Mollifying the Mullahs: A Fool’s Errand - Rand H. Fishbein

 

by Rand H. Fishbein

Hat tip: Jenny Grigg 

There was a young lady of Niger / Who smiled as she rode on a tiger; / They returned from the ride / With the lady inside, / And the smile on the face of the tiger. - William Cosmo Monkhouse

The word swirling around Washington is that the Biden administration, possibly in cooperation with the UK government, is set to strike a deal with Iran for the release of two American and two British hostages. One report out of Iran suggests that up to $7 billion in frozen funds could be the price exacted by the mullahs in Tehran for their return.[1]

At the same time, a similar game of bait-and-humiliate is being played out in the nuclear arena where, once again, Iran is threatening to accelerate its enrichment of weapons-grade uranium unless the US agrees to lift all sanctions against the rogue regime. Incredibly, the administration believes that a return to the failed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the key to restraining Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East. They could not be more wrong.

Nothing in Iran’s malevolent conduct over the last 40 years would suggest that it has any interest in moderating its behavior. On the contrary, Tehran’s ever-expanding global terror network, unprovoked attacks on shipping, cyber-hacking, and unrelenting support for militant Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, reveal its true intentions.

Since first being declared a state-sponsor of terrorism by the US State Department in 1984, thousands of Americans have either died or been injured at the hands of Iran and its proxies. Adding to this grim tally have been thousands of others across Europe, South America, Asia and Africa who have fallen victim to the regime’s unrelenting global jihad.

Even so, the impulse to mollify the mullahs remains strong in some quarters of the US national security establishment. Most fervent among them are those associated with the Obama and Biden administrations. In 2015 the Obama team agreed to secretly transfer $1.7 billion[2] in unmarked currency to the regime while, at the same time, unfreezing assets in tranches estimated at upwards of $150 billion.[3]

In a mocking rebuke to the US, estimates are that Iran now plows as much as $1 billion of this windfall annually into its terrorist operations.[4] A sizable portion of these funds go to attacking Israel through Syria and Lebanon, leaving both of these war-torn countries in utter ruin. Contrary to the best-laid plans of the Obama team, the Iranian regime has had no epiphany on the road to Damascus. Instead of curbing Tehran’s seemingly insatiable appetite for violence, former President Barack Obama’s policies actually have encouraged and enabled it.

The Iranians are playing for larger stakes, where the messianic aspirations of Shi’a Islam are fused with a uniquely Persian version of manifest destiny. The mullahs believe that hegemony over the Middle East is their birthright, conferred by the Persian kings who dominated the region two-and-a-half millennia ago.

This ancient zeitgeist, coupled with the desire to extend Islamic sovereignty over territory held by non-believers and apostates, serves as a powerful impulse to acquire nuclear weapons. In Iranian eyes, any agreement that compromises that objective must be opposed. The regime’s legitimacy rests, in part, on its adherence to this national aspiration.

If all of this sounds familiar, it is because Iran, like its fellow autocratic regimes, China, Russia and North Korea, smells blood in the wind. America is weak because its leader is weak. Social unrest is tearing at the very fabric of the country. Even America’s fabled military is unsure of its mission.

When the Iranian leadership looks at the US, it sees “a house divided against itself,” exhausted from the pandemic and decades of foreign wars. Even great civic institutions that have formed the bedrock of the republic for 230 years have fallen into disrepute. To America’s enemies, these are the unmistakable signs of a superpower in precipitous decline.

Playing out today on the international stage is the law of the Serengeti. Predators who survive on red meat never will be sated by green pastures or placated by hollow threats. Predictably, the very act of negotiating over hostages only encourages more hostage taking, invariably making America a de facto captive of Iranian machinations.

Washington has yet to learn that ancient cultures are not easily bent to its will. Every act of appeasement is viewed as weakness, every retreat from the use of force as cowardice, and every secret deal as a display of shame. For Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the thugs who preside over the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, public displays of diplomatic niceties are mere feints intended to disguise true objectives; and like a snake’s rattle, they are meant to incite fear and buy time until a fatal blow can be struck.

The mullahs know President Joe Biden well and fear him not. Battle-hardened and convinced of their own invincibility, the mullahs surely view this doddering and often incoherent geriatric president in much the same way a lion would see an aged antelope struggling to keep up with the herd: dinner. America, enfeebled by wokeness and racked by self-doubt, is not the unassailable power it once was.

If “leverage” is the sine qua non of diplomacy, it is difficult to see how eviscerating the sanctions regime meticulously reconstituted by Donald Trump will result in anything but the enabling of further Iranian treachery against the West. President Biden’s naive approach toward the despotic Iranian regime makes high-intensity war more likely, not less.

The administration would be wise to heed the lessons of history. Treat Iran as Churchill treated the Axis powers, as implacable foes, inured to conflict and deaf to entreaties for peaceful coexistence. Only a clear red line, backed by resolute force, will ensure that Iran never acquires a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. The business of appeasing tyrants, as Neville Chamberlain learned to his eternal shame, can be a perilous occupation.

