Friday, January 3, 2020

DiGenova: Comey And Brennan Were 'Coup Leaders' - Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-charles Bensoussan

Former US Attorney Joe diGenova told OANN's John Hines that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan were "coup leaders" in an attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2016 US election.

DiGenova says the Obama Justice Department was corrupted under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, "with the authority and knowledge of then-president" Obama, and that a 'stupid and arrogant' Susan Rice was dumb enough to document his knowledge in a January 20th, 2017 email.
"And you'll never forget, I'm sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the president announced - President Obama - that he was sure that everything had been done by the book.
I want to thank Susan Rice for being so stupid and so arrogant to write that email on January 20th because that's exhibit A for Barack Obama - who knew all about this from start to finish, and was more than happy to have the civil rights of a massive number of Americans violated so he could get Donald Trump." -Joe diGenova

Moreover, diGenova says that after "all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn," anyone who couldn't see that the "corrupt investigative process of the FBI and DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état" is an idiot.
"This was not hard. If you're a good prosecutor you look at the facts in the Trump case, and the Page case, the Flynn case. There's only one conclusion you can come to; none of this makes any sense. None of these people were evil. None of them. They were framed, and the whole process was playing out, and you knew it on July 5th 2016, when James Comey announced - usurping the functions of the Attorney General, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton. That was ludicrous! She destroyed 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. If you or I did that, we would be in prison today. She got a break because she was Hillary Clinton, and James Comey was trying to kiss her fanny because he wanted something from her when she became president of the United States.
All of these people who watched that news conference and didn't think that it was a disgrace for the FBI. And then subsequently, watched all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn - and couldn't see that the corrupt investigative process of the FBI and the DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état. I mean you have to be an idiot. Any first year assistant US attorney would look at all these facts and say 'there's a coup underway. There's a conspiracy.'
But for those of us thought that, the Washington Post, the New York Times. We were 'conspiracy theorists.' You know what? Pretty damn good theory, it appears today.
"To what extent is the CIA involved in this?" asked Hines.

"Well there's no doubt that John Brennan was the primogenitor of the entire counterintelligence investigation," replied diGenova. "It was John Brennan who went to James Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a counterintelligence investigation against Trump. Brennan's at the heart of this. He went around the world. He enlisted the help of foreign intelligence services. He's responsible for Joseph Mifsud and other people."

"People do not have even the beginning of an understanding of the role that John Brennan played in this. He is a monstrously important person, and I underscore monstrously important person. He has done more damage to the Central Intelligence Agency - it's equal to what James Comey has done to the FBI. It's pretty clear that James Comey will go down in history as the single worst FBI director in history, regardless of how Mr. Durham treats him."

"He precipitated it. He caused it. He encouraged it, and he is responsible for it at a minimum. He and John Brennan are the coup leaders."


Tyler Durden


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

U.S. airstrikes on the Iran-backed militia in Iraq have roots in Iran - Hassan Mahmoudi

by Hassan Mahmoudi

The U.S. airstrike against Kataeb Hezbollah in Iraq and the militia's raid on the embassy in Baghdad have deeper roots in the troubles roiling Iran.

In early November 2019, a new wave of recent uprisings in Iran -- triggered by high inflation, unemployment, and institutionalized corruption within the regime -- resulted in more than 1500 deaths and 12,000 detainees. These protests were a natural progression from the recent surge of protests in Iraq and Lebanon. Iran’s stronghold in these countries was shattered and its hope to create a heavily-invested Shiite Crescent had come under attack.

Forty days have passed since the unrest began. The regime’s security guards have used threats and arrests to prevent families from holding funeral ceremonies for those killed in the protests. The Iranian regime’s brutality and crudeness appalled the world. Last Sunday, the U.S. launched airstrikes against an Iran-backed militia in Iraq. U.S. attacks should be analyzed as one of the dominoes that the Iranian regime is watching fall.

Any U.S. attack should looked at in the larger context of the Iran regime’s current situation. Alongside the U.S. attack, the recent surge of uprisings in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, send the regime a unified message: Back down a little.

The U.S. airstrikes were a retaliation move, a first in response to Iran’s continuous ambitions beyond its borders. Since October 28, 2019, Iran-backed militias have made 11 attacks against U.S. military bases that house American diplomats and military personnel. Iranian Revolutionary Guards also fired on an American drone. Up until Sunday, the U.S. opted not to retaliate.


Sunday’s military attack against Kataeb Hezbollah, which killed 25 fighters, was the first American military response of its kind in this regard. Although the U.S. action is framed as retaliation for an American contractor’s death last week from a Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, the real reason for the strike can be found elsewhere. 


The answer lies in the Iranian regime’s current status, as well as the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. In 2002, American policy changed generally in the Middle East and, specifically, coalition forces occupied Iraq. These changes gave the Iranian regime a golden position to expand its influence in the region. Iran began to form militia and proxy groups in Lebanon, Iraq and, later, in Syria and Yemen. Iran’s terrorist expansion in the above countries has proven to be a headache for the U.S. 

Iran’s golden window is drying up, though. The violence it fomented in the last 17 years is creating a backlash. What’s happening now, both the riots and America’s willingness to target Iran-backed militias and threaten major retribution for the embassy raid, suggests that the new golden window of opportunity is not for the Iranian regime, but for the regime’s foes.

The situation is still fluid. It’s up to the people of this region, including those in Iran, to decide what comes next. Their decisions will form and fuel resistance forces or weaken and destroy them.

On one front, the Iranian regime is facing very serious challenges at home, for it is surrounded by countless political, economic, and social issues. On another front, the Iraqis’ dismay about Iranian meddling and its growing hatred for the Iranians create similar political challenges and deadlocks in Iraq.

Given that the Iranian regime does not have the power to bring the anti-regime forces in Iraq under its control, the Iraqi unrest is bringing things to a pivotal point. As always, and as a natural consequence of similar situations, Iran’s inability to act will produce negative outcomes just as a malfunctioning heart will exhibit muscle pains, signaling problems at the source. For a political and geopolitical analogy, one only has to look at the Soviet Union’s fall, which was preceded by breakdowns in distant territories over which it lacked full centralized control.

By attacking the U.S. K1 Military base in Iraq, the regime in Tehran intended to have a show of force to inspire its own weak and disengaged proxies. Contrary to its intent, the attack became a biting snake coming after the regime. While this type of proxy attack might once have served the regime’s purpose by instilling fear, those days are over, thanks to the recent massive unrest in Iran. For Iran’s regime, there’s no going back. If its citizens no longer fear it, why should people in other countries give it respect. The regime in Tehran is in complete disarray these days.

So, the heroic people of Iran and their resistance are saying farewell to 2019 and optimistically welcome 2020, a year promising to be a year of more bad news for the regime of the mullahs.

Hassan Mahmoudi


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

This is not a warning; it is a threat - Dave Ball

by Dave Ball

This ain't Benghazi, folks.

Liberals, and Democrats in particular, are great at creating false equivalencies. Their latest attempt at this is to equate the heinous 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya and the feckless response of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with the recent attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and President Trump's no-nonsense response.

Without replaying the whole sordid Benghazi event, suffice it to say that a coordinated, orchestrated, and deadly attack against two U.S. facilities in Benghazi claimed the lives of four U.S. personnel, including a U.S. ambassador. The response before, during, and after the attack was shameful. No additional security was provided to the sites prior to the attacks despite repeated pleas from the ambassador, no help was forthcoming during the attack, and there was no response after the attack other than a disgraceful press tour.

Contrast this with President Trump's defense of Americans. On Friday, an Iranian-backed militia attacked a U.S. base and killed an American contractor and wounded many others. On Sunday, U.S. fighter jets attacked and demolished five militia bases in Iraq and Syria, killing 25 people.

Now large numbers of Iraqi militants are attacking the American embassy in Baghdad. One of those reportedly leading the attack, Hadi al-Ameri, former head of the Hashd al-Shaabi militia, was a guest of President Obama at the White House in 2011. 

President Trump, unlike President Obama, is not sitting on his hands and calling endless meetings. Apache helicopters showed up almost immediately and began firing flares as a warning. Apaches also carry a large and lethal load of rockets, Hellfire missiles, and automatic 30mm cannon, and the militants know that. Additionally, 500 paratroopers from the Immediate Response Force are already on route. Defense secretary Mark Esper is quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, "The United States will protect our people and interests anywhere they are found around the world."

Progressive groups are trying to call the Baghdad attack President Trump's Benghazi. That is disingenuous at best. There is no equivalence at all. There are indeed significant differences. President Trump provided immediate assistance, and no one, most assuredly not the ambassador, has been murdered and dragged through the streets. The president and his administration have not sought to blame the violence on some nonsensical event like an obscure video, but rather placed the blame squarely on those who perpetrated the act and their supporters. The president is not running from pillar to post holding meetings and press conferences. He has mobilized a huge response force and let the identified belligerents know that if they keep it up, they will meet this force personally. Said the president, "This is not a warning. It is a threat." 

That is how a leader keeps Americans safe and protects American interests. 

Dave Ball


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Does William Barr Have the Guts? - Michael E. Young

by Michael E. Young

All indications are that the attorney general understands the historic significance of his role. We should all pray for him to find the wisdom and strength to do what is necessary.

When asked if William Barr has the guts to do what needs to be done, a semi-famous conservative Twitter pundit answered that Barr has the guts, but what he lacks is prosecutable crimes.
Wait, what?

If this seems like utter nonsense to you, you are not alone. It is nonsense until you consider that successful prosecution also requires an unbiased jury willing to convict. The point might have been that Barr lacks a D.C. jury pool that would be eager to impugn swamp creatures with the same zeal demonstrated for the prosecution of Roger Stone. This is a particularly tough pill to swallow for the sober masses who are watching our nation be systematically imperiled by Democrats and the media.

The recent I.G. report on FISA abuse was just another in a very long line of disappointing indicators that equal justice may never be restored to our nation. But just when you are ready to sell the house and move to mountains of Utah, William Barr makes bold public statements that stop the music like the scratch of a needle on an L.P. record. Is this guy Barr for real? Is he ready to face the hellfire that will be unleashed if he takes real steps to hold coup conspirators accountable? It's looking increasingly likely that he is for real, but what remains to be seen how far he is willing to go. Both he and prosecutor John Durham made courageous statements in contrast to Horowitz's predictable softball conclusions. At the same time, it feels as though we are getting our hopes up again. So where is this thing headed, and when will things start to happen?

The first question to be answered is exactly how far Barr needs to take it. If you ask MAGA country, they're calling for heads up to and including Obama's. This is doubtful and certainly not prudent because the political and systemic repercussions would be devastating and permanently destabilizing for the USA.

For a simple example, suppose that Barr approved prosecution all the way up to former attorney general Loretta Lynch. Based upon that precedent, what would stop a future attorney general from pursuing a political prosecution of the retired William Barr down the road? Care must be taken to avoid the precedent of high-level political war. Otherwise, we'll morph into a banana republic in less than a generation.

Ultimately, justice needs to be done, so a compromise must be made. The most prudent course would be to prosecute up to a high enough level that sends a clear message to the subordinates of future leaders: follow corrupt orders at your own peril. This is likely the best way to disarm and deter the next corrupt administration without creating a constitutional crisis. The likes of Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Power, and so on understand this. There's no doubt they are living in fear and uncertainty. Law-abiding Americans should take minor solace in the notion that they are suffering with fear right now as a result of their crimes.

The next question is timing. Suppose Comey gets indicted in spring 2020. CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the corrupt mainstream media would start a 24-7 propaganda campaign that would look a lot like the Russia collusion narrative. However, this time, it would be louder and more desperate, and it would center on how a corrupt Donald Trump has weaponized the DOJ to go after his political enemies. The fact that Democrats and the MSM have already accused Trump of using the "awesome powers of government to punish political enemies" highlights an unmistakable Alinsky-esque pattern that has become prominent since 2016, which is — whatever you are guilty of, blame it on the other side.

This leftist tactic has become the signature calling card for the Democratic Party. After three-plus years of coordinated coup attacks from the "resistance," imagine the nerve of accusing Trump of what they were doing all along.

The incessant hypocrisy demonstrated by the left and Democrats is staggering. Hypocrisy aside, the new media campaign would undoubtedly fire up calls for more articles of impeachment from the House — and not just for Trump, but for Barr as well. You can bet on the choreography of the outrage machine. And you can also bet that this campaign would not stop until election day 2020. Would such a media campaign do damage to Trump's re-election bid? It is quite possible. Independent swing voters are a fickle and malleable bunch.

That makes the question of punishing the coup cabal before the election a serious political risk. If Trump asked Barr to hold indictments until after the election, would Barr do so in good conscience? What if Trump loses the election? Will anyone ever be held accountable? These difficult questions and many others must be weighed by Barr.

The anti-Barr rhetoric has already begun. He's been referred to as Trump's lapdog and is being accused of believing in "Trump's conspiracy delusions." What will the ruling class say if Barr brings down the hammer on any number of worthy lawbreakers? Heads will explode. The campaign to smear William Barr will be swift and epic.

We should never lose sight of the fact that one of the worst dangers America faces is the political corruption of the mainstream media. They provided the necessary cover for everything we've suffered through for the last three years. Barr alone will be no match for the smear machine and narrative-dictating elitist echo chamber. After all, today's "resistance" is tomorrow's CNN pundit.

Barr stands poised to be the most consequential attorney general in United States history. Unless you've been consuming a strict diet of leftist propaganda, you are aware that the Obama administration became the first administration to overtly undermine the peaceful transfer of power in our nation's history. This treachery must be punished, or it absolutely will happen again. And next time we may not be so lucky as to have as strong a leader as we do. It could be argued that the left has been winning the battle for control by obfuscation of the truth. This is precisely why William Barr must take bold action.

All indications are that he understands the historic significance of his role. If he ultimately backs down, this experiment in self-governance is one step closer to being lost in trash heap of history. We should all pray for William Barr to find the wisdom and strength to do what is necessary to restore America's faith in our system of justice.

Connect with Michael on Twitter at @_MYoung.

Michael E. Young


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Video: The Myth of Voter Suppression - Prager University

by Prager University

Do Republicans win elections by preventing minorities from voting?

Do Republicans win elections by preventing minorities from voting? The Left says yes, but the data says no. In the latest short video from Prager University, Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, settles the argument with hard evidence, separating fact from fiction. Don't miss it!

Prager University


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Five-Step Plan to Fight the International Criminal Court - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

And to defeat it on its own political terms.

Last year, then Knesset member Tzipi Livni convened senior officials from the Justice Ministry and Military Advocate General’s international affairs departments at the Knesset for a conference. The purpose of the conclave was to provide the officials with the opportunity to justify their interference with security decisions that by law are the exclusive purview of the Israel Defense Force’s field commanders and Israel’s elected leaders.

As is their wont, the officials used the opportunity to proclaim that “the legal system is the IDF’s ‘legal Iron Dome’ against accusations of war crimes in foreign and international forums.”

Following International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision over the weekend to prosecute Israel—including its armed forces and elected leaders—on phony war crimes allegations, we see that their conceit was a lie. The idea that Israel’s legal fraternity is Israel’s protection against the likes of Bensouda and the lawfare gang she runs with was first concocted in the 1990s by then Chief Justice Aharon Barak. The purpose of this fantasy was and remains to justify interference by the various components of the legal fraternity—the High Court, the Justice Ministry, the Attorney General and the Military Advocate General and others—in the decisions of IDF commanders and elected officials.

As professor Avi Bell of Bar Ilan University Law School explained in Israel Hayom earlier this week, Bensouda’s decision exposed the colossal failure of the legal fraternity’s strategy for protecting the country from the lawfare gang. Bensouda’s decision is a horrible, strategic blow for Israel. It endangers the very lives of IDF soldiers, commanders and elected officials.

Members of the legal fraternity asserted their competence to direct Israel’s responses by presenting the ICC as a legal body. But as the Rome Statute of 1998, which founded the ICC, made clear, the institution’s political nature was evident from the outset, as was its inherent hostility to Israel. Now that Bensouda’s biased ruling has exposed this state of affairs, Israel must replace the lawyers’ failed legal strategy with a political one.

A political strategy for fighting the political ICC has five components:
The first component of the political strategy is institutional. Responsibility for handling the ICC has to be transferred from the lawyers who facilitated Bensouda’s hostile decision to the people who have to clean up the mess they made—the prime minister and the foreign minister.

To this end, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to order all legal officials—from Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit to the Justice Ministry’s International Affairs Office to the Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser to the Military Advocate General’s International Law Department—to cease and desist from all actions on the matter. These legal officials should be barred from making any statements to anyone about the ICC and prohibited from all communications with the ICC or regarding the ICC.

These government officials are charged with dealing with international legal matters. And Bensouda’s decision to prosecute Israel for imaginary war crimes proves beyond all doubt that the ICC is not engaged in anything resembling international law.

The second step is legislative. Whereas Israelis—the ICC’s No. 1 target—deluded themselves into believing that the ICC was a legal challenge best dealt with by lawyers, the Americans —its No. 2 target—were under no such delusion. To deal with this threat, in 2002 Congress passed the American Service Members’ Protection Act. The goal of the ASPA, popularly dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act” is “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party.”

The law authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.”

The ASPA bars all U.S. government bodies from assisting the ICC in any way and prohibits the transfer of U.S. military assistance to countries that are party to the court.

The Knesset needs to follow Congress’s example. The Knesset should convene from recess in emergency session to pass an identical law. Indeed, it is outrageous that no such law has passed to date.

The third part of the political strategy for fighting the ICC is diplomatic. Here too, it involves following the U.S. example. Led by then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, between 2002 and 2005 the United States negotiated agreements with dozens of countries to prohibit them from turning Americans over to the ICC.

The Foreign Ministry must engage every country Israel has diplomatic relations with, and particularly those that receive aid from Israel, including African states, and ask them to sign similar agreements. Israel should strongly consider conditioning the provision of further aid on the conclusion of such agreements.

Step four of the political strategy for fighting political war against the political ICC pertains to public relations. For the duration of the ICC’s existence, every Israeli representative everywhere in the world should be directed to attack the ICC at every opportunity. The purpose of the attacks is to delegitimize the ICC’s very existence and work towards its enfeeblement, delegitimization and dismantlement.

It ought to go without saying that Israel needs to cut off all official and unofficial contact with the ICC. All of its officials—indeed anyone even remotely associated with the ICC—must be banned from entering Israel. And any ICC officials presently on territory under Israeli control must be immediately expelled.

The final step Israel must take to beat back the ICC relates to its policies regarding Judea and Samaria. For the past several years, Mandelblit and his comrades have used the ICC inquiry to prevent the government from implementing its policies in these areas.

For instance, according to multiple government sources, the reason Netanyahu has failed to evacuate Khan al-Ahmar, despite a Supreme Court ruling requiring the illegal Bedouin encampment, that threatens the access road to Kfar Adumim, to be dismantled, is that Mandelblit and his fellow lawyers argued that implementing those policies would increase the likelihood that Bensouda would prosecute Israel. Netanyahu reportedly set aside his plan to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria for the same reason.

If this is what happened, then it is now clear that Mandelblit and his associates misled Netanyahu; Bensouda didn’t need an excuse to prosecute Israel for nothing. So Israel should ignore her and act in its own interests. Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett need to order Khan al-Ahmar’s immediate evacuation. And within a week the government should pass a decision to apply Israeli law to all Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

Israel’s legal system is responsible for defending Israel in foreign courts and international legal bodies. It is incompetent to defend the country from political onslaughts by hostile political bodies. The ICC’s anti-Semitic decision, which seeks to criminalize Zionism and the State of Israel, demonstrates that it is a hostile political institution.

Israel’s political leaders made a grave mistake in heeding the counsel of our power-hungry jurists. Now that we know the truth, they must clear the decks and let political warriors fight the political war the ICC is waging against the country and its citizens.

Caroline Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Colleges Dupe Parents and Taxpayers - Walter Williams

by Walter Williams

The high cost of "diversity" being the highest goal of higher education.

Colleges have been around for centuries. College students have also been around for centuries. Yet, college administrators assume that today's students have needs that were unknown to their predecessors. Those needs include diversity and equity personnel, with massive budgets to accommodate.

According to Minding the Campus, Penn State University's Office of Vice Provost for Educational Equity employs 66 staff members. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts and coordinators. Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19 diversity people. Top college diversity bureaucrats earn salaries six figures, in some cases approaching $500,000 per year. In the case of the University of Michigan, a quarter (26) of their diversity officers earn annual salaries of more than $100,000. If you add generous fringe benefits and other expenses, you could easily be talking about $13 million a year in diversity costs. The Economist reports that University of California, Berkeley, has 175 diversity bureaucrats.

Diversity officials are a growing part of a college bureaucracy structure that outnumbers faculty by 2 to 2.5 depending on the college. According to "The Campus Diversity Swarm," an article from Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor at Law and Liberty, which appeared in the City Journal (10/10/2018), diversity people assist in the cultivation of imaginary grievances of an ever-growing number of "oppressed" groups. Pulliam writes: "The mission of campus diversity officers is self-perpetuating. Affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences in admissions) leads to grievance studies. Increased recognition of LGBTQ rights requires ever-greater accommodation by the rest of the student body. Protecting 'vulnerable' groups from 'hate speech' and 'microaggressions' requires speech codes and bias-response teams (staffed by diversocrats). Complaints must be investigated and adjudicated (by diversocrats). Fighting 'toxic masculinity' and combating an imaginary epidemic of campus sexual assault necessitate consent protocols, training, and hearing procedures — more work for an always-growing diversocrat cadre. Each newly recognized problem leads to a call for more programs and staffing."

Campus diversity people have developed their own professional organization — the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. They hold annual conferences — the last one in Philadelphia. The NADOHE has developed standards for professional practice and a political agenda, plus a Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, which is published by the American Psychological Association.

One wonders just how far spineless college administrators will go when it comes to caving in to the demands of campus snowflakes who have been taught that they must be protected against words, events and deeds that do not fully conform to their extremely limited, narrow-minded beliefs built on sheer delusion. Generosity demands that we forgive these precious snowflakes and hope that they eventually grow up. The real problem is with people assumed to be grown-ups — college professors and administrators — who serve their self-interest by tolerating and giving aid and comfort to our aberrant youth. Unless the cycle of promoting and nursing imaginary grievances is ended, diversity bureaucracies will take over our colleges and universities, supplanting altogether the goal of higher education.

"Diversity" is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. These people support the very antithesis of higher education with their withering attacks on free speech. Both in and out of academia, the content of a man's character is no longer as important as the color of his skin, his sex, his sexual preferences or his political loyalties. That's a vision that spells tragedy for our nation.

* * *

Photo by Nick Youngson

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The 'Transgender' Endgame - Trevor Thomas

by Trevor Thomas

What we are dealing with here is not mere mental illness. This is evil — pure and simple evil right out of the pit of hell.

While listening to the Rush Limbaugh show this past Monday, I heard guest host Todd Herman interview an Australian pediatrician and professor on the issue of gender dysphoria and children. Near the end of the enlightening interview, in which the good doctor detailed the "serious and irreversible damage" done to gender-dysphoric children given radical surgeries and hormones demanded by the perverse LGBT agenda, Mr. Herman asked the important question: "Why?"

I don't recall the exact wording of Mr. Herman's question, and does not provide a transcript for guest-hosted shows, but it was something along the lines of this: why have so many decided that the solution for children — children! — suffering from gender delusions is disfiguring surgeries and dangerous hormone treatments? The doctor didn't have a good answer ready, but I think I know who's really behind this evil and what the endgame is here.

First of all, let it be noted the lightning speed in which we've descended down this wicked slope. With nothing in science or morality to back the notion that "gender is a spectrum" or that one can actually "transition" from one sex to another, in less than a decade we've gone from the foolish and evil notion that marriage is whatever we define it to be to sex (gender) is whatever we define it to be. As is the case with same-sex "marriage," children are again victims.

Not only children, but parents of vulnerable and deceived children are victims as well. In early 2019, in Public Discourse, the journal of the Witherspoon Institute, five mothers anonymously published their concerns over their supposed "transgender" children. The first mother wrote:
I was shocked when my thirteen-year-old daughter told me she was really my transgender son[.] ... Where did she get the idea she was transgender? From a school presentation — at a school where over 5 percent of the student body called themselves trans or nonbinary, and where several students were already on hormones, and one had a mastectomy at the age of sixteen[.] ...
I took her to a gender clinician seeking expert guidance. Instead, he accepted her new identity and told me I must refer to my daughter with masculine pronouns, call her by a masculine name, and buy her a binder to flatten her breasts. He recommended no therapy, and there was no consideration of the social factors that obviously affected her thinking. I was directed to put her on puberty blocking drugs[.] ...
I have nowhere to go for proper help. Therapists are actively trained and socially pressured not to question these increasingly common identities. In Washington, DC, and many states with so-called conversion therapy bans, questioning a child's belief that she is of the opposite sex is against the law. ...
Parents like me must remain anonymous to maintain our children's privacy, and because we face legal repercussions if our names are revealed. Parents who do not support their child's gender identity risk being reported to Child Protective Services and losing custody of their children. In New Jersey, the Department of Education officially encourages schools to report such parents.
The other mothers detail similar horrors. They talk of children running away from home because their parents refused to use the "proper pronouns." One mother details how the state of Oregon allowed her daughter:
... at the age of seventeen, without my knowledge or consent — to change her name and legal gender in court, and to undergo a double mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy.
My once beautiful daughter is now nineteen years old, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, and planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a surgical procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis).
Make no mistake: as is the case with mass shooters, as deacon Jack Wilson recently reminded us, what we are dealing with here is not mere mental illness. This is evil — pure and simple evil right out of the pit of hell. We will not win this fight unless it is dealt with as such.

As was the case with same-sex "marriage," this is another opportunity for those who want to rule their own world to thumb their noses at the laws of the Lawgiver. The legalization of same-sex "marriage" was never really only about giving homosexuals the opportunity to "marry." It was also always about sticking it to Christians and Christianity. In other words, as was the case with same-sex "marriage," this is a war against the truth — especially when it comes to matters in the sexual realm.

As I've often noted, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity — older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than the Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If anything is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. No doubt, having the U.S. Supreme Court — along with certain lawmakers — pervert such a long-held truth emboldened those who hate the truth.

Thus, we shouldn't be surprised that the next step for the wicked LGBT agenda is full social and legal embrace of "transgenderism." After all, if a culture can be made to pervert something as foundational and long held as marriage, why not target elementary biology? After all, in Scripture, one of the few things that precedes marriage is the fact that "God made them male and female."

Thus, to stand against the idea that male and female are immutable, irreversible facts is to strike another blow against the idea that there's such a thing as absolute truth to which we are all beholden. Note how far the radical left has already gotten with its perverse "transgender" agenda. Some of America's largest medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have been duped into supporting the evil "transgender" agenda. Likewise, state and local lawmakers along with many school districts across the U.S. have decided that gender is "fluid" and anyone — including the parents of children — who says anything to the contrary must be brought in line.

Much of Hollywood is fully on board with this wickedness. Even dictionaries (that's right: more than one!) have bought into the lies of the "transgender" agenda. If not for the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, the U.S. military (led by then-president Barack Obama) would've continued its foolish embrace of "transgender" soldiers.

This "transgender" wickedness is another reason why Donald Trump was elected and why he continues to get support from those who love the truth. The sad, sorry fact is that the Democrat Party is fully on board with this evil. Virtually everywhere the "transgender" agenda has taken hold, Democrats rule. The onslaught will continue unless truth-loving Americans stop it. Otherwise, another moral domino will fall, and the left will move onto its next cause and target.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Russians Used the Media to Influence an Election for the Left - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Last year, Ján Sarkocy, a Cold War Czech spy working in the UK under cover as a diplomat, had come forward to accuse Corbyn of being a paid informant who had supplied information to the enemy.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Kremlin.

Before the UK election, Hillary Clinton took her book tour to the UK, where she joined the chorus of false claims accusing Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative party of being Russian stooges. Christopher Steele, the British operative hired by her campaign to smear Trump as a Russian asset, had already paved the way with yet another report accusing Johnson of being cultivated by the Russians.

The media began falsely claiming that the Tories were covering up this damning report.

“I find it inexplicable that your government will not release a government report about Russian influence. Inexplicable and shameful,” Hillary Clinton huffed to the BBC. "Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens.”

The BBC did not bother to inform its viewers that Hillary had been paying one of the report’s sources.

The Steele 2.0 report was obsessed with Russian influence on the Brexit referendum and the previous election. But then the Russians actually shaped Labour’s entire election strategy in this election.

And they used the media to do it.

With Jeremy Corbyn’s numbers tanking due to everything from his support for terrorists to his anti-Semitism and general unpleasantness, the leftist leader unveiled documents claiming to show evidence of a secret deal with the United States over Britain’s failing socialized medicine NHS.

“We have now got evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale. He tried to cover it up in a secret agenda and today it has been exposed," Corbyn whinged. “We are talking here about secret talks for a deal with Donald Trump after Brexit.”

Corbyn was blatantly lying about the documents and what was in them. The false claims about an NHS sellout became the central thrust of Labour’s political campaign in the 2019 election.

But what was more interesting was where those documents had come from.

The documents had first appeared on Reddit. In early December, Reddit announced that in coordination with law enforcement and experts, the accounts behind the leak were taken down as part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The sources of these claims, Graphika and the Atlantic Council, were the same as the ones that had been used by the media as credible sources on previous Russian campaigns.

And it wasn’t Johnson and the Tories the Russians were trying to help, but Corbyn and Labour.

A Twitter account using the same name as the Reddit account had even tagged Corbyn in a link to the materials from the Russian disinformation campaign.

When Labour refused to state how they received the documents, the media just shrugged.

The repeated refusals of Labour figures associated with Corbyn to explain the source of the documents was as good as an admission that they had not obtained them from legitimate sources.

Asked in an interview where the documents came from, Corbyn insisted that it didn’t matter and then claimed that the documents leaked by the Russians showed “why the prime minister has refused to release the report on Russian interference in British politics.”

The Russian interference in British politics wasn’t in the report, it was in his own house.

The Russian campaign calculatedly tried to stir up animosity between the US and the UK in order to sabotage Brexit, prevent a trade deal between the US and the UK, and help Corbyn perform well enough to retain his leadership role in Labour. Why the Russians might have wanted those things is obvious.

A dysfunctional EU serves Moscow’s purposes better than an independent UK able to set its own defense and foreign policies. Frustrated leavers would become radicalized, making them useful targets for provocateurs with ties to Moscow. And Corbyn’s Momentum was part of a British Left that had longstanding ties to the Soviet Union whose old KGB operatives were now running Russia. And were eager to tap into the old networks of fellow travelers that had been cultivated in the Communist days.

The Russians hadn’t been cultivating Johnson. They had been cultivating Corbyn for a long time.

Last year, Ján Sarkocy, a Cold War Czech spy working in the UK under cover as a diplomat, had come forward to accuse Corbyn of being a paid informant who had supplied information to the enemy.

“He was our asset, he had been recruited. He was getting money from us,” Sarkocy said.

Documents substantiated contacts between Corbyn and Sarkocy. Corbyn's codename allegedly had been COB and had allegedly tipped off the Communists to actions by British intelligence.

Worse still, Sarkocy claimed that Corbyn had been recruited "under Russian supervision."
"All the information we received, not only from him but also from another, supporting source, was regarded in Moscow as first-rate,” Sarkocy claimed.

Unlike Steele, Sarkocy had been in a position to actually know what he was talking about. But the media hurriedly rushed to clear Corbyn of the charges even as they went on insisting that the secret Steele influenced report would prove that Johnson was a Russian asset. While the charges against Johnson were farfetched, like Bernie Sanders, Corbyn’s sympathy for the Soviet Union was no secret.

Corbyn had appeared at the 40th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain to urge disarmament in the face of the Soviet Union. More recently, the alleged Marxist had claimed that “NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union.” And, keeping the special relationship alive, he blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on American expansionism.

His roster includes Andrew Murray, a former member of the Communist Party, and his chief strategist, Seumas Milne, had mourned the fall of the Berlin Wall, and defended its leaders against claims of atrocities, arguing that, “Communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment.”

And the Communists had announced that they wouldn’t run candidates, but try to help Labour win.

After Corbyn’s extensive ties to Communists, allegations by a former spy that he was a paid informant, the Russians tried to help Corbyn with a disinformation campaign and leaked documents, and the media insisted that the Russians couldn’t have been trying to help Corbyn. And that Corbyn knew nothing.

The same media outlets smearing Trump and Johnson as Russian assets based on nothing, who had falsely claimed that Trump’s victory and Brexit were the work of the Russians based on deliberate misrepresentations about Russian ad campaigns, refused to make the obvious connections between an alleged former Russian asset, his circle of former Communists, and a Russian campaign to help them.

The media wouldn’t know an actual Russian asset if it went out and voted for one.

After years of entertaining us with scary stories about Russian election interference, when it actually happened, the outlets that had cried wolf, actually helped the Russians, and then tried to cover it up.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Kremlin, the Russian election interference was helping the same old Marxists that the old KGB men running Moscow had built longstanding relationships with.

In the UK, Russian election interference had been meant to aid Momentum’s Labour Party takeover. Meanwhile in the US, after the collapse of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and his clique of socialists has a real shot at taking over the Democrat Party. Whom did the leaked emails help in the 2016 election? It wasn’t Trump. Voters didn’t care about internal Democrat dirty laundry in the national election.

But Bernie and his people used the fallout to gain influence in the DNC. He now polls at number two.

The internal Democrat conflict between Clintonites and Sandernistas, different factions of the Left, was used to frame Trump and Republicans when the real beneficiaries were Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, her squad and the rest of the Corbynized inner circle of Berniestan.

The Sanders and Corbyn campaign share the same stable of activists. If the Russians were helping Corbyn, it’s a good bet that they were helping the socialist who honeymooned in the USSR.

How much support could Sanders expect from Moscow if he becomes the nominee?

The media can spot Russian election interference from a mile away when it isn’t there. It won’t touch actual Russian election interference even when it’s up to its eyeballs in the real thing.

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

Hasidic man attacked in Brooklyn - Elad Benari

by Elad Benari

Two women reportedly yelled anti-Semtic epithets at Hasidic man in Williamsburg and then attacked him when he called 911.

Two women attacked a Hasidic man in Brooklyn on Wednesday afternoon, police said, according to WCBS 880 AM.

The 22-year-old man was attacked near Gerry Street and Broadway in Williamsburg around 1:00 p.m., the report said.

The women, ages 24 and 34, yelled anti-Semitic epithets at the man, and when he called 911, they attacked him with his own phone, according to police.

“They took him in, they threw him down to the ground and broke his phone and threw the phone to his head,” witness Moses Weiser told CBS2.

The women were arrested a short time later and are expected to be charged.

The attack is the latest in a series of anti-Semitic assaults in the city and is at least the 12th attack since December 23, according to CBS2.

Former Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has been following the anti-Semitic attacks closely, tweeted what he said was a photo of the two suspects.

The latest attacks follow the stabbing attack at a Hanukkah party in Monsey, New York on Saturday night.

That attack followed a string of anti-Semitic assaults in New York, including last Friday morning, when three young Jewish women were attacked in Brooklyn.

The victims, aged 22-31, were attacked with anti-Semitic shouts and violence while walking in Crown Heights.

While the suspect was arrested and charged with harassment and committing a hate crime, she was reportedly later freed without bail and committed another assault before being arrested and freed on bail again.

In the wake of the spate of attacks, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the city will beef up NYPD patrols of Jewish neighborhoods while introducing anti-bias-crime programs in public schools.

Elad Benari


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Iran-Backed Militants Attack U.S. Embassy in Iraq - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Trump puts the Islamic Republic on notice.

Hundreds of Iranian-backed militia fighters invaded the compound of the United States embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday after breaking down the compound gate. The militants reached within 200 meters of the main building, but did not enter the main embassy buildings themselves. They lit fires, caused other damage and chanted “Death to America!” inside the compound before withdrawing to join thousands of other militia fighters and protesters outside. American soldiers responded to the incursion with tear gas, stun grenades and warning shots, wounding around 62 of the militants. No Americans were injured in the attack. The U.S. ambassador was not in the embassy when the attack occurred. U.S. diplomats and staffers onsite were reportedly assembled together in a secured safe room.

Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leaders were out in full force. “Some commanders of militia factions loyal to Iran joined the protesters outside the embassy,” according to the Associated Press. “Among them was Qais al-Khizali, the head of one of the most powerful Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq who is on a U.S. terror list, and Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the state-sanctioned paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units, the umbrella group for the Iran-backed militias.”

President Trump vowed to hold Iran accountable for the embassy compound attack, as well as for the earlier rocket attack reportedly launched by a leading Iranian-backed Iraqi militia group, Kata’ib Hezbollah, that killed an American contractor. The president tweeted, “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”

The Pentagon deployed 100 additional marines in Chinook helicopters to reinforce protection of the embassy. “We have taken appropriate force protection actions to ensure the safety of American citizens, military personnel and diplomats in country, and to ensure our right of self-defense,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper in a statement.

The militants’ assault on the U.S. embassy compound is the latest in a series of escalating confrontations drawing Iraq further into the regional conflict between the United States and the Iranian regime. It follows the rocket attack conducted by Iranian proxies, to which the United States responded with an airstrike in Iraq and Syria that killed at least 24 Hezbollah-affiliated militants and wounded dozens of others.

U.S. officials are concerned that the Iraqi government is not doing enough to fulfill its obligation to protect embassy personnel because of undue influence exerted by Iran. Iraqi security forces were reportedly slow to counter the militants, who carried out their attack after attending a funeral for the militants killed as a result of the U.S. airstrikes. The Iraqi National Security Council focused squarely on blaming the United States for having conducted its airstrikes in “violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.” The statement added, “This is a serious violation of the rules of engagement of the Coalition forces, including the US forces, in carrying out operations without the approval of the Iraqi Government.”

According to a White House statement as reported by Reuters, President Trump spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi about “regional security issues” following the embassy compound attack. The president “emphasized the need to protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.” 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also had separate phone calls with Prime Minister Mahdi and President Barham Salih in an effort to set them straight that “the United States will protect and defend its people.” In addition, Secretary Pompeo communicated via social media that the U.S. had “responded defensively to the Iranian proxy attack that killed an American citizen.”

Secretary Pompeo takes the security of his diplomats and other American citizens seriously.Too bad that his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, did not. She turned a deaf ear to requests for more security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered by Islamic terrorists. 

A threatening statement was issued around midnight last Sunday by the Iranian-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah militia group, which was reportedly behind the rocket attack that killed the American contractor. The statement foreshadowed an act of revenge against the United States for the retaliatory U.S. airstrikes that killed militia members. “Our battle with America and its mercenaries is now open to all possibilities,” Kata’ib Hezbollah said in the statement. “We have no alternative today other than confrontation and there is nothing that will prevent us from responding to this crime.”

It is hardly likely that the invasion of the U.S. embassy compound by Iranian-backed militia, which followed within 48 hours of Kata’ib Hezbollah's threat, was a mere coincidence. Given Kata’ib Hezbollah’s background, U.S. forces must be prepared for more violent provocations.

Kata’ib Hezbollah gets its financing from Iran, principally from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Quds Force. According to the Counter Extremism Project, Kata’ib Hezbollah is “virulently anti-American and ideologically loyal to the Iranian regime” with “long-standing ties to Iran’s external military branch, the IRGC-Quds Force, as well as to Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.” According to a 2013 Rand Corporation research report, “Unlike other violent Iraqi Shi’a extremists, members of Kata’ib Hezbollah swear an oath of fealty to the Iranian Supreme Leader.”Designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Kata’ib Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Given its very close ties to Iran’s leadership and its dependency on the Iranian regime for financing, Kata’ib Hezbollah for all intents and purposes is an arm of Iran’s IRGC-Quds Force.

Thus, President Trump is correct in holding Iran directly responsible for any attacks conducted by Kata’ib Hezbollah or by any other Iranian-backed militia against Americans in Iraq or anywhere else. Retaliatory military force may be the only language the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies understand if maximum economic pressure does not work.

Joseph Klein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter