Friday, July 19, 2019

Iran seizes foreign oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

Iranian military ambushes foreign oil tanker carrying 1 million liters of oil, takes 12 crew members into custody.

Iran's military seized a foreign tanker in the Strait of Hormuz Thursday, Iranian media outlets reported.

While the ship was not identified, nor its country of origin revealed, the Iranian Fars outlet reported that the ship had a crew of 12, who were taken captive by Iranian military forces.

The ship was carrying one million liters of oil at the time of its capture, Fars said, half of its 2 million liter capacity.

Tehran accused the oil tanker of “smuggling” fuel through the Strait of Hormuz – a crucial international waterway used for transporting roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil fuel.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are said to have intercepted the ship just south of the Iranian island of Larak, in the Strait of Hormuz.

“A foreign vessel smuggling 1m liters of fuel in the Larak Island of the Persian Gulf has been seized,” the Fars report claimed. “The vessel that Iran towed to its waters after receiving a distress call was later seized with the order from the court as we found out that it was smuggling fuel.”

It is unclear if the vessel is the same ship which Iran earlier this week claimed to have assisted following “technical failure”.

The ship, the MT Riah, a United Arab Emirates ship flying under a Panamanian flag, was reported missing last weekend while traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.

David Rosenberg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Omar introduces resolution defending boycott of Israel, likens it to boycotts of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union - Lukas Mikelionis

by Lukas Mikelionis

-- the resolution will likely lead to yet another clash with her fellow Democrats who are mulling a resolution condemning the boycott movement.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar proposed a resolution this week supporting the right to boycott Israel, likening the boycott of the Jewish state to boycotts of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Omar’s resolution seeks to push back against U.S. laws banning the boycott of Israel and affirms the right of Americans to organize boycotts of foreign countries if they so wish.
While the resolution doesn’t explicitly name Israel or the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, she told media outlets that the resolution concerns the Jewish state.
"And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement."
— U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
“We are introducing a resolution … to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights in regard to boycotting,” Omar told Al-Monitor.

“And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement,” she added.

The resolution attracted some Republican detractors, with Rep. Lee Zeldin slamming Omar for introducing it, saying she brought “her hateful twist” by propping up the BDS movement.

“Israel is our best ally in the Mid East; a beacon of hope, freedom & liberty, surrounded by existential threats,” Zeldin wrote in a tweet. “Shame on Rep Omar for bringing her hateful twist on that reality to House Foreign today, propping up the BDS movement & blaming Israel for all of its challenges.”

Israel is our best ally in the Mid East; a beacon of hope, freedom & liberty, surrounded by existential threats. Shame on Rep @Ilhan Omar for bringing her hateful twist on that reality to House Foreign today, propping up the BDS movement & blaming Israel for all of its challenges

Embedded video

The resolution affirms the right to boycott as an expression of free speech and cites examples of boycott movements against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and apartheid South Africa.

“Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust,” Omar said in the resolution introduced Tuesday.
“Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust.”
— U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
Omar’s measure will be co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., the first female Palestinian-American lawmaker in Congress who openly supports a one-state solution in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.

But the resolution will likely lead to yet another clash with her fellow Democrats who are mulling a resolution condemning the boycott movement.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed Wednesday a resolution that accuses the BDS movement of promoting “principles of collective guilt, mass punishment and group isolation,” the Times of Israel reported.

It remains unclear if the resolution will be introduced to the whole Congress next week amid fears over intra-party clashes.

“I think the timing would not be very wise to take up additional measures around the Middle East,” Rep. Mark Pocan told Politico. “Donald Trump just brought us all together, so let’s take advantage of that.”

Lukas Mikelionis


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

PM to decide if Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib can visit Israel - Sara Rubenstein

by Sara Rubenstein

Will Netanyahu use the 2017 law banning BDS supporters from Israel to block US congresswomen Omar and Tlaib from visiting in August?

Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib hold news conference
Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib hold news conference

A day after introducing a pro-BDS resolution in the House, Dem. US Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) told reporters on Wednesday that she will be visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories in a few weeks. Omar will be accompanied on the trip by Rashida Tlaib, a fellow Dem. congresswoman (MI) of Palestinian origin, who co-sponsored the bill with Omar.

However, the question that hangs in the airs is whether Omar and Tlaib will be allowed into Israel in light of a 2017 law which allows Israeli officials to ban BDS supporters from entering the country. Omar told the Jewish Insider on Wednesday that the Israeli "occupation of Palestinian territories" will be the main point of the trip. "Everything that I hear points to both sides feeling like there is still an occupation," she said.

Israeli officials have used the controversial law to ban BDS supporters from entering Israel over the past two years. However, since the individuals in questions are American politicians, banning them from Israel is bound to cause an international sensation. Due to the special sensitivity of the issue, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be the one to make the decision in this case whether the congresswomen can enter Israel, according to a Haaretz report on Thursday.

Omar told reporters on Tuesday, that “We are introducing a resolution… to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our first amendment rights in regard to boycotting. And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement.”