[1] Becket, Stefan, “Klain says reports of deal with Iran for release of American hostages ‘not true,’” CBS News, May 2, 2921, 11:21 AM. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-klain-iran-american-hostages-face-the-nation/

[2] Solomon, Jay, “US Payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran Raises Questions of Ransom,” The Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2016, 7:16 pm ET. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-payment-of-1-7-billion-to-iran-raises-questions-of-ransom-1453421778

[3] Senate Hearing 114-533, “Examining the Terrorism Financing Risks of Allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to Gain Access to Large Amounts of Hard Currency and The US Government’s Payments of $1.7 Billion in Foreign Cash to Iran,” September 21, 2016, Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance of the Committee on banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, US Senate, US Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, 2017. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg23439/html/CHRG-114shrg23439.htm

[4] House Hearing, “The Iran Nuclear Deal and Its Impact on Terrorism Financing,” Hearing Before the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing of the Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives, 114^th Congress, First Session, July 22, 2015, Serial No. 114-44. Washington, DC, 2016. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97157/html/CHRG-114hhrg97157.htm

 

Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D., is president of Fishbein Associates, Inc., a public policy consulting firm based in Potomac, Maryland. He is a former professional staff member (majority) of both the US Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations and Defense Appropriations subcommittees and worked as special assistant for national security affairs to the late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii. Dr. Fishbein also served as one of two foreign policy/intelligence analysts on the US Senate Committee Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair.
Source: https://themedialine.org/news/opinion/mollifying-the-mullahs-a-fools-errand/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Microwaving the White House: Enemies Are Now Sonic Attacking Americans from American Soil - Gordon G. Chang

 

by Gordon G. Chang

Washington... should know who at least some of the culprits are. The real mystery is why the U.S. still has not done anything to protect its officials and citizens.

• Unfortunately, neither the Obama nor Trump administrations imposed costs on Cuba or China. With such direct attacks on the U.S. going unpunished, how could American enemies not now be tempted to use their new weapons on American soil?

• "If we do nothing, then China or Russia will deploy these devices for large-scale use on the eve of a major military conflict. Imagine microwave weapon trucks on the bluffs overlooking the Pentagon." — Richard Fisher, leading China military expert at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, to Gatestone Institute, May 2021.

• Up to now, the CIA and State Department have been especially lax in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious cases, but no unit in the federal government has made much progress.

• Washington... should know who at least some of the culprits are. The real mystery is why the U.S. still has not done anything to protect its officials and citizens.

Unidentified parties have in recent years been directing sonic attacks on U.S. officials on American soil. The attacks have also occurred in Cuba, China, and Russia. In spring 2018, American diplomats assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China (pictured) suffered brain injuries after being hit with microwaves or something similar. (Image source: iStock)

Unidentified parties have in recent years been directing sonic attacks on U.S. officials on American soil. One such attack even occurred on the grounds of the White House.

We should not be surprised. Failure to impose costs on known sonic attackers — the Cuban and Chinese regimes — almost certainly emboldened the perpetrators to think they could harm Americans in America.

Two attacks, both from American soil, have involved National Security Council officials, one on the White House's south lawn, the Ellipse, last November and another after Thanksgiving in 2019 in Arlington, Virginia.

The earlier attack involved a White House staffer walking her dog. The pet "started seizing up," and then she too suffered "a high-pitched ringing in her ears, an intense headache, and a tingling on the side of her face."

As many as 40 U.S. officials have been affected. "Many reported hearing a loud sound and feeling pressure in their heads, and then experienced dizziness, unsteady gait, and visual disturbances," NBC reported last December. "Many suffered longstanding, debilitating effects." A CIA officer ended up with "traumatic brain injury." Mike Beck, once a National Security Agency counterintelligence official, developed a rare form of Parkinson's as did his colleague working with him while on an assignment overseas.

The attacks have also occurred in Cuba, China, and Russia.

U.S. troops in Europe, the Middle East and South America have been targeted as well.

There are also unconfirmed reports of similar brain disorders of corporate employees. The disorders were suffered while the employees were in China, even on short-term visits.

The National Academy of Sciences this March concluded that "directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy" is the most probable cause of reported symptoms.

Some cases involving U.S. officials posted overseas go back decades, according to Newsmax.

American officials so far are flummoxed. Incidents of these sorts, in the words of Politico, are "difficult to track and attribute with confidence due to their nature." One reason is that these attacks, attributed to directed-energy devices, "can be small and portable." Moreover, "symptoms can appear similar to other illnesses."

All this is true. Nonetheless, American officials have no excuse, as there is virtually no question as to the identity of some of the attackers.

American diplomats in late 2016 were sonic-attacked in Cuba's capital city, showing symptoms — vertigo, ringing ears, nausea, memory loss, and other ailments — similar to those of the more recent cases. The incident is so well known that there is now a phrase for the effects of directed-energy attacks: Havana Syndrome.

Or perhaps one should call it the Guangzhou Disease. In spring 2018, American diplomats assigned to the consulate in that southern Chinese city suffered brain injuries after being hit with microwaves or something similar.

Beijing denied responsibility, but the Communist Party claims infallibility and runs a near-total surveillance state. How could anyone in China launch directed-energy waves without the authorities knowing about them? The Chinese regime had to be, in some manner, behind the incident.

The same could be said of attacks launched in Cuba's repressive state.

China's Communist Party has a doctrine of "unrestricted warfare," a phrase that comes from a 1999 book of that name by two Chinese air force colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. These "peacetime" directed-energy attacks fit that description.

Unfortunately, neither the Obama nor Trump administrations imposed costs on Cuba or China. With such direct attacks on the U.S. going unpunished, how could American enemies not now be tempted to use their new weapons on American soil?

At the moment, only individuals have been targeted. What, however, is to stop another escalation? "If we do nothing," Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told Gatestone, "then China or Russia will deploy these devices for large-scale use on the eve of a major military conflict." Think of the possibilities. "Imagine microwave weapon trucks on the bluffs overlooking the Pentagon," Fisher, a leading China military expert, said.

Up to now, the CIA and State Department have been especially lax in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious cases, but no unit in the federal government has made much progress.

That must change. Senator Susan Collins told CNN's Jake Tapper on May 2 that the U.S. needs a whole-of-government defense.

"This pattern of attacking our fellow citizens serving our government appears to be increasing," wrote Senators Mark Warner and Marco Rubio, chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in a joint statement issued on April 30, referring to "medically confirmed cases of Traumatic Brain Injury."

The incidents are indeed "puzzling" as CNN correctly termed them at the end of last month, but Washington, as described above, should know who at least some of the culprits are. The real mystery is why the U.S. still has not done anything to protect its officials and citizens.

• Follow Gordon G. Chang on Twitter

 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17343/sonic-attacks

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Outrage: Facebook becomes the central nexus of human-smuggling cartel operations, Florida congresswoman says - Monica Showalter

 

by Monica Showalter

Florida Congresswoman Kat Cammack has hit a bullseye on the "root cause" of the border surge, which Kamala Harris says she's still looking for.

Want to know what's driving the border surge?  The root cause that Kamala Harris says she's looking for?  Ask her buddies at Facebook.  They're the ones turbocharging the big-dollar human-smuggling operations, through the unchecked freedom to use their platform.  Too bad about you, President Trump — you're the bad guy who's deplatformed, not them.

So charges Rep. Kat Cammack, a Florida Republican, who has laudably made this problem an issue.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., sent a scathing letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday for trying to "silence" conservative views on his platform while allowing human smugglers and cartels to "openly" operate on the social media site. 

The Florida freshman, fresh off a visit to the southern border, accused Facebook and other social media companies of perpetuating the border crisis by providing a means for drug cartels and coyotes to post paid advertisements that encourage migrants to cross into the United States illegally. 

"Facebook's role in the crisis at the border is urgent and must be addressed immediately," Cammack wrote Zuckerberg in a letter first obtained by Fox News.

She's right.  I wrote about what she describes in her letter and materials last April 6 here, and I can see that in her materials, she cites the same Facebook page, Inmigrantes Centroamericanos, that I did, where I went through it post by post.

Facebook makes huge money from this kind of advertising made by human-smuggling rackets, and their role is vital.  Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is openly pro–open borders, so it might just be intentional.

As I cited in my piece, from the research of the Federation for Immigration Reform, Joe Biden put out some radio ads to dissuade migrants from patronizing cartel human-smuggling rackets, but the vast majority of would-be illegals don't get their information from radio; they get it from social media.  That's the root cause that Biden border surge czar Kamala Harris is still looking for.

And it's not just human-smugglers, promising "100% safe" illegal journeys breaking into America on Facebook and other social media.  It's the cartel drug crime operations, too.

Here's a horrifying report from the Alliance to Counter Crime Online, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which investigates these things:

Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminal gangs like MS-13 have weaponized social media, just like ISIS, using the Internet as a literal force multiplier to intimidate, stalk and extort their victims.

Much like Hollywood celebrities, Mexican cartels have vast social media followings. The notorious Sinaloa Cartel, for example, has more than 88,000 followers on Twitter, while Los Zetas, an uber-violent Mexican cartel that has broadcast murders on YouTube, has a Facebook universe with approximately 47,000 connected accounts like these.

To some extent, young, net-savvy criminals use social media the same way as young people everywhere: To document and brag about their lives. Instagram and Twitter posts featuring cash, gold plated guns, luxury cars and even pet tigers are a powerful recruitment tool for jobless young men who see the gangster life as a path out of drudgery.

According to The Dark Side of Social Media: The Case of the Mexican Drug War, social media also provides strategic value for criminal cartels, allowing them to disseminate intimidating messages to the public and authorities on a far wider scale than they ever had before, and to broadcast warnings and threats to rivals and potential rivals. Visuals on cartel accounts range from love letters to decapitated bodies to gruesome videos of beheadings and torture. Drug cartels and gangs also send threatening messages directly to government authorities and civilians alike, using encrypted systems like WhatsApp and Facebook messenger.

Activities in cyberspace drive violence in real life. In one horrifying 2014 event, a Mexican physician who often tweeted about the drug war was herself murdered, with her killers using her own Twitter account to announce her death and broadcast grisly images of her dead body. This violence has often spilled into the United States, in particular with MS-13 using the internet to identify victims, and lure them to their death.

Seriously.  Twitter banned President Trump but still has the actual Sinaloa cartel on its site?  Facebook still has a page for Los Zetas with 47,000 members, but it just did its pious "tribunal" thing to silence President Trump?

Care to be sick?  Who needs the dark web when they've got Twitter and Facebook, covering their backs and letting them operate openly?  Cartels and human-smuggling rackets don't need the dark web when they've got Facebook happy to serve them.  And Facebook is protected by the Democrats, don't forget that, because the cartels sure as heck don't.

Cammack is a very young freshman congresswoman who has hit the bulls-eye on a major issue that hasn't gotten any attention.  She is from Florida, home of all things good, sanctuary state from Joe Biden's lunacy-America.

Where is the Republican leadership to support her in her bid to shut down these evil merchants of misery?

It's true that the news is just out, but she needs all the muscle of the GOP rallying behind her instead of fighting about Liz Cheney (who should simply be thrown out with hands dusted off) because her issue is big, significant, the actual key to why there's a border surge.  Where's Kamala Harris on this, since we know she's not at the border, looking for all those root causes?  Here's a root cause for her: shut these monsters down, and sanction their Facebook enablers, or watch these surges multiply.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

 

Monica Showalter

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/outrage_facebook_becomes_the_central_nexus_of_humansmuggling_cartel_operations_florida_congresswoman_says.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

America's Border: Cui Bono? – Who Benefits? - Chris Farrell and Shea Garrison

 

by Chris Farrell and Shea Garrison

Border policy decisions are all tied to the immigration question and the apparent desire to affect long-term voting demographics, skewing it in favor of the Democrat Party.

• The Biden administration has made a deliberate decision to abandon the application and enforcement of federal law. Why?

• How will the Biden administration fulfill its sworn official duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States by willfully ignoring and failing to carry out legal obligations?

• The only rational explanation for the Biden administration's policy position is a crassly political one. Border policy decisions are all tied to the immigration question and the apparent desire to affect long-term voting demographics, skewing it in favor of the Democrat Party. This is a "long term investment strategy" at the expense of the American tax-paying citizen, for the political benefit of the current party in power.

• Border communities bear the frontline brunt of Biden's policies, but the total fabric of America's healthcare, education, housing and social services are being shredded to pay for Biden's new voters.

• [T]he Biden border crisis will rise to the number one position when Americans go to the polls in November 2022. Its overt criminality and reckless disregard for the law will be remembered.

• The administration's sponsorship of outlaw behavior and endorsement of criminality cannot be talked away or excused. Too many communities... are already experiencing... the impact of Biden's abandonment of the enforcement of the law.

• It is essential for American citizens to deprive the Biden administration of its hoped-for "benefit". An administration cannot politically distort law enforcement and compromise national security to pad their voter rolls. Justice demands equal enforcement under the law, not playing favorites and granting extraordinary benefits to non-citizens that ordinary Americans do not enjoy....

• Each of us is called to demand attention and accountability on all matters pertaining to border security. This includes legal immigration enforcement, aggressive drug enforcement, and counterterrorism efforts to ensure U.S. national security.

• President Biden has now moved the Mexican border to each American's hometown.

Pictured: A Texas National Guard soldier guides a column of illegal border-crossers near the bank of the Rio Grande on April 29, 2021 in Roma, Texas. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

The Latin expression "cui bono?" has been used by law enforcement officials and prosecutors for centuries to examine and evaluate criminal conduct in order to identify the most likely suspects and determine questions of motive. For nearly every crime, there must be a motive, a means, and an opportunity. When examining the ongoing criminal activity along the U.S.-Mexican border, any serious analysis requires the application of the cui bono investigative and legal concept.

With the advent of the Biden administration, we have seen a 180-degree turn -- a complete reversal -- of the Trump administration's "get tough" enforcement of federal immigration, drug enforcement, and national security laws along the Mexican border. The Biden administration has made a deliberate decision to abandon the application and enforcement of federal law. Why?

This is the crux of the public policy analysis and argument that illuminates the Biden administration's motives. How will the Biden administration fulfill its sworn official duty to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States by willfully ignoring and failing to carry out legal obligations?

Here are the specific questions that need to be answered:

• What benefit, goal, or objective is achieved by not enforcing federal law?
• How is the American public made safer in their homes and businesses?
• How are American lives and property protected?
• How is it compassionate to materially cooperate with Mexican criminal enterprises like cartels and human smugglers in the exploitation of humans supposedly seeking a better life?

The only rational explanation for the Biden administration's policy position is a crassly political one. Border policy decisions are all tied to the immigration question and the apparent desire to affect long-term voting demographics, skewing it in favor of the Democrat Party. This is a "long term investment strategy" at the expense of the American tax-paying citizen, for the political benefit of the current party in power.

Rarely have we seen federal policy radically skewed and exploited for the clearly partisan benefit of one political party. Border communities bear the frontline brunt of Biden's policies, but the total fabric of America's healthcare, education, housing and social services are being shredded to pay for Biden's new voters.

This is a betrayal of American citizens, who have a sacred compact under the Constitution requiring their government to defend borders and provide safety for their homes and businesses. In addition, it is insidious and demoralizing that U.S. law enforcement agents are put in the position to carry out the last leg of a human-smuggling journey by being ordered to let apprehended illegals go; often buying bus or airplane tickets from their operating funds for their travel to the interior of the United States.

Biden's border crisis deepens and broadens exponentially on a daily basis. You may not know that from news media coverage. The only question threatening the administration is whether broad public understanding and realized consequences of Biden's border crisis can be contained until the midterm elections. That prospect looks doubtful. Despite a host of militant socialist initiatives being advanced by the administration across a number of public policy issues, the Biden border crisis will rise to the number one position when Americans go to the polls in November 2022. Its overt criminality and reckless disregard for the law will be remembered.

The administration's sponsorship of outlaw behavior and endorsement of criminality cannot be talked away or excused. Too many communities across the country are already experiencing -- with much more in the coming months -- the impact of Biden's abandonment of the enforcement of the law.

The question, then, is cui bono -- who benefits? Certainly not American citizens. It is essential for American citizens to deprive the Biden administration of its hoped-for "benefit". An administration cannot politically distort law enforcement and compromise national security to pad their voter rolls. Justice demands equal enforcement under the law, not playing favorites and granting extraordinary benefits to non-citizens that ordinary Americans do not enjoy under their own Constitution.

Each of us is called to demand attention and accountability on all matters pertaining to border security. This includes legal immigration enforcement, aggressive drug enforcement, and counterterrorism efforts to ensure U.S. national security. This will be accomplished through personal activism -- each American has a role to play, starting with civic engagement at the local level regarding the crises Biden has created, all the way up to communicating with members of Congress. Chiefs of police and city council members should understand these matters as clearly as members of Congress and Senators, because President Biden has now moved the Mexican border to each American's hometown.

Chris Farrell is Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Shea Garrison, Ph.D. is President of Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research, and Education (CIPRE) and Affiliated Faculty and Policy Fellow at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government.

Chris Farrell and Shea Garrison

Source:https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17344/america-border-benefits

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden's restaurant rescue plan blatantly discriminates against White males - Thomas Lifson

 

by Thomas Lifson

Biden's understanding of "equity" seems to involve penalizing White males and driving them out of business as competitors to favored groups.

White males go to the back of the line in applying for funds to rescue their bars, restaurants, and other venues eligible for federal relief for the impact of the coronavirus lockdown.  This violates the equal protection under the law requirements of the United States Constitution, but it is nonetheless ongoing right now.

John Binder of Breitbart writes:

As part of Biden's American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is opening the application process by which owners of restaurant, bars, and other venues can apply for federal relief to help make up for the loss of revenue as a result of economic lockdowns spurred by the Chinese coronavirus crisis.(snip)

The relief, though, is being prioritized based on race, gender, and whether or not business owners are considered "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." White men, for example, who are not Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, are not eligible for "priority period" processing and funding.

Under the guidelines of the RRF, the SBA is giving priority processing and funding to "small business owned by women, veterans, or socially and economically disadvantaged individuals."

Screen grabs from the SBA.gov website reveal the blatant discrimination:

Here is what it takes to be "disadvantaged" under Biden's program and thereby become advantaged over white males, who are thus disadvantaged.

The Biden administration is defining businesses owned by "socially and economically disadvantaged" individuals as those who are:

• Part of an "economically disadvantaged Indian tribe"
• "Subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias"
• Black American
• Hispanic American
• Native American, including Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
• Asian Pacific American
• Subcontinent Asian American

This ought to, and probably will, be challenged in court.  But unless the plaintiffs are able to find a judge willing to issue a restraining order, their businesses may well fold and vanish before the case is finally adjudicated.  And if victory is obtained, what then?  The advantaged-disadvantaged minority owners who got preference will not be forced to pay back their funds.  The White males who lost their businesses will not be able to keep them alive — too late for that.

So what is the goal of Biden's plan?

I suppose it is an understanding of "equity" that involves penalizing White males and driving them out of business as competitors to favored groups.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

 

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/bidens_restaurant_rescue_plan_blatantly_discriminates_against_white_males.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Peer-reviewed study finds that ivermectin is effective as prophylaxis for COVID-19 and as a therapeutic remedy - Thomas Lifson

 

by Thomas Lifson

The article concludes: "[I]vermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." Unlike the vaccines, it is not an experimental drug and is known to be safe for all but a few with other conditions.

I expect that the corporate media will ignore as much as possible the findings of a peer-reviewed study just published in the American Journal of Therapeutics that concludes that the readily available, inexpensive (off-patent) drug ivermectin is effective in treating existing cases of COVID-19 and in preventing coming down with the illness.  Unlike the experimental vaccines that we are being ceaselessly urged to take, ivermectin has been around for many years and is safe for all but a few people.  From the article:

Numerous studies report low rates of adverse events, with the majority mild, transient, and largely attributed to the body's inflammatory response to the death of the parasites and include itching, rash, swollen lymph nodes, joint paints, fever, and headache. In a study that combined results from trials including more than 50,000 patients, serious events occurred in less than 1% and largely associated with administration in Loa loa. Furthermore, according to the pharmaceutical reference standard Lexicomp, the only medications contraindicated for use with ivermectin are the concurrent administration of antituberculosis and cholera vaccines while the anticoagulant warfarin would require dose monitoring. Another special caution is that immunosuppressed or organ transplant patients who are on calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus or cyclosporine, or the immunosuppressant sirolimus should have close monitoring of drug levels when on ivermectin given that interactions exist that can affect these levels.

The inventors of ivermectin received the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.

The article is written in accessible language for laypeople to read.

Here is the abstract:

Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources: 

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances: 

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions: 

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

And here is the conclusion of the article:

Because of the urgency of the pandemic, and in response to the surprising persistent inaction by the leading PHA's, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel was recently coordinated by the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd to more rapidly formulate an ivermectin treatment guideline using the standard guideline development process followed by the WHO. Made up of long-time research consultants to numerous national and international public health organizations including the WHO, they convened both a steering committee and a technical working group that then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. On February 12, 2021, a meeting was held that included an international consortium of 75 practitioners, researchers, specialists, and patient representatives representing 16 countries and most regions of the world. This Recommendation Development Panel was presented the results of the meta-analysis of 18 treatment RCTs and 3 prophylaxis RCTs including more than 2500 patients along with a summary of the observational trials and the epidemiologic analyses related to regional ivermectin use. After a discussion period, a vote was held on multiple aspects of the data on ivermectin, according to standard WHO guideline development processes. The Panel found the certainty of evidence for ivermectin's effects on survival to be strong and they recommended unconditional adoption for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.

In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Photo credit: author.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

 

Thomas Lifson

 
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/peer_reviewed_study_finds_that_ivermectin_is_effective_as_prophylaxis_for_covid19_and_as_a_therapeutic_remedy_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Says His Agenda Is Synonymous With The Will of The People - Don Feder

 

by Don Feder

Are we really all woke socialists?

 

In his address to a joint session of Congress last week, the most dangerous and delusional thing the president said was when he equated the policies of his administration with the will of the American people.

Biden: “Our Constitution opens with the words, ‘We the People.’ It’s time we remembered that we the people are the government.” In other words, the people are synonymous with the people in power.

At least he got the words (all three of them) right. During the 2020 campaign, he mangled the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which came out: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing.” Dr. Jill might think about increasing his daily dose of Prevagen.

According to the Geezer-in-chief, We the People implicitly endorse his policies – that by voting for him, We voted for them. Not because of media distortions about COVID, white supremacy, police brutality, or Trump’s meanness, but because we wanted Woke socialism.

Old Joe is beginning to sound like Louis XIV – “The People, that’s Me!”

This is a monumental lie used to justify the misrule of one of the worst administrations in U.S. history.

Let’s test Joe’s thesis against reality.

• Do We the People want a border that resembles a sieve -- with hundreds of thousands streaming across, bringing crime, poverty, drugs and national dissolution in their wake? Do we think there’s no crisis at the border, that it’s all been manufactured by FOX News?
   
• Do We the People believe someone can be a border czar who refuses to visit the border?
   
• Do We the People believe America – the nation that fought a civil war to abolish slavery -- is an inherently racist nation?
   
• Do We the People support reparations – that Barack Obama should take money out of one of his pockets and put it in the other?
   
• Do We the People want to de-fund the police and rely on social workers with notepads, instead of cops with guns, to keep us safe?
   
• Do We the People think rioting, looting and assault are peaceful protest?
   
• Do We the People believe the NRA is a terrorist organization, but Black Lives Matter is benevolent?
   
• Do We the People want abortion on demand (including abortion that’s the equivalent of infanticide) paid for by the taxpayers?
   
• Do We the People believe that a man who says he’s a woman really is a woman, but that a fully-formed human being minutes away from birth is nothing?
   
• Do We the People want boys who say they’re girls to use girls’ showers and changing rooms, and to compete with them in athletic events?
   
• Do We the People believe masculine and feminine pronouns are inherently oppressive?
   
• Do We the People think Dr. Suess. Mr. Potato Head and the Muppets spread hatred and division, that Yosemite Sam promotes gun violence and Pepe Le Pew encourages the rape culture?
   
• Do We the People want to destroy domestic energy production, which will send prices soaring and leave us at the mercy of China, Russia and Middle East oil-tocracies?
   
• Do We the People think those who’ve been fully vaccinated should wear at least 2 face masks – and stay a minimum of 20 feet apart – even outdoors, that it’s their patriotic duty?
   
• Do We the People believe there’s no connection between taxes and jobs?
   
• Do We the People feel that the top 1% of taxpayers (who pay 21% of all federal income taxes) aren’t paying their fair share?
   
• Do We the People think we’re too stupid to manage our own lives – that we need the leadership of the national Democratic Party (including a 31-year-old socialist chick whose last job before entering Congress was tending bar) to tell us how to live?
• Do We the People believe in the cancel culture, that if something offends you, you have a right to censor it, de-platform it and shut it down?
   
• Do We the People want to pack the Supreme Court and keep expanding it until Democrats get the decisions they want?
   
• Do We the People want the District of Columbia (whose only product is government) and Puerto Rico (where 45% live below the poverty line) to become states?
   
• Do We the People believe that guns cause crime – in the same way that cars cause highway fatalities?
   
• Do We the People believe that voter ID is the equivalent of Jim Crow – that you should be required to show identification to drive a car, board a plane or buy liquor or cigarettes but not to decide the outcome of elections?
   
• Do We the People believe that racism is wrong, unless the object of hatred and derision is white?
   
• Do We the People believe $25 billion for childcare, $40 billion for public housing and $12 billion for community colleges is infrastructure spending?
   

The warped worldview of the ideologues – increasingly hard left – who make up the Biden administration couldn’t be further removed from the thinking of ordinary Americans.

John Adams observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.” Biden and company are neither. Joe should leave the Constitution alone and stay where he’s better acquainted -- “The Communist Manifesto.”

 

Don Feder

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/biden-says-his-agenda-synonymous-will-people-don-feder/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Blueprint for Tyranny - Bruce Thornton

 

by Bruce Thornton

A new administration leverages street-violence for political gain.

 

The vulnerability of political freedom and popular sovereignty to tyranny has been a constant theme in political philosophy for 2500 years. It profoundly influenced the creators of the Constitution, an important purpose of which is to forestall the tyranny that destroys political freedom and citizen rule. In the writings of Classical philosophers and historians the Founders could see the blueprint for such a tyranny––one we have seen unfolding in the last few decades, and accelerating in the policies of the current administration.

The Greek historian Polybius in the second century B.C. laid out how a democracy degenerates into tyranny:

So when [the rich] begin to hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on their merits, they begin to seduce and corrupt the people in every possible way, and thus ruin their estates. The result is that through their senseless craving for prominence they stimulate among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them, and then the rule of democracy is transformed into government by violence and strong-arm methods. By this time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors, and as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring . . . they introduce a regime based on violence.

Many of these preconditions already exist in our country. Since Roosevelt’s New Deal, ambitious politicians of both parties have “stimulate[d] among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them.” We call them “entitlements” rather than “bribes,” funded not by violently seizing the property of the rich, but by annually redistributing $1.6 trillion of the wealth of the upper middle class and the rich through the federal income tax. Indeed, the top one percent of all earners pays 40% of income taxes. The modern update of ancient “bribes” also comprises massive borrowing and electronically printing money. These practices have created nearly $27 trillion in government debt, five trillion more than GDP. The tyrants of Polybius’ day redistributed the wealth of the rich; today we redistribute the future wealth of the young and unborn who will be stuck with the bill.

And this largess will increase dramatically if the current administration successfully passes into law several new mechanisms for redistributing wealth:

• $1.9 trillion America Rescue Plan
• $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan
• $1.8 trillion American Families Plan
• $1 trillion Green New Deal for Cities
• $180 billion Green New Deal for Public Housing
• $15 trillion over 15 years Thrive Act

Most of this money will be spent on various transfers to voters, and subsidies to favored businesses and feckless state governments that run their own redistribution engines.

As for “government by violence and strong-arm methods,” modern tyranny for decades has relied on de Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” an insidious coercion through a regulatory regime that Tocqueville predicted, one which “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.” All the money to be redistributed will come with a plethora of such intrusive regulations from the agencies managing it. These rules and regulations limit citizen freedom in numerous ways, from what they can do with their own property to how they run their own businesses, all accompanied by fines and fees that extract even more revenue.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, however, we saw another form of “strong-arm methods.” The politicizing of the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ, along with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation–– agencies with coercive investigative powers backed by military-level lethal force–– produced the tyrannical bullying of several members of Trump’s administration, most egregiously General Michael Flynn. Meanwhile, old-fashioned physical violence and intimidation in the streets dogged Trump’s political rallies, and even followed Trump supporters to restaurants and other public venues.

Just as Biden’s redistributive ambitions have gone far beyond what passes for “normal,” the violence in the streets last year exploded to levels not seen since the Sixties. Led by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, these “peaceful protestors” looted, burned, and vandalized cities across the country, the mayhem mysteriously abating in time for the election. Billions of dollars in property damage and scores of killed and wounded were the toll. Just the threat of such violence undoubtedly intimidated the judge and jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial. Why else wouldn’t the judge approve a change in venue, or sequester the jurors?

Violence is now the trump card in daily politics and culture. Corporations have gone “woke,” sending millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter and promoting their “systemic racism” lie. City governments and public school districts must factor in the chance of violent protests in their policy decisions. Even worse, the principle of equality before the law, a bedrock of political freedom, has been abandoned for political favoritism, in part because authorities are wary of igniting violence. Derek Chauvin was convicted of two murder charges, decisions not even close to being beyond a reasonable doubt. But the unidentified DC cop who murdered a protestor at the Capitol on January 6––a woman veteran who was not threatening the officer’s, or anybody’s, life––has not even suffered professional sanction, let alone an indictment and trial.

Violence for me, but not for thee.

Worse yet, Antifa has openly said that their violence is a tool of intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. CrimetheInc., an Antifa ally, has bragged that the outcome of the Chauvin trial was due to the street violence. It goes on to make explicit this link between violence and political aims: “You put yourself in a weaker bargaining position by spelling out from the beginning the least it would take to appease you. It’s smarter to appear implacable: So you want to come to terms? Make us an offer. In the meantime, we’ll be here blocking the freeway and setting things on fire.” This tactic is exactly what Hitler instructed his Sudetenland Nazi stooge, Konrad Henlein, to do in negotiations with the Czech government in 1938: “We must always demand so much that we cannot be satisfied.” What “satisfied” the Nazis was the destruction of Czechoslovakia.

What is disturbingly different from the Sixties, moreover, about last year’s violence is that the Democrat establishment has not just tolerated the violence, but often encouraged and promoted it––just as Representative Maxine Waters did during the Chauvin trial when she incited protestors to get “confrontational” if the wrong verdict was given. Apprehended rioters were rarely charged or tried, and police forces were ordered to stand down, or forbidden to use crowd-control tools. Many mayors seemed to embrace the philosophy of Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings, who during the riots in 2015 told the press, “We gave them [rioters] space to destroy.”

As Daniel Henninger suggests, this tactical use of violence may be why the Biden administration has not even tried to make a deal by compromising with Republicans, despite the Democrats’ razor-thin margin in the House and Senate, or the lack of a popular mandate. Instead, the administration wants to bully Americans into accepting their policies:

Mr. Biden is no street anarchist, but the political “change” confronting Americans after more than a year living with Covid—constant antipolice protests, migrants streaming across the southern border, D.C. statehood, blowing up the legislative filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and some $6 trillion in new federal spending—is a lot of nonnegotiable bulldozer.

Finally, Polybius’ link of tyrannic ambition to mediocre politicians who “hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on their merits,” describes Biden to a T. Biden is a long-time senator with few legislative achievements he still will own, a vicious pit-bull on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he shamelessly demagogued Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, a plagiarizer and unseemly harasser of women, a two-time loser in his bid for the presidency, a fabulist and grifter who monetized the office of Vice President to enrich his family, and a lightweight so light that his own boss, Barack Obama, said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” Only a pandemic, disruptive lock-downs, and the Democrat primary threat of socialist Bernie Sanders––along with a probably fraudulent election, and a groveling media running interference–– could get such a meritless mediocrity into the Oval Office.

If the Biden administration is successful at leveraging street-violence for political gain, the century-old progressive dream of transforming our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical technocracy will be much closer to fulfillment, our country’s fisc much closer to bankruptcy, and our government much closer to a “regime based on violence.”

On that dismal day, we won’t be able to say that we hadn’t been warned for 2500 years.

 

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/blueprint-tyranny-bruce-thornton/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lynch Mob Lawyer - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

The bigger the riots, the bigger the payout.

 

$27 million in the George Floyd case, $12 million in the Breonna Taylor case, and $1.5 million in the Michael Brown case. Ben Crump’s business is smearing cops and intimidating cities into offering huge settlements in the hopes of avoiding even more expensive BLM race riots.

Crump, dubbed a “civil rights lawyer” by the media, and the nation’s “black attorney general” by race hoax thug Al Sharpton, is delivering for his clients and, almost certainly, for himself. As Reuters noted, “Crump’s payments have not been made public but plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently receive around a third of the settlement amount.”

Neighborhoods burn, store owners lose their livelihoods, and people die, but Ben gets richer.

You can usually spot Ben Crump at press conferences, raising a fist next to Sharpton, or the family of whichever robber or drug dealer was the latest to die while struggling with a cop.

A list of Crump’s clients also often happens to be a map of race riots, hateful protests, and a nation divided by racist incitement. From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown to George Floyd to Daunte Wright, Crump is on the ground, raising a fist, and vowing to fight until the check clears.

“This historic $27 million settlement is PROOF that Black lives will no longer be written off as trivial, unimportant, or unworthy of consequences,” Crump declared in March after the Floyd payout. Despite all those millions, Crump is still showing up to sue anyone he can..

Crump's best weapon is histrionics. His book is titled, "Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People". He demanded first-degree murder charges against Derek Chauvin, the officer who was restraining Floyd when the career criminal died of what medical experts determined was a heart attack caused by a drug overdose. “Driving while Black continues to result in a death sentence,” Crump falsely claimed over the death of Daunte Wright who in addition to driving had a warrant out for his arrest for choking a woman and robbing her at gunpoint.

Crump is not shy about admitting that he's not really making legal arguments, he's feeding lynch mobs with lies.

"What we're doing is continuing to make the arguments in the court of public opinion," Crump claimed. "The court of law is not very kind to marginalized minorities."

What Crump actually does is make dangerous claims that aren’t true, that don’t stand up in court, but that help incite the mobs already eager to riot in the name of false smears of racism.

After Makiyah Bryant was shot by a police officer before she could stab another girl with a knife, Crump tweeted that the police had, “killed an unarmed 15yo Black girl.”

Bryant was 16 and she was attacking two girls with a knife. 

An op-ed in the Courier Journal alleged that, “Crump helped create the untrue ‘hands up, don’t shoot!’ mantra”. Six black eyewitnesses told a grand jury that Brown was charging the officer head down when he was fatally shot. But Crump’s lawsuit claimed that Brown had his hands up. In his book, Crump wrote that, “Brown stopped running, turned around with his hands up, and started slowly walking toward the police officer.”

Ben Crump even includes him in the list of black men “wrongfully” killed “who posed no threat”.

Crump falsely claimed that George Floyd and Officer Derek Chauvin, who restrained him, knew each other, and that because of that Chauvin should be charged with first-degree murder.

What kind of lawyer does that? The kind who doesn’t have the facts on his side.

Crump has a history of making claims that aren’t true.

"I don't want to sugarcoat it," Crump falsely claimed of Michael Brown. "He was executed in broad daylight." The truth is that Brown committed a strong-arm robbery, tried to take a police officer’s gun and punched him.

Crump claimed that Jacob Blake was  "shot several times in the back" by the police "after breaking up a fight." Actually the police were responding to a domestic abuse call by Blake’s fiance who previously accused him of sexual assault. Blake got into a car, and appeared to be about to kidnap a child. Officers tried to use a taser on him, but Blake tore away the taser wires.

Blake pulled a knife on them and only then was he shot.

But no matter what, Crump sticks to his basic narrative which is that black people get shot by police and white people don’t. This big lie is so central to his story that Crump even titled one of his chapters in the book, "Police Don't Shoot White Men in the Back". "A Black person moves a certain way, they’ll shoot to kill them," Crump ranted to Vanity Fair, while "[a white person] can literally attack, spit on them, take their car, and drive towards them, and they still don’t shoot."

“[Police] know how to de-escalate just fine. Look at how they de-escalated with the white nationalists who were attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021,” Crump argued.

Crump neglects to mention the fact that a black Capitol Police officer, whose name, unlike the names of those officers who have killed Black Lives Matter martyrs, shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, who was unarmed, making her the only person killed during the Capitol Riot.

Unlike the various criminals he rallies behind, the “civil rights lawyer” has not rushed out to meet with her family, hold press conferences, and demand justice for a white woman killed by police.

Nor has he shown any interest in the fatal shooting of Justine Damond, a white woman, by a black Somali police officer in Minneapolis, except to use her case as evidence of racism.

“Only one man in history has been held accountable, and that was a minority man that killed a white woman, Justine Damond,” Crump claimed at a press conference with the families of George Floyd and Daunte Wright, both of whom, unlike Damond, were criminals.

The rest of the time Crump ignores the existence of white people killed by police.

“I would ask the audience to name me one white man who was killed by excessive use of force or shot in the back? I tell after a minute of silence, that they’re not to worry, I will wait for them to give me a name,” Crump writes in "Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People".

Police actually shoot more unarmed white people than black people. And the number of unarmed people of all races shot by police remains negligible.

Crump doesn’t just argue that police are more likely to kill black people, he contends that, “only black people seem to have to worry about the police shooting first and asking questions later.”

But Crump isn’t making a legal argument. His argument in the “court of public opinion” is that America is racist and that the police are agents of genocide.

It’s a big lie guaranteed to feed racism, incite lynch mobs and divide Americans.

“Police killings are brutalizing black and brown people and do in fact amount to genocide,” Crump insists.

There is no evidence that Floyd’s death or any of the other deaths in or around the police have been motivated by racism. Even Attorney General Keith Ellison had admitted to 60 Minutes that there was no evidence that “Derek Chauvin had a specific racial intent to harm George Floyd”.

But Crump’s argument is that the police, all the police, black and white, are racially biased against blacks. In his book, he quotes a study showing that, “nonwhite officers kill both black and Latino suspects at significantly higher rates than white officers do” and blames institutional racism. When black officers shoot black criminals, it’s because America is systemically racist.

Even though institutional racism of any kind has been outlawed since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“America is telling us they’re not gonna give us anything. If we’re gonna get equality, we have to take it,” Crump threatened.

He justified his regular rallies and press conferences, which are indistinguishable from incitement to a lynch mob, outside the George Floyd trial with the mantra, “We have to keep the pressure on.” Pressuring a court case already in progress is what lynch mobs do.

"This is the Ben Crump model. He goes into a city, creates a racist narrative, cherry-picks facts to establish, to prove that narrative, creates chaos in a community, misrepresents the facts, and then, he leaves with his money and then asks the community to pick up the pieces," Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who is black, observed.

It’s the Sharpton extortion model with a law degree.

Crump turns on the pressure. He pushes overcharging in the criminal case, as he did against Officer Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case, to whatever extent he can. If prosecutors lose the criminal case, that just means more unrest and a bigger payout in the civil case.

The bigger the riots, the bigger the settlement.

The George Floyd riots caused an estimated $500 million worth of damage with over 400 buildings damaged in the Twin Cities. And that probably influenced the $27 million settlement.

All of this is good news for Crump and bad news for America.

The lynch mobs do their dirty work and the “civil rights lawyer” gets richer. Shop owners lose their businesses and their dreams.

Ordinary people lose their lives.

Two police officers were shot at one protest for Breonna Taylor and seven were shot at another Taylor protest. This was just a small part of the violence unleashed by the lynch mobs which wrongly exploited Taylor’s death due to her drug dealer boyfriend to spread violence and hate.

But when Ben Crump isn’t thinking about settlements, he’s talking revolution.

“Legalized discrimination is a thread woven so tightly into the tapestry of America that it is impossible to eradicate it without unraveling that tapestry,” Crump concludes in his book.

America’s tapestry has been torn apart since the racial hate mongering of the Obama years helped create the Black Lives Matter movement and its false campaign against the police.

And Crump is one of the most dangerous leftist radicals unraveling America.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/lynch-mob-lawyer-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter