Why you shouldn’t worry about the DOJ not prosecuting Comey on leaked memos - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

There may still be accountability in the end

Lots of conservatives are understandably upset that the IG Horowitz’s criminal referral of James Comey for leaking classified memos memorializing his conversations with President Trump is not being prosecuted by the Department of Justice. It eerily reminds us of James Comey exonerating Hillary Clinton for her prima facie violations of the Espionage Act because he could perceive no criminal intent (which is unnecessary for gross negligence to apply).

We’ve been suckered before, so cynicism is warranted. Tucker Carlson opened his show last night making this point:




But there is more – much more – to the story this time. The case against Comey for leaking is weaker and less serious than his signing of the FISA warrant applications that corruptly cited the Steele Dossier, even though it was known to be unverified. IG Horowitz has a separate report coming on that, and US Attorney John Durham is reportedly working on prosecuting that.

Watch two very distinguished, high profile attorneys – Joe di Genova and Alan Dershowitz -- discuss this with Laura Ingraham. And as you do, imagine to potential consequences of taking as the first case against Comey a prosecution that could well be lost. Once a prosecution fails, the calls to drop the “political motivated persecution” would be legion. I is important that the first case taken to a jury be rock-solid and serious.

Update: I apologize that attempts to embed the video are not working. Please follow this link to view it.


Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/why_you_shouldnt_worry_about_the_doj_not_prosecuting_comey_on_leaked_memos.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turmoil: AOC’s chief of staff and spokesman both leaving her congressional office - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

A happy face is being painted on the departures, but both men have generated controversy and anger.

What’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going to use for brains now that her brain trust is leaving her congressional office? Saikat Chakrabarti, the multi-millionaire entrepreneur who recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress and who became her chief of staff and Svengali, is leaving her office, it was revealed Friday. Also departing her congressional payroll is her Communications Director, Corbin Trent.

The news was first revealed to the leftwing site The Intercept. Akela Lacy writes:

Saikat Chakrabarti, her chief of staff, and Corbin Trent, her director of communications — who, through their work with Justice Democrats, have been alongside Ocasio-Cortez since her primary run — will leave the lawmaker’s office. Chakrabarti will go to New Consensus, a nonprofit focused on climate issues and promoting the Green New Deal. Trent will direct communications on Ocasio-Cortez’s 2020 campaign, the same role he played during her first congressional run.
“Saikat has decided to leave the office of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to work with New Consensus to further develop plans for a Green New Deal,” Trent said in a statement to The Intercept. “We are extraordinarily grateful for his service to advance a bold agenda and improve the lives of the people in NY-14. From his co-founding of Justice Democrats to his work on the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and in the official office, Saikat’s goal has always been to do whatever he can to help the larger progressive movement, and we look forward to continuing working with him to do just that.”

Chakrabarti wearing a t-shirt picturing Subhash Chandra Bose, an advocate for Indian independence from Britain, who allied with Hitler and the Japanese during WWII.

YouTube screen grab

Recall that Chakrabarti and his Justice Democrats colleagues held auditions for promising candidates to run against moderate Democrat incumbents in deep blue districts, reportedly screening a thousand people and finding Ocasio-Cotetz and others. Seven of the candidates backed by the group won seats on the House: Raúl Grijalva, Ro Khanna, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Pramila Jayapal.

A happy face is being painted on the departures, but both men have generated controversy and anger. Trent, who will work for Ocasio-Cortez but on the re-election campaign’s payroll, dropped an f-bomb six weeks ago when a potential 2020 GOP challenger wanted to debate AOC: ““Yo @RichValdes what in the actual f–k makes you think you’re entitled to a debate with AOC,” spokesman Corbin Trent tweeted… at the conservative talk radio producer who’s mulling a run against the freshman congresswoman.”

Chakabarti, however has generated far more controversy – The New York Times called him a “symbol of Democratic division” -- and will not have any explicit ties to Ocasio-Cortez in his new role. He both managed to anger Speaker Pelosi and moderate House Democrats, and he also gave away the game on the Green New deal. On that latter point, The Washington Examiner reported on July 11:

The chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that her signature Green New Deal was not really about saving the planet after all.
In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."
The revelation came during a conversation with Sam Ricketts, climate director for presidential candidate Jay Inslee. Chakrabarti further told Ricketts of the Green New Deal, "I think ... it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout."

Chakrabarti has been responsible for positioning Ocasio-Cottez against the Speaker and moderate Democrats. Bill Sanderson of the NY Daily News summarized:

Chakrabarti, 33, angered some of Ocasio-Cortez’s colleagues early in July when he took to Twitter to compare moderate Democrats to southern segregationists.
“Instead of ‘fiscally conservative but socially liberal,’ let’s call the New Democrats and Blue Dog Caucus the ‘New Southern Democrats,’ ” Chakrabarti wrote in a tweet that is now deleted. “They certainly seem hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s.”
Chakrabarti made a veiled allegation of racism against Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) after she voted in late June for a bipartisan bill to appropriate money to government operations on the southern border. Chakrabarti said of Davids: “Her votes are showing her to enable a racist system.”
That drew a sharp rebuke from the official House Democrats’ Twitter account, which is managed by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn): “Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?”
That tweet has been deleted too.
The feud led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to rebuke Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive House Democrats. “You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK,” Pelosi reportedly said.

I am among many people who believe that Chakrabarti has functioned as a puppet master for AOC, guiding her positions and moves, and even telling her what to say on critical issues. With his departure, we’ll see if there are any changes in her behavior

It is unclear if the departures are related to three Federal Election Commission complaints alleging financial wrongdoing. The New York Post explains:

The finances surrounding Justice Democrats have also generated bad press. The group attracted three Federal Election Commission complaints filed by conservative groups because of an odd setup in which money from the PAC flowed into two limited liability companies controlled by Chakrabarti.
Ocasio-Cortez didn’t require Chakrabarti nor Trent to disclose their personal finances. Members can designate any member of their staff a “principal assistant” forcing them to file forms annual financial disclosure forms.

More details on one of the complaints were provided by Greg Re of Fox News last March:

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive firebrand's multimillionaire chief of staff, apparently violated campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies that he also controlled, according to an explosive complaint filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and obtained by Fox News.
Amid the allegations, a former FEC commissioner late Monday suggested in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ocasio-Cortez and her team could separately be facing major fines and potentially even jail time if they were knowingly and willfully violating the law by hiding their control of the Justice Democrats political action committee (PAC). Such an arrangement could have allowed Ocasio-Cortez's campaign to receive donations in excess of the normal limit, by pooling contributions to both the PAC and the campaign itself.
The FEC complaint asserts that Chakrabarti established two PACs, the Brand New Congress PAC and Justice Democrats PAC, and then systematically transferred more than $885,000 in contributions received by those PACs to the Brand New Campaign LLC and the Brand New Congress LLC -- companies that, unlike PACs, are exempt from reporting all of their significant expenditures. The PACs claimed the payments were for "strategic consulting."

Although large financial transfers from PACs to LLCs are not necessarily improper, the complaint argues that the goal of the "extensive" scheme was seemingly to illegally dodge detailed legal reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which are designed to track campaign expenditures.This story has more chapters coming. 

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/turmoil_aocs_chief_of_staff_and_spokesman_both_leaving_her_congressional_office.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Jordan closes grave of Aharon to tourists - Arutz Sheva Staff

​
by Arutz Sheva Staff

Jordan’s Minister of Religion decides to close grave of Aharon the Cohen in Petra following prayers deemed "illegal".

Grave of Aharon the Cohen                                                                                                                                      Flash 90

Jordan’s Minister of Religion, Abed al Nasr abu Bassel, decided to close the grave of Aharon the Cohen in Petra to tourists.

According to local media outlets, the decision was made after a video was made public in Jordan of Jews praying at the compound, with the claim that the pilgrimage was “illegal”.

The Jordanian Religion Ministry said it would launch an investigation in order to find out who allowed Jewish worshipers to enter the compound, adding that it would bring those responsible to justice.

Watch: Archival footage from the grave of Aharon the Cohen. Those who appear in the video have no connection to the article:

(Hebrew)



Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266876

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Poll: No one can form a government - Arutz Sheva Staff

​
by Arutz Sheva Staff

Stalemate!

A new poll conducted Friday by the Midgam Research Institute showed that neither candidate for Israel's premiership is capable of forming a coalition.

According to the poll, the right-wing bloc without the haredi parties and the center-left bloc without the Arab parties are equal, with 42 Knesset seats each.

The poll gave Yisrael Beytenu, considered to be the swing party, 10 Knesset seats.

If elections were held today and the political map identical to its current status, the Likud would win 30 Knesset seats, followed closely by Blue and White with 29 Knesset seats. The United Right party, led by Ayelet Shaked, would win 12 seats, and the Arab Joint List would come in fourth with 11 seats.

Ashkenazic-haredi UTJ would win eight Knesset seats, followed by Sephardic-haredi Shas with seven. The Democratic Camp - made up of Meretz and Democratic Israel - would also win seven Knesset seats.

The Labor-Gesher joint list would receive six Knesset seats.Moshe Feiglin's Zehut would not cross the electoral threshold, garnering just 2.2% of the vote, and the Otzma Yehudit party would likewise fail to cross, securing only 1.9% of the vote.

Together with the haredi parties, the right-religious bloc would win 57 Knesset seats, while the center-left bloc together with the Arabs would win 53 Knesset seats.

In the poll, participants were asked if they support the creation of a unity government with the Likud and Blue and White parties. While 36% of right-wing voters supported the idea, just 34% of left-wing voters did. All told, 33% of respondents supported a unity government while 54% opposed it.

Participants were also asked if they support a unity government including the Likud, Blue and White, and Yisrael Beytenu parties. While 35% of right-wing voters supported the idea, just 27% of left-wing voters did. All told, 29% of respondents supported such a unity government, while 59% opposed it.


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/266883

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Reasons Why Peaceful Resolutions for the Arab-Israeli Conflict Always Fail - Tawfik Hamid

​
by Tawfik Hamid

Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country.

• The cause of the problem is NOT the land. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, several Arab nations were created by fiat. The Arab world accepted this without any problem, as these were Muslim-majority countries. Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country.
• In this manner, despite the clear discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in most of the Arab and Muslim world (denying equal rights in church construction, for example), many in the Arab world point the finger only at Israel when they talk about discrimination.
• The European Union is currently funding a study into Palestinians textbooks, brought about by the findings of the non-governmental organization IMPACT-se, which found in May that "the new Palestinian school [material] for the 2018–19 academic year... was 'more radical than those previously published.'" ... Meanwhile, no one is being educated for peace.
• When we add onto all that the sad reality that Palestinian politicians are using the conflict to get billions of dollars in donations, we can understand why this conflict has so far not been solved.

The rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan by the Arab nations, and their declaration of war against Israel rather than their acceptance of peace, was the first clear indication that the Arabs' desire was never to provide a state for the Palestinian people, but rather has been from the beginning to erase Israel from the map. Pictured: An Arab Legion platoon on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in 1948. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

We must salute Jared Kushner's attempt to bring a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That said, the Palestinians' unsurprising rejection of the peace offer requires some scrutiny, especially the true causes of the perennial failure to achieve lasting peace.

Without understanding them, every attempt to solve this conflict, every attempt to make true peace in the Middle East, will always fail.

As an insider with a background as both a Muslim and an Arab, please allow me share with you some insight into the problem.

1. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about borders. It is about the existence of the state of Israel.
In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan -- Resolution 181 -- gave the Palestinians and Arabs control over most of the Holy Land. The rejection of the plan by the Arab nations, and their declaration of war against Israel rather than their acceptance of peace, was the first clear indication that the Arabs' desire was never to provide a state for the Palestinian people, but rather has been from the beginning to erase Israel from the map. This destructive intent is memorialized in the Hamas Charter, which unashamedly asks for the eradication of the State of Israel. This intent is also aligned with the Iranian leaders' continuous entreaties to destroy Israel. An evaluation of relevant social media commentary in the Arab world demonstrates a genuine desire by many -- if not most -- of the Arab population to see the destruction of Israel and the killing not just of all Israeli Jews but of all Jews:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' " -- Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791

2. The cause of the problem is NOT the land
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, several Arab nations were created by fiat. The Arab world accepted this without any problem, as these were Muslim-majority countries. Rejecting the state of Israel was related to the fact that it is a Jewish rather than a Muslim country. In fact, on several occasions I have asked Arab Muslims (including raising the point on Aljazeera TV) [See: 40:44 - 41:04] whether they would continue fighting Israel if its entire population converted to Islam. The answer is a unanimous "NO." My answer to that is always, "Then the problem has nothing to do with the land, as many claim, but with the Jewishness of the State of Israel."

3. Delusional way of thinking
Delusions are defined as fixed beliefs that contradict reality. This way of thinking among many in the Arab world impedes any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, many in the Arab world strongly believe that the Jews are the cause of the economic collapse of nations. This idea is belied by the fact that when the Jewish community was a viable component of Egypt prior to 1952 revolution, the Egyptian economy was in far better condition than it was after President Nasser expelled the Jews from the country. Any rational person can see that if the Jews were the cause of the economic collapse of nations, the economy of Egypt should have improved significantly after they were kicked out of the country. Delusional people do not see (nor do they want to see) such logic

4. Inability of the Arab mind to admit its wrongdoings
Many in the Arab world falsely believe that Israel expelled all Arabs. In fact, there are nearly two million Israeli Arabs who live in Israel as citizens, making up 20% of the population. Many in the Arab world tend to ignore that it was the Arabs who expelled the Jews -- in a humiliating way -- from countries such as Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Arabs' failure to admit their own mistakes and crimes against their Jewish communities adds another obstacle to peaceful resolutions to the problem.

5. Conspiracy theories
Analysis of the Arab and Muslim media and honest evaluation of comments on social media in the Arab and Muslim world show that Arab street tends to believe that any problem that occurs in the Arab world must be an "Israeli conspiracy," or, at very least, "It can't be the Arabs' fault!" For example, When, for example, sharks attacked several tourists at Egypt's Red Sea coast in 2010, many Arabs, including officials, originally accused Israel of planning the attack. Shortly after that, Saudi Arabia detained a vulture on "charges" of spying for Israel. When rats were accused of being trained by Israelis to drive Arabs from the Old City of Jerusalem, the award-winning journalist Khaled Abu Toameh drily noted , "It is not clear how these rats were taught to stay away from Jews, who also happen to live in the Old City."

Such terrible self-deception, which must stem from a feeling of supremacy (or inadequacy), and the shifting of blame for all problems in the Arab world onto Israel instead of admitting one's own wrongdoings, have reached pathological and self-destructive levels in the Arab world.

6. Psychological projection
Psychological projection is a mental mechanism in which people defend themselves against unconscious impulses that they might consider unflattering or forbidden, by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who has wishes that he does not want to admit to, will accuse other people of having them, such as greed, bigotry or sexual urges that might frighten him -- as a way of shifting the blame.

In this manner, despite the clear discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in most of the Arab and Muslim world (denying equal rights in church construction, for example), many in the Arab world point the finger only at Israel when they talk about discrimination.

It would be hard not mention in this context that the only place I have found discrimination in Israel was by Muslims, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. (Sadly, because non-Muslims are seen as unclean). By contrast, I -- with my Muslim background -- was freely allowed to visit the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem without any objection from the Israeli authorities.

7. Unprecedented levels of antisemitism
Nothing better illustrates the level of antisemitism in the Muslim world more than the statement of Soad Saleh when she justified Muslims raping Jewish women to humiliate them. Soad Saleh is a well-known scholar at Al-Azhar University, the most reputable Islamic university in the world. She is actually considered by many in the Arab street to be "moderate"!

Not a single well-known Islamic scholar stood up against her evil views. She remains in her position at Al-Azhar University and was not punished at all.

Such barbaric views are not limited to people like Soad Saleh. Unfortunately, careful evaluation of social media comments on issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict shows beyond doubt that these beliefs are widespread in the Arab world.

It would be extremely difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to reach any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict without first addressing this unrepentant antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world.

8. Lack of Pragmatism
Another factor that impedes any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a general lack of pragmatism in the Arab world. For example, despite the many economic benefits to Egypt from the peace treaty with Israel (such as the return of the Sinai Peninsula and renewed access to the Suez Canal, both of which were a boon to trade and tourism), many Egyptians and the Arab of other nations still reject and refuse to follow the peaceful path of President Anwar Sadat. Arab resistance to peace with the Jewish people, despite the economic gains that resulted from the Camp David Accords, was clearly demonstrated when tens of thousands of Egyptians attacked and burned the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

This kind of unpragmatic approach to the problem will always be an obstacle to solving the conflict only via economic incentives.

9. Ideological Factors
The strong ideological belief held by many Muslims that they MUST fight the Jews before the end days, and kill all of them, is another major obstacle to achieving true peace in the Middle East. It is important to note that such a belief is mainly based on a Hadith of Prophet Mohamed rather than the Quran itself.

10. Lack of Reformed Understanding of Islam
Traditional interpretations of Islam tend to limit the verses that speak positively about Jews to the past and on the contrary generalize the verses that were critical of the Jews in specific situations.
For example, many Muslims see the following verse as limited to the past: "Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over mankind" (Quran 2: 122). By contrast, the verse that has been used to call all Jews "pigs and monkeys" was actually limited only to specific group among the Children of Israel who refused to obey the Torah in a particular situation at a particular time and place. Without going into sophisticated theological analysis, the main point is that if such verses are understood in a different way so that the first verse is not limited to the past and the second one is seen in it its historical context, Arab-Israeli relations would be much better today.

11. Education
While a bias against Jews starts at home -- it is not as if this view appears only on the first day of school -- children are fed a curriculum in much if the Arab and Muslim world that reinforces these prejudices. Saudi textbooks, for instance, while recently banning all influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, have not yet done the same for anti-Jewish, anti-Christian or anti-Sufi bias.

A Saudi textbook from 2016-2017, for instance, on Hadith (the sayings and actions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), "baselessly alleges that Zionism aspires to world domination and a 'global Jewish government.'" (Now that is projection: world domination is what Salafi Islam aspires to; Judaism does not).

Palestinian textbooks are basically no different. The European Union is currently funding a study into Palestinian textbooks, brought about by the findings of the non-governmental organization IMPACT-se, which found in May that "the new Palestinian school [material] for the 2018–19 academic year... was 'more radical than those previously published.'"

"Most troubling," the NGO reported, "there is a systematic insertion of violence, martyrdom and jihad across all grades and subjects in a more extensive and sophisticated manner..."
Meanwhile, no one is being educated for peace.

When we add onto all that the sad reality that Palestinian politicians are using the conflict to get billions of dollars in donations, we can understand why this conflict has so far not been solved.


Dr. Tawfik Hamid, the author of Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14634/arab-israeli-conflict-reasons

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Middle Eastern Terrorism Coming to the US through Its Mexican Border - Raymond Ibrahim

​
by Raymond Ibrahim

The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

• In May, Abu Henricki, a Canadian citizen of Trinidadian origin, told researchers with the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism that ISIS sought to recruit him and others to penetrate the US-Mexican border through routes originating in various Central American locations.... Other Trinidadians, he said, were also being approached to "do the same thing."
• The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. At least 15—though likely many more—suspected terrorists have already been apprehended crossing the border since 2001. One suspected terrorist who crossed the border, an ISIS supporter, already launched a terrorist attack in Canada that nearly killed five people.
• The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. Pictured: The fence along the US-Mexico border, seen from Sunland Park, New Mexico. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A captured Islamic State fighter recently related how, in an effort to terrorize America on its own soil, the Islamic terror group is committed to exploiting the porous US-Mexico border, including through the aid of ISIS-sympathizers living in the United States.

"Whatever one thinks of President Donald Trump's heightened rhetoric about the US-Mexico border and his many claims that it is vulnerable to terrorists, ISIS apparently also thought so," according to the Government Technology and Services Coalition.

In May, Abu Henricki, a Canadian citizen of Trinidadian origin, told researchers with the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism that ISIS sought to recruit him and others to penetrate the US-Mexican border through routes originating in various Central American locations.

"The plan came from someone from the New Jersey state of America," Henricki confessed.

"I was going to take the boat from Puerto Rico into Mexico. He [N.J. resident] was going to smuggle me in.... They [ISIS] wanted to use these people [sympathizers living in the U.S.] because they were from these areas."

Other Trinidadians, he said, were also approached to "do the same thing."

"Our intent was not to support any political agenda," the nonpartisan International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism said.

"We don't want this to be used for fearmongering... That said, it would be erroneous — and detrimental to our safety and security — to outright downplay the potential terrorist threats emanating from our borders, similar to the Bush administration casting aside initial warnings about al-Qaeda plots with the result of American citizens eventually suffering the 9/11 attacks."

More importantly, the notion that Islamic terrorists might infiltrate by way of the U.S. southern border is not a hypothetical. It has already happened. In 2017, for instance, Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, originally from Somalia, launched what police in Edmonton, Canada labeled a terrorist attack. Sharif stabbed a police officer and then intentionally, it seemed, rammed his vehicle into four pedestrians. Sharif had an ISIS flag in his vehicle; he entered the United States by illegally crossing the US-Mexican border.

Furthermore, according to a November, 2018, report from the Center for Immigration Studies:

• "From only public realm reporting, 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001.
• The 15 terrorism-associated migrants who traveled to the U.S. southern border likely represent a significant under-count since most information reflecting such border-crossers resides in classified or protected government archives and intelligence databases.
• Affiliations included al-Shabaab, al-Ittihad al-Islamiya, Hezbollah, the Pakistani Taliban, ISIS, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh, and the Tamil Tigers.
• At least five of the 15 were prosecuted for crimes in North American courts. One migrant is currently under Canadian prosecution for multiple attempted murder counts. Of the four in the United States, one was prosecuted for lying to the FBI about terrorism involvement, one for asylum fraud, one for providing material support to a terrorist organization, and one for illegal entry, false statements, and passport mutilation."

Europe offers a similar account. As the 2018 National Strategy for Counterterrorism of the United States of America report states:

"ISIS has been innovative and determined in its pursuit of attacks in the West. The group has exploited weaknesses in European border security to great effect by capitalizing on the migrant crisis to seed attack operatives into the region. For instance, two of the perpetrators of the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris, France, [which killed over 130 people] infiltrated the country by posing as migrants."

The US-Mexico border is so alluring that long before ISIS came onto the scene, other Islamic terrorists were eying it—including as a potential gateway to smuggle anthrax into America in order to kill 330,000 Americans—and operating in it.

Examples are many. In 2011, federal officials announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. Months earlier a jihadi cell in Mexico was found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to the report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO's) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border."

Such "concerns" might have been expected, considering that a year earlier it was reported that,

"Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S."

As far back as 2006, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a Muslim missionary organization named after a historic jihadi group that terrorized Spain in the eleventh century] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group's European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."

The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. At least 15—though likely many more—suspected terrorists have already been apprehended crossing the border since 2001. One suspected terrorist who crossed the border, an ISIS supporter, already launched a terrorist attack in Canada that nearly killed five people.

The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

 Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook


Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14632/terrorism-mexico-border

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Political Correctness: Tool of Totalitarianism - Dave Ball

​
by Dave Ball

We're creeping ever closer to George Orwell's "1984" dystopia.

Political correctness is a liberal mind control strategy intended to stifle any thoughts or actions inconsistent with radical liberalism. It is the abrogation of free speech and the right to hold an opinion contrary to established liberal-socialist doctrine.

Political correctness didn't just happen; it has been carefully crafted over time. Radical liberals long ago realized that their emotion-based dogma could not withstand logical examination. The only solution for protecting radical liberalism until it undergoes its full evolution to totalitarianism was to snuff any contrary thought and speech. This being the case, the liberal cabal of coastal elites, academia, and victimhood profit centers, supported by the always faithful mainstream media, employed well honed weapons such as indoctrination of children, mass shaming, and shouting down dissent while playing on conservative apathy to firmly root political correctness in the mass psyche.

It is not just the stifling of contrary speech that is so troubling about political correctness and its radical practitioners. Also, it seeks to eliminate the very ability to think contrary thoughts.

For those not familiar with George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984, Oceania is a mega-state, one of three that exist on Earth after a global war. It is ruled by "The Party." Oceania is a metaphor for what might happen under one-party rule. The government, which is the Party, is the model of government overreach to the point of totalitarianism. Individual thought and even the individual are completely repressed. Society is completely defined by its ruler, the Party. Thought Police assure that all adhere to the commands of Big Brother and the Party.

The primary tool by which individual thought is eliminated is a new language called "Newspeak." In an appendix to the book, Orwell describes Newspeak and its principles. Of relevance is the concept that "[i]f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." In 1984, the Newspeak language is used to narrow rather than broaden thought and ideas. The bottom line is that if there is not a word for something, that something does not exist. For example, in Newspeak, there is no word for freedom, so the concept of freedom cannot exist. Our language exists to describe what we see as reality. If that language is replaced by a narrowing language, then language asserts control over reality. When words are in control of reality, rational argument becomes impossible. Liberal emotionalism wins.

The operation of political correctness is eerily similar to Newspeak. Words that reflect non-liberal concepts are ostracized and replaced with often meaningless and non-definitive words.

Apologists for P.C. will tell you that the terms are intended to be egalitarian, inclusive, and not hurtful ("hurtful" itself being a P.C. word). The practitioners will freely tell you that the larger P.C. concept is to develop a new way of thinking that will lead to new ways of acting. Language changes thought, and thought changes action. The proponents of P.C. will tell you that when more and more people speak with P.C. terms, more people will accept a new way of doing things. This is, of course, a way of saying that people will accept doing things their way.

The proponents of political correctness will tell you that the intention of the sought after behavior modification is to eliminate sexism; racism; homophobia; transgenderphobia; and a lot of other phobias and isms that presumably include conservatism, patriotism, nationalism, Christianity, and any other non-liberal doctrine. The presumption is that the behaviors or thought processes they wish to eliminate in fact exist and are bad.

There are, in this nation, many rational people who, for example, do not agree that homosexuality and transgenderism are either innate or good and believe that it is those behaviors that should be modified rather than embraced.

Racism is possibly the most overused word in the media and, consequently, means almost nothing since it is a term applied to any comment or criticism liberals don't like or something for which they have no response. The same with sexism. People are male and female. They are he and she. Why not refer to each as such?

Other terms are defined by the P.C. police as "hurtful." What exactly is that? The connection between many terms and their supposed "hurt" is often too tenuous to even imagine.

We have lost our sense of humor because poking fun at something is now politically incorrect. P.C. people have forgotten how to smile and laugh. Oversensitivity is being inculcated in our population from childhood. It's a necessary precursor of believing political correctness.

Examples of P.C. ridiculousness abound. Why, for example, are the names for the Atlanta and Cleveland baseball teams, the Braves and the Indians, hurtful to American Indians? Why are American Indians called "Native Americans" when even they came from elsewhere? Why is someone called a racist for pointing out to Rep. Elijah Cummings that the part of Baltimore he represents is a disgusting mess? Because it is. The area would be a mess whether or not Cummings were black. Why is pointing out how ridiculous and misguided the "Squad" of freshman Democrat representatives are termed racist? They are ridiculous and misguided whatever color or heritage they might be. Why is any remark questioning homosexuality labeled homophobic when there are genuine questions regarding the psychology of same-sex attraction? Why must the sexually dysphoric, who erroneously call themselves transgendered, be called by a dozen personal pronouns, often changing, when their actual sex is either male or female, for which there are well established pronouns?

Political correctness is reaching new and ridiculous heights on our college campuses. Words now banned by various college handbooks include "soup Nazi," "illegal alien," "Third World," "lame excuse," "man up," "crazy," "psycho," "crusader," "dwarf," "Eskimo," and "grandfathered in." Also on the banned list are "America" and "American." To use a non-P.C. term, this is crazy.

While some of the specific words may be amusing to rational people, the concept is concerning. By eliminating masculine and feminine pronouns, the liberals are creating a unisex society, blurring the actual differences between men and women. Normalizing homosexuality and transgenderism is a move in this direction also. Eliminating words like "alien," we are moved toward the much coveted one-world concept of the Left. Applying "racist" and "hateful" to everything not to liberal liking smothers dissent and alternative points of view.

Eventually, Newspeak turns to action. Newspeak encourages boys to seek to participate in women's sports. Newspeak pushes males into female locker rooms and bathrooms. Newspeak bans conservative and traditional speakers from our campuses. Newspeak is an insurmountable wall between groups of polarized people. Newspeak is the language of totalitarianism.

As words disappear, the breadth of thought is narrowed. Do you remember when the big discussion was over "Miss," "Mrs.," and "Ms."? How long will it be until we arrive at Newspeak's state of doubleplusungood?


Dave Ball is the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/political_correctness_tool_of_totalitarianism.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thank You, Representative Ilhan Omar - Eileen F. Toplansky

​

by Eileen F. Toplansky

The viciously anti-Semitic representative from Minnesota has brought to light the bigotry in the Democratic Party.

As a congressional representative, Ilhan Omar has masterfully manipulated American freedom in order to make anti-Semitism a more accepted idea. She has admirably done the work of the Muslim Brotherhood in normalizing anti-Semitism in the land of the free. By cloaking the evil as merely an expression of her freedom of speech, she has removed the "racist portrayal of Jews from the neo-Nazi fringe into the mainstream." She has mastered the art of psychological warfare as she couples "Muslim anti-Semitism with the American left's vague notion of 'social justice.'" She has shown her bona fides as a representative of the jihad on free speech while vigorously claiming this vital freedom.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, Omar hails from Somalia, where anti-Semitism is taught at an early age. Thus, she was taught that to destroy the Jews, the Zionists, and the state of Israel is a worthy goal. Religious teaching is coupled with the political narrative where jihad is the solution to all the ills of the Muslim world. In addition, there is very little freedom of expression in Muslim-majority countries, and the state-owned media propagate daily expressions of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. Everything is tainted with this hatred, from the mosques to the Islamic college campuses. Refugee camps are another "zone of indoctrination."

Omar asserts that American Jews have a dual loyalty that should make them suspect. This anti-Semitic meme has been used since time immemorial to besmirch Jews and to cast aspersions upon them. Then there is the "all about the Benjamins, baby" statement, which revives the stereotype of Jews using their money and influence to pressure those in power to advance the interests of a foreign nation over their own.

In fact, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out, it is ironic that the "resources available to propagate Islamist ideologies, with their attendant anti-Semitism, vastly exceed what pro-Israel groups spend in the U.S." In fact, "Saudi Arabia has spent vast sums with estimates of as high as $100 billion to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam abroad."

Yet Omar amplifies that she wants "to talk about the [Jewish] political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

Interesting projection, since it is actually Ilhan Omar who is using her political influence to usher in the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group ardently devoted to infiltrating and ultimately destroying America. Almost a decade ago, the Center for Security Policy issued "Shariah: The Threat to America," which explained the political, religious, social, and economic operative goals required to secure ultimate Islamic domination of the West. They include "establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood; adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally; expanding the observant Muslim base; unifying and directing Muslims' efforts; presenting Islam as a civilization alternative supporting the establishment of the global Islamic State wherever it is" (page 277).

Revulsion of the Jew and hatred of Western liberty and freedom are integral components of this desire to establish a global caliphate.

Now Omar is ramping up the hate by using the national platform to engage in the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that seeks the ultimate destruction of Israel. As David French has stated, "the resolution itself is clever. It doesn't mention Israel, and is crafted as an ode to free speech." But the fundamental truth about the BDS movement is that it is "anti-Semitic in its intent and effect."

Josh Hammer asserts that Omar compares "the genocidal BDS campaign which seeks the annihilation of the state of Israel and the tossing of all the [Jews into the Mediterranean Sea], to the lineage of proud American boycotting that dates all the way back to the Boston Tea Party itself." To do this, she lies about the "free, liberalized, and pluralistic state of Israel and compares it to genocidal Nazi Germany, the gulag state that was the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa alike."
In fact:

Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent and content of the [speaker]. Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so. Anti-Semites deny Israel the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims, while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers. Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis [by] using pejorative terms and hate speech, suggesting, for example, that they are "racists" or "Nazis."

But the BDS campaign targets Israel's right to exist. It opposes coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS puts Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and Israeli Jewish jobs at risk. BDS also puts many American jobs at risk. Consider that "[d]irect Israeli investment in the U.S. totaled approximately $11.9 billion in 2017. U.S. exports to Israel support an estimated 75,000 American jobs and Israeli owned companies provide an additional estimated 20,000 jobs to U.S. workers." What hurts Israel economically hurts America as well. Actually, BDS is a lineal descendant of the Arab League boycott, begun in 1948 and still in existence.

Consider, for example, how Ireland's BDS bill will harm Israeli and American tech giants. As Alexander Titus notes, "Ireland is home to corporate offices and subsidiaries of Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft." Thus, these "tech companies would be forced to either violate U.S. law or the new Irish law since an American company cannot legally participate in a boycott that is not backed by the U.S. government."

How ironic that the Irish BDS would mean that "buying a souvenir from a Jewish trader or taking a tour with a Jewish tour guide could land an [Irish Catholic] with a criminal record and punishments befitting that of a class A drugs smuggler."

Finally, is, as Omar claims, the BDS movement constitutionally secured by the First Amendment? The answer is a resounding "no."

Josh Hammer writes that "[a]s law professor and constitutional law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post in 2017, it is the 'distinction between ... expression and ... commercial conduct' that makes all the constitutional difference in the world."

Thus, as Kontorovich explained in a July 2017 article

This distinction between the expression and the commercial conduct is crucial to the constitutionality of civil rights acts. In the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. However, if a KKK member places his constitutionally protected expression of racial hatred within the context of a commercial transaction — for example, by publishing a 'For Sale' notice that says that he will not sell his house to Jews or African Americans — it loses its constitutional protection.

Hammer points out that "[t]hese provisions were not initially written with Israel in mind, but they are statutorily agnostic as to the target of the boycott." He goes on to assert:

[T]he U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that an institutional entity's refusal to do business based on national origin is not an inherently expressive activity that is protected under the First Amendment. As Kontorovich aptly phrased it: 'It is only the boycotter's explanation of the action that sends a message, not the actual business conduct. Those expressions of views are protected, but they do not immunize the underlying economic conduct from regulation.' Under properly drafted anti-BDS statutes, such as the bill passed earlier this year by the U.S. Senate, individuals remain free to express their opposition to Israel through whichever convenient means they'd like to channel in order to do so. Instead, it is merely an entity's economic discrimination based on national origin that is not covered by the First Amendment. And under Rumsfeld and other applicable Supreme Court precedent, institutional boycotts against Israel are legally treated as economic action — and not as First Amendment–protected speech.

To put it simply, an individual can choose to purchase or not purchase a product from a country. But as Hammer asserts, "to the extent Omar's resolution seeks to 'affirm' an institutional entity's 'right' to economically discriminate based on national origin, she is dead wrong on the law." In fact, "the anti-Semitic BDS movement advocates illegal discrimination." Conversely, anti-BDS laws are perfectly constitutional and do not impede freedom of speech.

Thus, Omar is dead wrong on the law, but clearly, this will not stop her hatred, and the jihadist infiltration will continue.


Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/thank_you_representative_ilhan_omar.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



://twitter.com/fightterror" target="_blank">Twitter