The resolution that Omar introduced "opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad. " Although the resolution didn't mention Israel or BDS by name, it was introduced in response to resolutions passed in several states that ban business with companies and individuals who back the BDS movement.

Omar and Tlaib were elected as the first Muslim U.S. congresswomen in November and have spoken out repeatedly against Israel and Jews and in support of the BDS movement since they were elected.

Tlaib was quoted by the Jewish Insider as saying, “My city [of Beit Ur al-Fauqa] is so excited that I am possibly going to come to see her next month. She is so happy. And I am going to take my two wonderful boys… and they are going to meet their great grandmother. So I am really, really excited about that.”

Tlaib was widely criticized in May for claiming that her ancestors provided a "safe haven" for Jews after the Holocaust.

“There’s always kind of a calming feeling when I think of the tragedy of the Holocaust,” Tlaib said, “that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, has been wiped out … in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-Holocaust, post-tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that in many ways.”

Sara Rubenstein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Feds Bust 22 MS-13 Gang Members - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

California Democrats silent over murders, mutilations by savage criminal illegals.

“The victim was dismembered, and his body parts were thrown into a canyon after one of the defendants allegedly cut the heart out of the victim’s body.”

That is from a July 16 statement from the U.S. Attorney in Central California, announcing charges against “22 people linked to the MS-13 transnational gang, most of whom allegedly participated in a series of murders, including several slayings in which victims were hacked to death with machetes in the Angeles National Forest.”

U.S. Attorney spokesman Thom Mrozek told reporters that 19 of the 22 gang members were illegally present in the United States. Four of the killings took place in Angeles National Forest and the gang members used machetes, bats and knives on the victims. As U.S. officials explained, new MS-13 members are required to murder a rival or enemy of the group. In one case, a member of a rival gang who defaced MS-13 graffiti had his heart cut out of his chest.

The charges against the 22 MS-13 members prompted no statement from California governor Gavin Newsom, whose first trip as governor outside the state was to El Salvador. As he said, the trip was to “counter Trump,” who often speaks out against illegal immigration in general and MS-13 in particular. State attorney general Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, was also silent after the MS-13 bust, hardly the only such action in recent times.

In Mendota, according to a Fresno Bee story by Yesenia Amaro, “MS-13 carved out a reign of terror resulting in at least 14 brutal murders in and around Mendota from 2015 to 2017.”

Slated to testify in a murder case, Joanna Soloria Maya was “hacked to death” and her body left outside an apartment complex. Joanna’s sister Jannette told Amaro, “they are killing people out there, like they are animals.”

Federal officials led the charge in the arrests of 25 MS-13 members. At a Fresno press conference, Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski said “the dismantling MS-13 and other violent gangs that terrorize our streets will remain a top priority of the Department of Justice.” For California’s ruling Democrats, MS-13 has not been a priority.

Attorney general Xavier Becerra made it clear he was not concerned with the “status,” of the gang members. The 2018 Fresno MS-13 bust prompted no statement from California governor Jerry Brown, a three-time contender for president of the United States. When President Trump has assailed MS-13 savagery, Nancy Pelosi invoked the “spark of divinity” in all people. This approach marks a departure for Democrats.

In 1992 at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, during the Clinton administration, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi gunned down Vicki Weaver as she held her infant daughter. The unarmed woman was not under arrest and had committed no crime. Sen. Dianne Feinstein compared the family to Nazis.

At Waco, Texas, in 1993, Clinton attorney general Janet Reno authorized military force against a compound packed with children. The ensuing fires left 75 people dead, including 25 children.

In 2000, Reno authorized federal agents, armed with assault rifles, to seize Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez, only six years old. The Clinton administration duly returned the child to the Castro dictatorship, the only regime in the Americas that justifies an asylum policy. 

Democrats now want an open-border policy that welcomes all comers, with no deportations. Democrats oppose a border security wall and seek to abolish ICE. California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye charges that ICE agents are “stalking” criminal illegals in courthouses.

California Democrats have established a sanctuary state that protects the most violent criminal illegals and even helps them to flee federal immigration agents. Witness Sutter County judge David Ashby, a 2016 appointee of Gov. Jerry Brown, granting bail to previously deported Mexican national Ismael Huazo-Jardinez after a felony DUI that claimed three lives.

Gov. Brown also kept rather quiet during the MS-13 reign of terror that claimed 14 lives in Mendota. On the other hand, the recurring governor showed his soft spot for criminals. Last year Brown signed Senate Bill 1391, which forbids prosecution of those under age 16 as adults, whatever the gravity of their crime.

Under this law, any MS-13 gang member aged 15, which many are, could murder and mutilate six people and, if convicted, be held only until age 25, in comfy juvenile facilities. With this law in place, Californians can expect more gruesome murders by juvenile MS-13 gang members.

If a full adult MS-13 member should be convicted of murder and sentenced to death, he would have no worries.

In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom slapped a moratorium on the death penalty and reprieved all 737 convicted murderers on California’s death row. Those reprieved include Luis Bracamontes, who in 2014 murdered Sacramento police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis. The previously deported Mexican national said he wished he’d killed more cops and in court yelled “black lives don’t matter!”

That didn’t get a rise out of attorney general Becerra, Gov. Jerry Brown or Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Gov. Newsom now wants to make California the “most un-Trump state.” When MS-13 gangsters cut the hearts out of murder victims, the governor keeps silent. Unlike President Trump, Gov. Newsom wants to keep all illegals in the country and pay for their health care. That’s the Democrat dialectic in action.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of  Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation and, most recently, Sexual Terrorist, about the Golden State Killer.  Lloyd’s work has appeared in City Journal, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, California Globe, and many other publications. Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield is a collection of his journalism. His crime books include A Shut and Open Case, about a double murder in Davis, California. Read More


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Watson Video: London is a Sh*thole - Paul Joseph Watson

by Paul Joseph Watson

Living the dream!

In this new video, Paul Watson discusses London is a Sh*thole -- and he emphasizes how the inhabitants of the city are: Living the dream! Don't miss it.

Paul Joseph Watson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinians are incapable of statehood. There, I said it! - Michael Berenhaus

by Michael Berenhaus

One merely has to view what they have done, where they are, and their inability to have one voice.

In "The provocations of Trump's ambassador to Israel are upturning decades of U.S. diplomacy" (07-08-19), The L.A. Times blames the U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, for...well, actually doing something. Nothing has been accomplished in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the U.S. for decades, but now there are changes. The Palestinians (and the L.A. Times) may not be happy with what's going on, but let's face it: the Palestinians have done nothing to show they want a state in Gaza and the West Bank. They just want to fight and defeat Israel. Why is everyone so afraid to say it?

The Palestinians have two distinct groups, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank, who can't even form a unity government. Whom could Israel possibly make a deal with? Israel has no peace partner! And let's look at the distinct areas of Gaza and the West Bank. What sort of nation-building have these two areas done to show the world they are ready for a nation of their own should they even reach an agreement between themselves? Where is the infrastructure? Why has corruption run rampant at unprecedented levels? How is it permissible for Palestinian terrorists to be given pensions for killing their neighbors in Israel? Why are town squares and high schools in Palestinian areas named after suicide bombers who murder women and children? Is this the hallmark of a nation that is needed, especially in such a volatile area of the world? Would any country want this potential nation as a neighbor? Not in my backyard!

The L.A. Times chooses to highlight a new poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that determined that "90% of respondents did not trust or believe the Trump administration, and a majority remained skeptical about any forthcoming peace plan." What would be more interesting is to see a poll on how many Palestinians "trusted or believe" their own leader, Mahmoud Abbas. The corruption and nepotism of the regime are notorious. The polls conveniently sidestepped that question, because that's what pollsters from totalitarian regimes do.

Further, the L.A. Times unsurprisingly chooses Aaron David Miller to comment on the Trump administration's moves in Israel. There comes a point in time when it makes sense to conclude that a so-called expert such as Miller, who has been wrong decade after decade, should not be the "go-to" person to quote for an article about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Miller has "helped" instruct a multitude of administrations on both sides of the political aisle in the conflict, but his advice has yielded absolutely nothing. 

At this juncture, the Palestinians are incapable of statehood, based on the basic facts on the ground. One merely has to view what they have done, where they are, and their inability to have one voice. The Trump administration has followed through on promises of previous administrations (moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (a fait accompli and a necessity), and is spearheading an economic initiative to aid the Palestinian people. What's the problem with this? 

The Palestinians have been given offers of sovereignty an exhausting number of times over decades — enough is enough. The world needs to move on and live, as do the Palestinian people. Maybe one day they will be ready for a state, but playing victim and terrorizing their neighbors should not be rewarded with a pass to a nation of their own.

Michael Berenhaus


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Slavery Defeat In Niger - Stephen Brown

by Stephen Brown

Former slave girl’s lawsuit leads to banning Muslim practice of “fifth wife.”

After a ten year battle, a top court in the Republic of Niger, a West African country, ruled earlier this year against the Muslim practice of taking a “fifth wife,” also called “wahaya.” This brings a legal end to a barbaric form of slavery in Niger, in which thousands of young girls have long and cruelly suffered as sex and domestic slaves.

“This custom is contrary to the laws of the republic and the international conventions regularly ratified by Niger,” the Court of Appeals ruled. 

This ruling represents the end of a ten-year battle started when a former slave girl “fifth wife,” Hdijatou Meni, brought a lawsuit about the practice to an international court in 2008 and won. The Community Court of Justice, a branch of ECOWAS, a political and trade group of West African counties, ruled that Meni was a “fifth wife” slave for nine years despite “the legal prohibition on this practice.”

‘I am very thankful for this decision,” said Meni of the 2008 decision. “It was very difficult to challenge my former master and speak out when people see you as nothing more than a slave. But I knew this was the only way to protect my child from suffering the same fate as myself.”

One African newspaper reported Niger’s Court of Appeals that made the 2019 ruling based its decision on Meni’s case.

While Muslim men are legally allowed under Islamic law to have four wives, many in Niger buy slave girls, most under fifteen years of age, as non-legal “fifth wives.” These men may have also multiple “fifth wives.” Wealthy men, it was reported, buy such “wives” as a sign of prestige. And while one anti-slavery activist states the exact number of “fifth wives” is unknown, it is “very common” in some areas of Niger.

Besides “wahaya,” there are also two other kinds of slavery in Niger. One is chattel slavery, whose numbers are estimated between 43,000 and 133,000.

The third is called “soft” or “passive” slavery, in which former slaves remain in a kind of “tributary and forced labor situation” with their former masters. Their “individual freedoms are still controlled” and a violation of this arrangement by a former slave could lead to his being severely beaten. It is estimated there are approximately 870,000 “passive” slaves in Niger, which has been called the country’s “most prominent” form of slavery.

Slave children also work in Niger’s gold mines. Boys are also sometimes castrated, an old Islamic practice. Slave masters are also reported to sometimes separate slave children from their parents at a young age to break the parent-child bond.

The “fifth wife” slave girls are made to work long hours in the fields, herd animals perform domestic chores and forced to have sex with their masters in a form of concubinage. Masters can also arrange the girls’ marriages without their consent. As non-legal wives, these young girls are also subservient to the legal wives and made to perform domestic chores for them. And perhaps most terrible of all, any children these slave girls bear belong to their masters who can dispose of them as he wishes.

Meni, whose courage caused her to stand up against this modern-day barbarism, was born a slave, since her mother was also a slave, in the Tuareg tribe, a Berber people in Niger. But slavery, one report stated in 2005, also exists among Niger’s Arabs, Hausa and nomadic Fulanis. The Tuaregs sell these slave girls as “fifth wives” to “wealthy and prominent” Hausa tribal members. All slaves are black Africans, whose ancestors were captured in slave raids and who “remain trapped in hereditary slavery.” Black African slaves among the Tuaregs are called “black Tumacheqs” (after the language spoken by the Tuaregs).”

At age 12, Meni was sold for $412 dollars to a Hausa.

“I was negotiated over like a goat,” said Meni of the transaction that deeply affected her personal fate.

As a “fifth wife” slave for her new master, Meni performed all the hard-labor tasks mentioned above. And as his sex servant, she was forced to bear him three children.

“I was beaten so many times, I would run to my family,” said Meni. “Then, after a day or two I would be brought back. At the time I didn’t know what to do, but since I learned slavery had been abolished I told myself I will no longer be a slave.”

Slavery had been abolished when Niger was a French colony. But an independent Niger only abolished and criminalized it in 2003. One anti-slavery activist said this was only a “charm offensive to please westerners.” Everything, apparently, stayed the same on the ground.

An indication of government reluctance to enforce the new anti-slavery law is that despite the possible thousands of “fifth wife” girls in Niger, the first conviction for the now illegal practice only occurred 11 years later in 2014. The woman in the case “had faced a lifetime of physical and psychological abuse and forced labor.” Her 62-year-old “fifth wife” master was sentenced to four years in jail.

An activist with Timidria, Niger’s indigenous anti-slavery group that took the 2014 case to court (Timidria means “solidarity” in Tuareg) called the decision “incredible.”  Niger’s government once arrested Timidria activists in an effort to suppress the slavery issue.

Meni’s master, apparently, initially kept the news of slavery’s abolishment from her but eventually he gave her a “certificate of liberation in 2005.”

Meni’s legal troubles started when she then married the man of her choice. Her former master then brought her to court, charging Meni with bigamy, saying she was his still wife despite there never having been a marriage ceremony or contract (In Islam, women can have only one husband.).

A local court in Niger found for Meni’s former master, declaring her guilty and sentencing her to six months in prison. Meni served two.

It was after this that Meni took her case to the Community Court of Justice in 2008, her lawsuit being the first slavery case the court ever heard.  It ruled “there is no doubt” Meni was held in slavery and stated the Nigerian government had failed to protect her from this cruel institution, awarding her $20,000.

“With this compensation, I will be able to build a house and farm land to support my family,” said Meni at that time. “I will also be able to send my children to school so they can have the education I was never allowed as a slave.”

Pressure had initially been put on Meni to drop her lawsuit. But instead, the 2008 court decision she instigated appeared to stun the Nigerian government. It had always insisted there was no slavery in Niger. In fact, when one tribal chief declared he was going to free his 7,000 slaves, since slavery was against the Koran, and invited government representatives to the ceremony, they declined. The reason surmised was their presence would contradict their assertion of slavery’s non-existence in Niger.

But the ruling on Meni’s behalf in an international court in front of the whole world caused the Nigerian government to take the slavery issue “more seriously.”

Despite the ruling, however, slavery still exists in some areas of Niger as it does in neighboring Chad, Mali, Mauritania and northern Nigeria. Anti-slavery activists will now focus on “raising awareness and enforcement.”

“The fight is far from being won, but were in it for the long haul,” said Jeff Sobik of Anti-Slavery International, a partner in Meni’s anti-slavery fight.

In 2012, Meni was honored by the United States by receiving the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award in a ceremony attended by Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama. This award was founded in 2007 by Condoleeza Rice on International Women’s Day.

“Most of the awards honorees, past and present, come from Muslim countries and have experienced imprisonment and some form of violence,” stated one journalist. Meni was no exception.

Nevertheless, her story is truly inspirational. Sobik, whose anti-slavery organization now employs Meni, calls her a “true anti-slavery hero.”

“No one deserves to be enslaved,” said Meni. “We are all equal and deserve to be treated the same. I hope that everyone in slavery today can find their freedom. No one should suffer the way I did.”

Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Kamala Harris Lives in One of the Most Segregated Neighborhoods in Los Angeles - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Busing is for other people.

Senator Kamala Harris, who lives with her white husband in one of the most segregated neighborhoods in Los Angeles, has come out with a call for busing children to distant schools to fight “segregation”.

That’s great for Kamala, who has no children. Her stepson, Cole, who works at the William Morris Agency, which is about as diverse as his dad and S-Mamala’s Brentwood hood, won’t be bussed to work at more diverse talent agencies, and Ella, won’t be bused from her studies at Parsons School of Design (4% black) to a more diverse design college. Like most politicians, Harris wants to penalize other people.

None of these provisions and solutions to problems that don’t exist will actually apply to her and hers.

If segregation is the mere absence of diversity and requires government intervention, as she insists it does, what is Senator Kamala Harris doing to desegregate her Brentwood neighborhood?

Kamala’s $4.8 million Brentwood home is located in a neighborhood that is 84% white and 1.2% black in Los Angeles, a city that is nearly 10% black.

Senator Harris has come out for busing children to schools that aren’t sufficiently diverse. What about busing some folks from South Central to Brentwood to live across the street from her home?

“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me,” Senator Kamala Harris whined.

Because the only way a successful Democrat can run for office is by playing the victim.

The truth is that little girl, the privileged daughter of wealthy foreign grad students, wasn’t bused.

She was flown around the world.

That’s not a “right-wing conspiracy theory”, as the media now describes any account fact-checking Kamala Harris’ imaginary past, it’s right there in the words of her own mother who couldn’t stop bragging about the wealth and power that was Kamala’s birthright by way of family and connections.

“When Kamala was in first grade one of her teachers said to me, ‘You know, your child has a great imagination. Every time we talk about someplace in the world she says, ‘Oh, I’ve been there.’ So I told her, ‘Well, she has been there!’”

“India, England, the Caribbean, Africa—she had been there," Kamala's mother told Modern Luxury magazine.

These days, Kamala actually has a great imagination. She has to work hard to imagine being oppressed.

That’s the actual little girl being displayed on those t-shirts that Kamala Harris For the People (the official and officially laughable name of a campaign funded by California millionaires) is selling for $30 bucks.

"Two decades after Brown v. Board, I was only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Without that decision, I likely would not have become a lawyer and eventually be elected a Senator from California,” Senator Kamala Harris claimed.
Kamala’s insistence that without busing she wouldn’t have become a lawyer or a senator takes place in an exciting fantasy world in which her wealthy, famous and powerful parents never existed. In the real world, her Brahmin mother, an internationally famous cancer researcher, sending her "Montreal’s tony Westmount" high school probably had a lot more to do with her becoming a lawyer.

Busing certainly didn’t put Kamala Harris on a path to the Senate and the White House. Not unless there were buses running directly to Willie Brown’s house and stopping in a shadowy spot at the back door.

It wasn’t civil rights, but an alleged extramarital affair with a dirty San Francisco city boss that made her.

Forget the trauma of busing. To get to where she was, Kamala, at 29, hooked up with Willie, at 60, and ended up in a Brentwood home with no children, but a Senate seat and a shot at the White House.

“And that little girl was me.”

It’s understandable politically and personally why Kamala would want to invent a past in which she hadn’t used her privilege and connections as a down payment on ruining her life and selling her soul.

Kamala’s story, in which busing took her out of the grim inner cities of Berkeley, where she had to watch three beatnik poets recite bad verse before she got to her bus stop, and opened the world to her, so that one day that little girl in the old creased photo could aspire to be president, is much nobler.

It’s a much more satisfying story than sleeping with a married politician and getting a BMW and a seat on a commission. There are no t-shirts at Kamala’s campaign store showing her old self driving in Willie’s BMW to the job that Willie got her, attending California Medical Assistance Commission meetings twice a month, for over $120,000 in current dollars, while still managing to miss 20% of them.

That not so little girl was her too.

If Kamala had at least allegedly slept with Willie because she was that “little girl” from the ghetto, clawing her way up the ladder, that would have been understandable. But the story is much worse. Kamala didn’t need Willie Brown to get a good job. She needed him to get jobs she didn’t deserve.

Like the one she has now and the one she wants now.

That’s the truly damning thing.

Senator Harris wasn’t a poor little girl from the ghetto. She mingled with the Nob Hill set. Her life was filled with privilege and wealth. It wasn’t desperation. It wasn’t need. It was greed.

Senator Kamala Harris has to reinvent her past because she needs to run as a victim. And because it shifts the social context behind the entire Willie Brown story to make her seem more defensible.  

What can you expect from an oppressed little girl from the Berkeley ghetto trying to survive?

It’s not just Kamala rewriting her past. The media is working just as hard to reinvent a woman that the local press had covered thoroughly, while denying all the stories it had written about her in the past.

There’s always been speculation about Obama’s rise in Chicago politicians, but there’s never been much ambiguity about Kamala’s rise in San Francisco politics. We know how it happened and why.

But, now that’s a “right-wing conspiracy theory” even if it appeared in all the big California papers.

Before the media reinvented Kamala Harris as living on a Berkeley plantation with white and colored marijuana dispensaries, the Los Angeles Times had described her as a, “privileged child of foreign grad students”. These days, repeating that will see you accused of spreading right-wing conspiracy theories.

Reality, history and the media’s own stories are all notoriously right-wing conspiracy theories.

But meanwhile “that little girl” lives in one of the most segregated neighborhoods in Los Angeles, without ever saying anything about it, with her entertainment lawyer husband, in a $4.8 million home with a “spa-like” master bedroom, and a kidney-shaped pool. The median income is $112,000.

Kamala has an estimated net worth of $391,000.

Once upon a time, she got a BMW from Willie Brown. These days, it’s unknown what she drives. But, like most wealthy people in Los Angeles, Senator Kamala Harris would never actually take the bus.

Busing is for other people.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Global Warming Show — how's it going to end? - Russell Cook

by Russell Cook

"The Global Warming Show" was never actually about saving the planet, it's all about dictatorial control over everything

Set aside whatever animus you may have for comedy actor Jim Carrey and his current hobby of painting vile anti-Trump cartoons. In 1998, he headlined the dark satire movie "The Truman Show," where his character Truman Burbank is unwittingly imprisoned from birth as the star in his own TV reality show. Everything Truman believes is real is totally fake - his family, friends, his workplace, the town he lives in, the weather he lives under - all fabricated and controlled by the show's producer, "Christof" (played by Ed Harris).

Truman is a smart, critical thinker, however, and spots too many glitches in his fake world. A beautiful actress extra wearing a "How's it going to end?" pin gives him a direct cue about this, but she's forcibly removed from the set, prompting him to plan an escape to find her. Ultimately, it is the truth of the whole situation she told him which sets him free.
Truman: "Was nothing real?"
Christof: "You were real. That's what made you so good to watch. There is no more truth out there than there is in the world I created for you. The same lies, the same deceit. But in my world, you have nothing to fear."

In "The Global Warming Show" being broadcast by the Global Warming industry, the difference is that the Truman Burbanks within it have everything to fear after watching mainstream media reports or seeing Google search results on "climate change" -- rising sea levels from a melting Arctic are decimating the starving polar bear population and inundating Miami with floods, while extreme violent weather is ever more frequent. Despite the scripted 97% scientific consensus behind the well-intended imperative to stop this impending calamity, a sinister fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign employs skeptic "liars for hire" scientists to undercut it.

However, when critical thinkers take the effort to go far beyond superficial Google searches and media reports of the issue, they begin spotting all the glitches: skeptic climate scientists tell in mind-blowing levels of detail how the seas aren't rising nor is the Arctic melting at any noticeable rate; polar bear populations are on the increase; the Miami area suffers from land subsidence; past historical records show as much or more devastating weather events; a show of hands is a logical fallacy which never validates scientific conclusions; and places like the PBS NewsHour never inform their viewers about the science-based analysis from skeptic climate scientists. Even the term "climate change" is a ruse to cover up the plateauing of the average world temperature over the last 15+ years, while Alexander Ocasio-Cortez's Svengali admits her Green New Deal is nothing more than a plan to gain full control of the private economy. What about sinister industry disinformation efforts? It turns out the "Pulitzer-winning reporter" Al Gore claims discovered leaked memos proving this conspiracy never actually won a Pulitzer; wasn't the first to quote those memos; and those memos neither prove any such pay-for-performance arrangement exists between skeptic climate scientists and industry executives, nor were they even part of an old public relations campaign that Gore and that 'reporter' say they were.

"The Global Warming Show" was never actually about saving the planet, it's all about dictatorial control over everything ... and no doubt it was good for the Al "Christof" Gores in the issue to watch how the fear they created caused money to pour into their wallets. But to accomplish this, they had to fabricate a fake world where no opposition exists.

How's it going to end? Ultimately, it is the truth found in the reports from skeptic climate scientists that will set us free to know with certainty that there's nothing to fear after all about this issue, whereupon we can hold the people behind this fake issue and the complicit news media accountable for their lies and deceit.

Russell Cook is the publisher of the Gelbspan Files website, documenting the fraudulent claims that oil and cola industries pay climate skeptics to oppose the global warming doom-sayers. His archive of American Thinker articles can be found here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

J'accuse — The New Yorker Is Trying to Silence Me - Alan M. Dershowitz

by Alan M. Dershowitz

The New Yorker picked on the wrong innocent victim, because I have the will and resources to fight back against the falsehoods he is directing at me and those who want to hear my voice.

Alan Dershowitz. (Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Hulu)

I recently learned, from a source close to The New Yorker magazine, that its editor, David Remnick, has commissioned a hit piece against me for the explicit purpose of silencing my defense of President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the State of Israel. Remnick despises Trump and Netanyahu, and is well known for his strong anti-Israel bias. Remnick explicitly told people that I must be silenced because mine has been the most persuasive voice in favor of what Remnick feels pose dangers to values he holds dear, and that he will use the credibility of The New Yorker to accomplish this goal.

The New Yorker used to be a great literary magazine. I read it for its short stories, profiles of literary figures, film and drama reviews, humorous vignettes, and clever cartoons. But since David Remnick took over as editor, left wing politics have trumped non-partisan literature. Profiles have become personal attacks on Remnick's political enemies and hagiographies of his political friends.

Among Remnick's most persistent enemies are Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Ad hominem attacks on the Israeli Prime Minister include mocking his name ("Netanyahoo") and calling him a "mendacious mouse." Remnick consistently singles out Israel for condemnation, while ignoring real violations of human rights.

An op-ed in the Jerusalem Post observed that "under Remnick's reign, The New Yorker, and particularly Remnick himself, repeatedly and obsessively focuses on what Remnick perceives to be the failings of the state of Israel," accusing it of "medievalism," "apartheid" and "xenophobia." Its one-sided views have been "posted prominently on the website of "Intifada – The Voice of Palestine."

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has characterized Remnick's writings as "almost frantic agitation" against the Netanyahu government. Israel and/or its leaders are scorned for being "bigoted," "arrogant" and "stubborn," and for displaying "ineptitude" and a penchant for "fantasy." The Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, are "moderate and constructive." Remnick's attacks on President Trump are even more ad hominem, calling him "unhinged," "chaotic," "corrupt," "infantile" and comparing him to Nero.

The New Yorker's reputation for objectivity, fairness and scrupulous fact checking has been replaced by a growing awareness that nothing it publishes should be taken as true without rigorous independent checking, especially when it comes to Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump. The same is true when it comes to public figures Remnick believes are supporters of his sworn enemies. I know, because Remnick has arranged for a like-minded attack journalist named Connie Bruck to target me in a mendacious hit piece designed to still my voice on Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump.

Bruck is so emotional in her hatred toward those who say anything positive about Trump, that when her own stepson came out for the president, her family — according to the step-son — "singly excluded" him from family events "when the rest of the family was invited."* Bruck's antagonism toward Israel is reflected by the fact that the only Harvard Law School professor that she interviewed about me is a virulently anti-Israel radical, whose one-sided course on the Israel-Palestine conflict I strongly criticized.

Another academic she interviewed is Robert Trivers, who compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
Remnick's decision to have this biased reporter to profile a man who has vigorously defended the legal rights of both Trump and Netanyahu makes it clear that he was commissioning a one-sided screed, rather than an objective profile.

The New Yorker apparently got the idea of using false allegations of sexual misconduct to silence me from another like-minded web attacker of pro-Israel advocates named Phillip Weiss, who wrote the following on his Mondoweiss website: "We have picked up news about the sexual allegations against Alan Dershowitz because Dershowitz is such an outspoken defender of Israel and the matter has inevitably affected his influence in the foreign policy arena." Remnick has made similar statements about the need to reduce my influence and silence my voice.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with what I've been saying about Trump, Netanyahu, and Israel, every American should be outraged at this partisan effort by a giant of the media to stifle the marketplace of ideas by exploiting the past credibility of The New Yorker to try destroy the reputation of a public intellectual with whom they disagree. Let them publish articles challenging my views on their merits, instead of disseminating defamatory attacks that will be believed by partisans, regardless of overwhelming evidence that the accusations are false. This is the latest weapon in the partisan warfare that divides our nation. It is a misuse of freedom of the press to stifle the freedom of speech of those with whom one disagrees.

But The New Yorker picked on the wrong innocent victim, because I have the will and resources to fight back against the falsehoods he is directing at me and those who want to hear my voice. The truth is my weapon in this war of words, and the truth is unequivocally on my side. So here are the indisputable facts that The New Yorker will either not publish or will distort.

Four years ago, a woman who I had never met was "pressured" — her word — by her lawyers to falsely accuse me of having underage sex with her. They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed we had met. She also claimed to have met Al and Tipper Gore, as well as Bill Clinton, on the island, but Secret Service and other records proved she had made up that story as well. She also made up stories about having underage sex with prominent political leaders — senators, ambassadors, prime ministers and other heads of state — but her own employment records prove conclusively that she was well above the age of consent when she falsely claimed to have met these men.

My records led her own lawyer to admit in a recorded conversation that it would have been "impossible" for me to have been in those places and that his client was "simply wrong" about her accusations. An investigation by a former head of the FBI concluded that the accusations were disproved by the evidence. The judge struck the accusations and her lawyers withdrew them, admitting it was a "mistake."

Having seen the initial accusation demolished, her lawyer told people he was trolling for a second accuser because "two is better than one." This time they "found" a real doozy: a woman who had tried to get the New York Post to publish her claim that she had sex tapes of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson. She also wrote hundreds of pages of emails accusing several prominent people of having sex with her when she was in her 20s, but I was not among them — until she met the ethically challenged lawyer David Boies. I had never met this false accuser either, but her lawyer allowed this obviously mendacious or hallucinatory woman to submit a perjured affidavit accusing me.

Two provably false accusations by women with long histories of lying about famous people are not better than one, especially when both were engineered by the same lawyer. Sometimes smoke does not mean fire; it means arson.

So this is where the story stood: I had disproved these false accusations both in the courts of law and public opinion. No reasonably objective person examining the evidence would possibly conclude that I was guilty of any wrongdoing. The matter was closed. Until The New Yorker decided to resurrect these false allegations in an effort to silence me. He commissioned the hit piece from Bruck, who actually completed her article, subject only to fact checking, without even interviewing me or anyone who might say something positive about me. She ignored or minimized the evidence of my innocence. She relied on interviews with the lawyers of my false accusers and my political enemies. She did not question my accusers, simply accepting the unchallenged words of proven liars, taking them from court documents that are privileged and thus not subject to a defamation suit.

I have been advised that The New Yorker's policy, as expressed by Remnick, is that the magazine will not publish sex allegations against someone unless there are three credible independent sources. My source heard this directly from Mr. Remnick. Yet the proposed article doesn't even come close to meeting that standard. In the first place, there are only two sources. They are anything but independent, since both women were groomed by the same lawyers to lie about me for financial gain. Moreover, both sources lack credibility. They each have documented histories of telling false stories about well-known people for financial gain.

In every other "#MeToo" accusation reported by The New Yorker and other media, there was some corroboration or admission of the external facts: they had sex; they worked together; they knew each other. In my case there is absolutely no evidence I ever met these false accusers, because I did not.

The question thus arises why The New Yorker is willing to violate its own standards by publishing false accusations against me that have no credibility or corroboration and are refuted by indisputable documentary evidence. The answer is obvious to those familiar with Remnick's political misuse of his magazine to destroy his enemies, regardless of what compromise he must make with journalistic standards.

Not content to falsely accuse me of sex crimes, Bruck trolled the internet and came across a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial website called, which both the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have declared to be anti-Semitic. This site accused me of beating and murdering my first wife. It showed "pictures" of her and my children, which were not them, but stereotypical Jews with long noses. No one would believe anything on this hate site — no one, that is, except a journalist prepared to use any dirt, regardless of its source and absurdity, against her target. Bruck has admitted using this discredited site as the original source for claiming in her article that I abused my first wife and "stripped" her of custody of my two sons. She even used the same words she found on the Holocaust denial site. The truth is that my first wife and I, who were married when I was 20 and she 19, grew apart. There was no abuse, and the court granted me custody based on the report of the social worker, and on his explicit finding that I committed "no misconduct." But that boring story would not achieve The New Yorker's goal of destroying me. So they went into the gutter and followed the lead of an anti-Semitic website.

This is not journalism; it is defamation motivated not by a search for truth but a determination to destroy and silence a political enemy. Bruck's reckless disregard for the truth has become all too typical of The New Yorker under Remnick. So has taking revenge against political enemies, especially those who have the temerity to fight back against The New Yorker.

Since completing the first draft of this hit piece, Bruck has been given many documents and much information that disproves her thesis. Perhaps this will cause her to alter her false narrative in the final version. I have offered to meet face to face with her, but she has refused. I have told her that in a few days, the court will be unseating emails and a book manuscript that proves conclusively — in my accuser's own words — that she never had sex with me. But The New Yorker refuses to wait to include these exculpatory documents in her story.

I fully anticipate that Remnick and Bruck will redouble their attacks against me for calling them out. Bruck has already attacked me in emails for earlier public criticism I leveled against her. I expect more vengeful responses in the pages of the magazine.

So when you read The New Yorker attack on me, read it with an understanding of its source, motive, and methodology. Remember that you are not reading The New Yorker of old that had well-earned credibility. You are reading a glossy version of the National Enquirer, with partisan and personal agendas. Only the clever cartoons are the same. On second thought, you might just want to skip the partisan articles and jump right to the cartoons.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter