years, to counter the more powerful Senators who have six-year terms.

As future vice president Elbridge Gerry said, the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.” The House of Representatives, James Madison added later, “were chosen by the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests, and ability.” The “power of the purse,” in addition to acting as a check on the whole government, protected federalism by giving the sovereign states leverage over the greater powers of the Senate to check the president.

That’s why George Mason argued against giving the Senate the “power of the purse”: “Should the [Senate] have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “It was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it was disposed of.” Again highlighting the foundational belief in a flawed human nature and its lust for power, Mason continued, “An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. ––The purse strings should never be put into its hands.”

Finally, James Madison argued for the House controlling money bills as necessary checking the less democratic branches of the government: “The house of representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument . . . This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

This last argument explodes the claim today, usually from the technocratic progressives, that the House carrying out its Constitutional duty to check an overweening federal government is “obstructionism.” The only thing they are obstructing is the progressive ambitions for power and dominance at the expense of the Constitution and our unalienable rights.

And make no mistake: Our government’s relentlessly growing debt fueled by deficit spending paid for by borrowing; and its swelling entitlements long headed for bankruptcy, are now approaching disaster in a decade. Medicare and Social Security––which, along with other health care programs, consume nearly half the annual budget–– especially are at risk. Medicare Part A, covering hospital care, has enough money to pay benefits until 2028. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund that funds retirement and survivors benefits, will run out of money in 2034.

Meanwhile, the Dems keep squandering money on “green energy” subsidies and other pork while they fret over “transgender” pronouns, parents protesting over inappropriate public-school curricula, and phantom “white supremacists.” Worse, military preparedness and national security spending is stinted even in the face of China’s naked ambitions.

As Jeffrey H. Anderson writes, “While real per capita defense spending has dropped, Great Society spending has skyrocketed. To quote [The American Main Street Initiative’s] Quick Hits, ‘In real per capita spending, we spent more than five times as much on defense in 1975 as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we spent 56% more on Medicare and Medicaid than on defense.’ What’s more, ‘In 1975, the costs of Medicare and Medicaid consumed 7% of all federal tax revenue. In 2019, they cleared 30%.’”

Every nation, as Adam Smith famously said, has a lot of ruin in it. But our ruin will come sooner than we think if Republicans fail to do their Constitutional duty as the Founders intended, and at least slow down our feckless spending of money we don’t have. And we the people need to cheer them on and ignore the propaganda from the Dems and their media jackals. Winning the game of debt-ceiling chicken is a good place to start getting our country back on course.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an emeritus professor of classics and humanities at California State University, Fresno, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents: The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-game-of-debt-ceiling-chicken/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Congresswoman files resolution to expel Rep. Adam Schiff for pushing 'false narratives' in Durham report - Sarah Rumpf-Whitten

 

by Sarah Rumpf-Whitten

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says Rep. Adam Schiff's lie 'cost American taxpayers millions of dollars'

 

 

Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna filed a resolution on Wednesday evening to expel Rep. Adam Schiff, formerly the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, from Congress alleging that he pushed a false narrative to the American people in the Trump-Russia investigation.

"Adam Schiff lied to the American people. He used his position on House Intelligence to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and abused the trust placed in him as Chairman. He is a dishonor to the House of Representatives," Luna said in a press release Wednesday, May 17. 

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced last month he would be running to replace retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in the U.S. Senate. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., attends for the House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing titled On The Front Lines of the Border Crisis: A Hearing with Chief Patrol Agents, in Rayburn Building on Tuesday, February 7, 2023. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Republicans, like Luna, have been vocal that lawmakers should face the consequences for the report after the Durham report found significant FBI failures and no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign was coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. 

DURHAM FINDS DOJ, FBI 'FAILED TO UPHOLD' MISSION OF 'STRICT FIDELITY TO THE LAW' IN TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE

The full report was released by the Justice Department on Monday, May 15 after a year-long investigation in a report that spans more than 300 pages. 

"The Durham report makes clear that the Russian collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country," Luna added. 

Tapper regularly invited Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., onto his CNN programs, allowing the lawmaker to repeat his false claim of having seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. (Screenshot/CNN)

In the past, Schiff has repeatedly claimed there is "clear evidence on the issue of collusion" between the Kremlin and Trump's 2016 campaign.

DURHAM REPORT GIVES CREDENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL, CIVILIAN CLAIMS THE FBI IS 'HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED': NUNES

"I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial. But as I've said all along, there's plenty of evidence of collusion," he told "Meet The Press" in 2017.

BREAKING NEWS:

A MAGA Republican Member of Congress just filed a motion to expel me from the U.S. House of Representatives.

I stood up to Donald Trump and held extreme MAGA forces accountable. Now they want payback.

They’ll go after anyone who defends the rule of law.

— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) May 18, 2023

Following the freshman congresswoman's announcement, Schiff struck back in a Twitter post, saying that a "MAGA Republican" wants payback. 

"A MAGA Republican Member of Congress just filed a motion to expel me from the U.S. House of Representatives. I stood up to Donald Trump and held extreme MAGA forces accountable," Schiff wrote in a Twitter post Wednesday night. "Now they want payback. They’ll go after anyone who defends the rule of law."

While the Constitution gives Congress the ability to impeach federal officials and judges, it does not allow Congress to impeach its own members. However, members of Congress can be removed by expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote.

 

Sarah Rumpf-Whitten is a writer on the breaking news team for Fox News Digital. You can reach her on Twitter at @s_rumpfwhitten.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congresswomen-files-resolution-expel-rep-adam-schiff-pushing-false-narratives-durham-report

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Joe Biden’s empty words about antisemitism - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

The president’s tribute to Jewish heritage featured a pledge against hate that is undermined by his DEI orders and refusal to mention the IHRA definition.

 

For those who think what Jews need is more official recognition of their heritage, it was a great afternoon. The White House celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month was a star-studded affair with the president, the first lady and second gentleman Doug Emhoff speaking, and also featured a performance with the stars of the Broadway play “Parade,” a musical about the Leo Frank case.

The point of the show was not just to flatter Jews with an event celebrating their month, thus giving them a slice of the minority entitlement pie. Biden used it to highlight his stand against antisemitism and as a preview of an administration plan scheduled to be released later this month that will reveal a new “national strategy” to deal with the problem.

But the title of the interagency group that is working on the issue says all anyone needs to know about how serious—meaning, not at all—the administration is about fighting antisemitism. Far from coming up with a solution to a rising tide of Jew-hatred in the United States, it’s likely that this administration, more than any of its predecessors, is actually making things worse.

Biden boasted about the White House task force on “antisemitism and Islamophobia” in his remarks at the Jewish Heritage Month, saying it represented a fulfillment of his own commitment to dealing with the problem. The president claims that it was the “Unite the Right” neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Va., in the summer of 2017 that convinced him to run for president. But while his opposition to neo-Nazis is unexceptionable, his decision to link antisemitism with Islamophobia as being two problems of equal weight is telling.

Hatred of Muslims is as repugnant as the hatred of Jews. But the decision to link the two concerns is a function of Democratic Party politics.

Though he campaigned as the moderate, sane alternative to his main primary rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, his administration has conducted itself as if it is in thrall to the Democrats’ intersectional left-wing activist base. And that is why Biden’s task force chose to lump his response to antisemitism in with one about Islamophobia.

That was, at least in part, a response to the efforts of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to get the U.S. State Department to appoint an official to monitor Islamophobia in the same way that it has one to monitor antisemitism, a post that is currently filled by historian Deborah Lipstadt.

While that request is, like the linking of the two by the White House, a seemingly anodyne gesture that recognizes a common fight against religious intolerance, it’s actually anything but. Of course, there is prejudice against Muslims in this country. But the problem is not just that Omar— a supporter of the anti-Israel BDS movement an inveterate antisemite who has made headlines with her “all about the Benjamins” slur insinuating that Jews buy congressional support for Israel—has no standing to be talking about the subject. Most of what she considers Islamophobia are efforts to monitor and hold accountable radical Muslims who engage in antisemitism and support for Islamist terrorists.

It’s also based on the myth of a post-9/11 backlash against Muslims that continues to be accepted by the corporate media as fact rather than something that is largely unsupported by the data about hate crimes. In the last two decades, FBI statistics have consistently shown that Jews are the primary victims of religious bias, far outstripping those in which prejudice against Muslims is blamed.

But overblown or not, tying the two topics together is an ominous sign that whatever the White House ultimately produces about antisemitism will not be based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of the term. That’s because it mentions the demonization of Israel. And that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. So, if the White House is coming up with a response to Jew-hatred that incorporates the worldview of Omar—and the rest of the congressional squad and fellow progressive Democrats—then it’s unlikely to focus on the growing problem of left-wing antisemitism.

The whole point of Biden’s approach to antisemitism is to see it as solely a function of the threat from the extreme right, seen in Virginia, that so frightened the country with its evocation of the Nazis’ Nuremberg rallies, exhibited in the form of a few hundred hatemongers marching with tiki torches.

Opposing neo-Nazis is fine, but doing so takes no courage. Nor does it recognize that however vile and violent these people may be, they have no political support. That is not the case with anti-Zionists who sit in Congress and have an unfortunate amount of clout in Biden’s party and its progressive wing.

Just as important is the fact that far from setting an example of opposing the tropes of left-wing antisemitism, the Biden administration is itself a main supporter of its ideology and core beliefs.

The main source of the left’s delegitimization of Jews is the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), as well as critical race theory (CRT) studies. DEI is a toxic force in contemporary America because by substituting the notion of equity—or equal outcomes—for equality, it maintains that equality and equal opportunity is not just attainable but also undesirable. In this way, race is seen as always trumping merit, something that works to destroy the primary method by which Jews gained acceptance in American society.

Along with the CRT belief that everyone must be primarily classified by race and ethnic group, rather than individuals, that sets up a permanent war of those who are labeled as the oppressed, and those who are designated as oppressors and beneficiaries of “white privilege.” And among those who fall into the latter categories are Jews and the State of Israel. In that way, DEI and CRT act not merely to embitter relations between the races but also grant a permission slip for antisemitism.

An administration that was serious about opposing all forms of antisemitism would have nothing to do with the likes of Omar and fellow “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Instead, they have become welcome guests at the White House and were even singled out recently for compliments by Biden.

It would also oppose efforts to impose DEI on the country. Again, Biden has taken up the cause of the woke catechism and made its promotion one of his chief priorities, forcing every government agency and department to submit its own DEI plan. That will substitute racial quotas for merit, something that always bodes ill for Jews.

It also lends legitimacy to those very forces that are pushing the hardest for BDS discrimination against Israel and its Jewish supporters. Indeed, underneath the push for official recognition of Jewish heritage is a desire to get in on the same intersectional victim racket that left-wing antisemites promote.

The sort of lip service given to the threat of antisemitism at the White House party is to be welcomed. But honoring Jewish heritage means nothing if, at the same time, the Biden administration is enabling and empowering the same forces that are seeking to legitimize left-wing antisemitism.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-bidens-empty-words-about-antisemitism/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How CNN Continues to Promote Anti-Israel Views - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

by Hugh Fitzgerald

When a change of leadership does zero to stem the appalling hate.

 

CNN has long seemed to harbor an animus toward the Jewish state. But last year it came under new leadership, and there was hope that it would improve its coverage of Israel and the Palestinians. Alas, that did not happen. More on this subject can be found here: “CAMERA Op-Ed: CNN Abandons Professional Journalism,” by David Litman, CAMERA, May 11, 2023:

When CNN came under new leadership last year, the message to the public was that the network wanted to “rebuild trust as a non-partisan news brand.” At the time, David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, spoke proudly of his vision of CNN’s journalism “doing what journalists do best, which is to fight to tell the truth…” Unfortunately, some at CNN seem to be fighting something else – accountability for shoddy reporting.

Take, for example, CNN’s silence over an overtly antisemitic cartoon that remains on its website despite numerous emails, phone calls, and social media posts directed at the network. There have also been articles in both Jewish and major national media outlets expressing criticism and disgust and a video exposé. The cartoon – published uncritically – portrays Jews celebrating Passover surrounded by a sea of blood, an unmistakable reference to the centuries-old blood libel that Jews use the blood of murdered gentile children for rituals or in the matzah they bake for Passover. Even The Guardian, an outlet known for regularly minimizing the problem of antisemitism, had the ethical sense to respond and take down a similarly antisemitic cartoon.

But the response from CNN? Crickets.

A cartoon showing Jews celebrating Passover in a sea of blood – a clear reference to the blood libel that goes back to the Middle Ages, when Jews were accused of killing Christian children and using their blood to bake matzoh. A cartoon, in other words, worthy of Der Stürmer was put up on the CNN website, and despite all kinds of protests – emails, phone calls, social media posts, despite articles about the cartoon’s offensiveness in both Jewish and national media, CNN stubbornly refuses to take the cartoon down, or even to explain why it refuses to do so. The only conceivable explanation is that someone — or perhaps several someones — high up at CNN is simply an antisemite, and is not appalled by, but rather likes, this blood libel against Jews on the CNN website.

Another recent example suggesting a shocking disregard for accountability came courtesy of Christiane Amanpour. During an interview with a former Israeli ambassador, the longtime CNN personality seemingly fabricated polling data to suggest “the latest polls” show the Palestinian people “want a peaceful, two-state solution to co-exist” with Israelis. Yet every single poll CAMERA could find taken by Palestinian pollsters consistently showed the exact opposite – a substantial majority against a two-state solution.

What was CNN’s response to calls for evidence of the anchor’s glib claim? Silence.

Christiane Amanpour confidently asserted that “the Palestinian people want a peaceful, two-state solution to co-exist,” but her factoid was false. Every single poll of the Palestinians shows that the vast majority are against a “two-state solution” and continue to want a “Palestine” exclusively for Arabs, that will include all the territory “from the river to the sea.”

When CNN was contacted to provide evidence for Amanpour’s claim, since no poll of the Palestinians support her claim, instead of forthrightly admitting she had been mistaken, she simply refused to reply.That’s what is called “stonewalling” and has no place in a reputable news organization.

Amanpour is the best-known, but hardly the only offender at CNN when it comes to covering Israel. There is CNN’s correspondent Frederik Pleitgen, whose coverage of the murders of Lucy Dee and her two daughters left much to be desired, as CAMERA has noted:

Even more recently, CNN correspondent Frederik Pleitgen described in these words an incident in which terrorists shot at a car with an Israeli mother and her two daughters (and then pulled the vehicle closer to fire at close range to make sure the women were dead):

“There was a shooting incident where a car received a bullet shot, or gunshots, with the family in it. It was a mother and her two daughters, and the two daughters were killed in that crash.”

The evasive, circuitous wording stood in stark contrast to his direct description in the same broadcast of the shooting death of a Palestinian, in which he plainly stated, “the Israeli military shot and killed a 15-year-old boy.” Despite a message from the correspondent that he was aware of the criticism, the communication ended as soon as the topic of publicly addressing and correcting the issue was raised.

Think of the difference. The active voice was used for those wicked Israelis, who “shot and killed a 15-year-boy.” There was no mention by Pleitgen that the 15-year-old boy had been throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers, attempting to set them on fire.

The passive voice, however, was used for the deliberate murders of Lucy Dee and her two daughters: “There was a shooting incident.” Not a “killing.” A “shooting incident.” And “a car received a bullet shot.”What a bizarre construction. And then that car that “received a [presumably single] bullet shot” just happened to have “the [Dee] family in it.” The way the account was phrased leaves one with the impression that the mother emerged unscathed, because she is not mentioned as a victim; Pleitgen says only that “the two daughters were killed in that crash.” Nor were the daughters “killed” in a car crash. Their car crashed after they had been shot to to death by a Palestinian terrorist, armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle. After the crash, he kept firing; the victims were reportedly shot a total of 22 times. That does justice, unflinchingly, to the event. Pleitgen’s account was a travesty of the truth.

Here is how CNN”s Frederik Pleitgen ought to have reported the story: “A Palestinian terrorist with a Kalashnikov shot and killed an Israeli mother, Lucy Dee, and two of her daughters, Maina and Rina, as they drove through the West Bank on April 7.”

Christine Amanpour has quite a history of anti-Israel animus. This past January, she interviewed an Israeli documentary film maker, Dror Moreh. Toward the end, Amanpour asked Moreh:

“You are an Israeli. I don’t know whether you were in Israel at the time, but you said that this red line in the neighboring country of Syria, where all these atrocities were being committed really, really made you angry and upset. Many will want to know, you know, do you feel equally angry about the horrible situation that’s going on in your own country, and the human rights attacks, killings of Palestinians. Obviously, we know Israelis are also attacked, but what is your perspective, as an Israeli, given the whole “never again” paradigm in which you place this investigation?”

An article on Amanpour at CAMERA.org provided a dozen examples of her palpable want of sympathy for the Jewish state.

Before delving into the appropriateness of comparing the justifications for the Syrian regime’s attacks on its own citizens versus Israel’s measures to defend against terrorism, let us first put in perspective the scale of the violence.

The United Nations estimates that in ten years of conflict in Syria, over 306,000 civilians (not including combatants) have been killed, or about 30,000 a year.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has claimed in total from December 1987 (the start of the First Intifada) to May 2021 approximately 14,000 Israeli and Palestinian lives, including both civilians and combatants. That’s about 400 per year, which includes particularly deadly periods like the Second Intifada and the various wars and operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

Put another way, the Syrian civil war cost more than twice as many lives in a single year – without even counting combatants – as have been killed in 34 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There simply is no comparison.

But even beyond just the numbers, Amanpour’s comparison is morally obscene and dripping with partisan framing. Syrian regime atrocities are not just atrocities because of the sheer scale of civilian casualties. They are atrocities because the Syrian regime targeted civilians, barrel bombing hospitals and dropping chemical weapons on civilian areas.

CNN may be under new leadership, but it will continue to appall as long as it allows such people as Christine Amanpour and Frederik Pleitgen to mold the minds of millions on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians. What would it take to convince David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, who has spoken proudly of his vision of CNN’s journalism “doing what journalists do best, which is to fight to tell the truth,” that Amanpour and Pleitgen have demonstrated that when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians they are unable to meet that standard, and both deserve to be treated as Fox treated Tucker Carlson – that is, they should be swiftly shown the door?

Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-cnn-continues-to-promote-anti-israel-views/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Witness to Jordan Neely chokehold death calls Daniel Penny a 'hero' - Rebecca Rosenberg

 

by Rebecca Rosenberg

NYC passenger says Marine vet 'cared for people' and 'that is his crime'

 

 

EXCLUSIVE DETAILS — A retiree who witnessed Marine veteran Daniel Penny fatally choke an erratic homeless man on a train earlier this month called him a hero and slammed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for prosecuting him.

"He’s a hero," said the passenger, who has lived in New York City more than 50 years. 

The witness, who described herself as a woman of color, said it was wrong for Bragg to charge Penny with second-degree manslaughter.

"It was self-defense, and I believe in my heart that he saved a lot of people that day that could have gotten hurt," she told Fox News Digital.

KID ROCK TOP DONOR TO DANIEL PENNY'S DEFENSE IN NYC SUBWAY CHOKEHOLD DEATH

Daniel Penny leaves the 5th Precinct of the NYPD Friday, May 12, 2023. Penny is charged in the death of subway rider Jordan Neely.  (Julia Bonavita/Fox News Digital)

Jordan Neely, 30, who suffered from mental illness, stormed onto the northbound F train at about 2:30 p.m. May 1 screaming and threatening passengers, she said.

"The People on that train, we were scared. We were scared for our lives,"

— said the passenger

"I’m sitting on a train reading my book, and, all of a sudden, I hear someone spewing this rhetoric. He said, ‘I don’t care if I have to kill an F, I will. I’ll go to jail, I’ll take a bullet,’" recalled the woman, who is in her 60s.

The terrified passengers crowded toward the exit doors. 

"I’m looking at where we are in the tube, in the sardine can, and I’m like, ‘OK, we’re in between stations. There’s nowhere we can go,’" she said. "The people on that train, we were scared. We were scared for our lives."

A screenshot from a bystander video showing Jordan Neely being held in a chokehold on the New York City subway. (Luces de Nueva York/Juan Alberto Vazquez via Storyful)

Penny stepped in when Neely started using the word "kill" and "bullet."

"Why in the world would you take a bullet? Why? You don’t take a bullet because you’ve snatched something from somebody’s hand. You take a bullet for violence," she added.

NYC MARINE VETERAN CHARGED IN DEATH OF MAN ‘MAKING THREATS AND SCARING PASSENGERS’: PROSECUTORS

The witness said it was clear to her that Penny waited until the last minute to intervene for the sake of his fellow passengers. 

She heard a thump when he dragged Neely to the ground but couldn’t see clearly until the doors opened at the Broadway-Lafayette station and most of the passengers exited.

Marine veteran Daniel Penny, right, allegedly fatally choked Jordan Neely, left, on a NYC subway train after the homeless man threatened passengers. (Mills & Edwards/AllTrails)

The witness waited for police to arrive and provided a statement.

"Mr. Penny cared for people. That’s what he did. That is his crime," she told Fox News Digital. After the altercation, she and at least three other passengers thanked him.

"This isn't about race. This is about people of all colors who were very, very afraid and a man who stepped in to help them,"

— the witness said

But he seemed shaken, the woman said.

"Nobody wants to kill anybody. Mr. Penny didn’t want to kill that man," she said. "You should have seen the way Mr. Penny looked. He was distraught. He was very, very, very visibly distressed. And he didn’t go. He didn’t run. He stayed." 

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said at Penny’s arraignment Friday that the Marine veteran, who has lived his entire life in the New York area, continued to hold Neely for a "period of time" after the man had stopped moving.

A screenshot from bystander video showing Jordan Neely being held in a chokehold on the New York City subway. (Luces de Nueva York/Juan Alberto Vazquez via Storyful)

But Penny, he noted, had remained on the train and accompanied police to the precinct to voluntarily answer questions. 

Two men, who have not been publicly identified, helped hold down Neely’s arms during the altercation.

"It took three men to hold Mr. Neely down. He was struggling," the witness said.

JORDAN NEELY HAD HISTORY OF ATTACKS ON SUBWAY RIDERS BEFORE NYC CHOKEHOLD DEATH

After widespread protests erupted across the city, with many demonstrators and even politicians calling Penny a "murderer," Bragg charged Penny.  

Freelance journalist Alberto Vazquez began recording the confrontation after Neely was already in a chokehold and offered a second account of the homeless man’s conduct.

Alvin Bragg brought a manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny in the death of Jordan Neely, right, on the subway May 1, 2023. (Alex Kent via Getty/Paul Martinka)

"He started screaming in an aggressive manner," Vazquez told the New York Post. "He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail. He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground."

The narrative that has emerged has become about race — a White man who fatally choked a Black man, the witness said.

"This isn't about race. This is about people of all colors who were very, very afraid and a man who stepped in to help them," she said. "Race is being used to divide us."

The retiree lived in the city through the ‘80s and ’90s when violent crime peaked during the crack epidemic.

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office in 1994 and has been widely credited with cleaning up the Big Apple with a zero-tolerance approach to crime.

Daniel Penny leaves the 5th Precinct of the NYPD on Friday, May 12, 2023. Penny is charged in the death of subway rider Jordan Neely. (Julia Bonavita/Fox News Digital)

The witness said she feels like the city is sliding backward with failed policies that don’t help the mentally ill and criminal justice reforms that don’t hold people who commit crimes accountable. 

"I miss the city under the law and order of Giuliani," she told Fox News Digital. "When it comes to exposing people or subjecting them to violent behavior, the people who are in power and supposed to protect us are not."

MARINE VETERAN IN NYC SUBWAY CHOKEHOLD DEATH FACES TOUGH LEGAL ROAD, EXPERTS SAY

She added that she prays for Penny every day and is thrilled his legal defense fund has raised more than $2.5 million. 

"I hope that they raise more because it’s going to cost a pretty penny, no pun intended, to get this young man justice," she said.

This undated photo, provided by Mills & Edwards, LLP, in New York, Friday, May 12, 2023, shows Jordan Neely, left, with Carolyn Neely, an aunt.  (Courtesy Mills & Edwards, LLP via AP)

She lambasted politicians and people "jumping up and down and feeling all this venom" toward Penny.

"There was AOC saying that this gentleman was lynched. Why would she do that? She's supposed to be for all people," the woman wondered, referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She also expressed sympathy for Neely, who clearly had a tragic life and suffered from mental illness. 

His mother was strangled and her body dumped in a suitcase in the Bronx when he was a teen. Neely had been arrested more than 40 times, including for numerous violent assaults on strangers in the subway.

Video

In 2021, he punched a 67-year-old woman in the face, breaking her nose and eye socket.

He has cycled in and out of hospitals and jails his entire adult life and was on the city’s "Top 50" list of homeless people most in need of outreach.

The problems facing New York City are now plaguing the U.S., the witness noted. 

"It’s not looking that good for us," she said. "You know, we were supposed to be an example to other nations but are turning into a Third World country."

Penny, who is free on $100,000 bond, is due back in court July 17.

Readers can anonymously report tips to rebecca.rosenberg@fox.com.

 

Rebecca Rosenberg is a veteran journalist and book author with a focus on crime and criminal justice. Email tips to rebecca.rosenberg@fox.com and @ReRosenberg.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/witness-jordan-neely-chokehold-death-calls-daniel-penny-hero

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dithering Biden is Seriously Harming Ukraine's Victory Prospects - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

U.S. military aid is only arriving piecemeal as the Biden administration warns it is nearing the end of its ability to provide weapons that can be pulled off of the Pentagon's shelves to give to the Ukrainians.

• While U.S. President Joe Biden has constantly pledged his support for Kyiv, his rhetoric has invariably failed to result in providing the Ukrainians with the military support they require. Even when, as happened earlier this year, the White House reluctantly agreed to provide Ukraine with Abrams tanks - a move that was only approved after Washington came under intense pressure from allies such as Poland - the slow delivery timetable has made Ukrainian commanders despair that the equipment will ever actually arrive.

• As for the promised Abrams tanks, U.S. officials readily admit that the Abrams are months away from arriving as the Pentagon looks at its stocks to see what it can send.

• In a recent interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Sasha Ustinova, a Ukrainian lawmaker, confirmed the U.S. military had delivered far less than what Valeriy Zaluzhny, Ukraine's top general, had asked for from the Pentagon. U.S. military aid is only arriving piecemeal as the Biden administration warns it is nearing the end of its ability to provide weapons that can be pulled off of the Pentagon's shelves to give to the Ukrainians.

• Ustinova said that Ukraine hoped to begin the offensive in April, but the lack of weapons has pushed the launch date back indefinitely.

• Certainly, any delay in the Ukrainians launching their offensive will only help to convince the Kremlin that, despite all the setbacks it has suffered over the course of the past year, it may still end up winning the war.

With the White House refusing to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons that are capable of striking targets within Russia, the Ukrainians are increasingly resorting to making their own homemade weapons to fill the gaps in their arms supplies. Pictured: Ukrainian soldiers inspect a new Ukrainian-developed Sirko reconnaissance drone outside Kharkiv on April 30, 2023. (Photo by Sergey Bobok/AFP via Getty Images)

The Biden administration's constant dithering over supplying weapons to Ukraine is proving to be a decisive factor in the Ukrainian military's decision to delay its long-awaited spring counter-offensive against Russian forces.

Since the end of last year, when the Ukrainians inflicted a series of humiliating defeats against their Russian foes, Kyiv has been warning that it is in urgent need of fresh supplies of military equipment from its Western allies if it is to continue its campaign to liberate Ukrainian territory from Russian occupation.

In particular, the Ukrainians say they are in urgent need of replacements of tanks and other heavy armour, long-range missiles and aircraft - including F-16 fighters.

While the U.S. and its allies have pledged to provide limited supplies of weapons, however, the slow pace of delivery has prompted the Ukrainians to conclude they have no option but to delay their offensive until they are fully equipped.

The scale of the challenge facing the Ukrainians was highlighted by President Volodymyr Zelensky, who said his country is still awaiting the delivery of promised military aid from its Western allies, which was holding up Kyiv's plans to launch its much-anticipated counter-offensive.

Speaking at his headquarters in Kyiv, Zelensky described combat units, some of which were trained by Nato countries, as being "ready", but said the army still needed "some things", including armoured vehicles that were "arriving in batches".

"With [what we already have] we can go forward, and, I think, be successful," he said in an interview for public service broadcasters who are members of Eurovision News, like the BBC. "But we'd lose a lot of people. I think that's unacceptable. So we need to wait. We still need a bit more time."

One of the key reasons for the delay is the Biden administration's hesitancy about providing Kyiv with the firepower it requires to defeat the Russian occupiers, which has been a constant feature of its response to Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

While U.S. President Joe Biden has constantly pledged his support for Kyiv, his rhetoric has invariably failed to result in providing the Ukrainians with the military support they require. Even when, as happened earlier this year, the White House reluctantly agreed to provide Ukraine with Abrams tanks - a move that was only approved after Washington came under intense pressure from allies such as Poland - the slow delivery timetable has made Ukrainian commanders despair that the equipment will ever actually arrive.

In recent months Ukraine has taken delivery of German-made Leopard tanks that have been donated to the Ukrainian cause by frontline European countries such as Poland. The Leopards, though, are arriving from eight different countries and fire different types of shells, which means the Ukrainians cannot buy munitions in bulk.

As for the promised Abrams tanks, U.S. officials readily admit that the Abrams are months away from arriving, as the Pentagon looks at its stocks to see what it can send.

In a recent interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Sasha Ustinova, a Ukrainian lawmaker, confirmed the U.S. military had delivered far less than what Valeriy Zaluzhny, Ukraine's top general, had asked for from the Pentagon. U.S. military aid is only arriving piecemeal as the Biden administration warns it is nearing the end of its ability to provide weapons that can be pulled off of the Pentagon's shelves to give to the Ukrainians.

Ustinova said that Ukraine hoped to begin the offensive in April, but the lack of weapons has pushed the launch date back indefinitely.

The Biden administration has been even less forthcoming with regard to Kyiv's request for F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles that can destroy targets deep within Russia. The White House is reluctant to provide such weaponry for fear of provoking Russian President Vladimir Putin into escalating the war further.

With the White House refusing to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons that are capable of striking targets within Russia, the Ukrainians are increasingly resorting to making their own homemade weapons to fill the gaps in their arms supplies.

Recent reports have revealed that Ukrainian engineers have designed a "people's missile" using similar technology to the German V1 "doodlebug" rocket that terrorised London during the Second World War, and which has twice the range of the US-supplied HIMARS rocket systems.

In addition the Ukrainians have been busy developing their own fleet of long-range drones, which can carry payloads of 300 kilograms and fly hundreds of kilometres, depending on their configuration.

Having the ability to produce their own weaponry certainly allows the Ukrainians a degree of flexibility in choosing their targets, a luxury they were not allowed when they were obliged to accept the constraints imposed on their military operations by the West.

Even so, there are mounting concerns that without the heavy firepower that Ukraine's supposed Western allies can provide, Kyiv's ability to launch its spring counter-offensive will be severely diminished.

Certainly, any delay in the Ukrainians launching their offensive will only help to convince the Kremlin that, despite all the setbacks it has suffered over the course of the past year, it may still end up winning the war.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19646/biden-harming-ukraine-victory-prospects

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter