Friday, September 25, 2020

A huge miasma of corruption encircling Hunter and Joe Biden - Veronika Kyrylenko

by Veronika Kyrylenko

The Chinese and Ukrainian walls are closing in on Hunter and Joe Biden.

Do you remember how Joe Biden gracefully demonstrated a true presidential demeanor by blasting an Iowan voter who asked him about Hunter Biden's role on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian company?

According to Joe, a man was a "damn liar," "fat," and "too old to vote for me." Guess what. The man was right, and the question was legitimate, even though Joe Biden doesn't condescend to answer any of those. People, however, still ask, and it looks as though the questions are mounting with a neck-breaking speed that even a healthy and clear-witted politician would have a hard time handling.

On Sept. 23, Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report titled "Hunter Biden, Burisma and Corruption: the Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy and Related Concerns" that revealed millions of dollars in questionable financial transactions between Hunter Biden and his associates and foreign individuals, including the wife of the former mayor of Moscow and individuals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

The investigation was launched in August 2019 as the result of the so-called "Henniges transaction," when Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) raised concerns over the process by which the Obama administration's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approved the acquisition of a U.S. automotive technology company, Henniges, with reported military applications. Henniges was reportedly jointly acquired by Chinese government entities and an investment firm linked to family members of then–vice president Joe Biden and other Obama administration officials. Mr. Grassley wrote: "[O]ne of the companies involved in the Henniges transaction was a billion dollar private investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). BHR was formed in November of 2013 by a merger between the Chinese-government linked firm, Bohai Capital, and a company named Rosemont Seneca Partners. Rosemont Seneca was reportedly formed in 2009 by Hunter Biden, the son of then–Vice President Joe Biden, Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, and others."

As the investigation dug dipper, new and unexpected sums of cash, foreign entities, and transactions appeared in the Biden case. The Biden family and their associates got involved in shady relations with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals, which raises criminal concerns and extradition threats, as put in the report.

Here are some key findings:

First and foremost: The Obama administration was aware of, but did nothing about, the conflict of interest that was created when Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was appointed to the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian fossil fuel company. In early 2015, the former acting deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden's office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden's role on Burisma's board. His concerns went unanswered. Later that year, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden himself, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter's position on Burisma's board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine. In addition to that, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, admitted that she had been briefed about the fact that Hunter Biden was on Burisma's board, but ignored it in 2016.

Hunter Biden and his business partner Devon Archer joined Burisma after the British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma's owner — it was a known fact that Burisma is not a suitable company for the vice president's son to join — especially when the father is called a "public face of the administration's handling of Ukraine," where anti-corruption efforts were the number-one priority. Nonetheless, over the course of the several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.

Furthermore, in addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden's and Archer's board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds. The report names Archer as receiving $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, on the same day that Vice President Joe Biden appeared and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia's actions in Crimea. Hunter Biden also received a $3.5-million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. Hunter additionally opened a bank account with China's Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden. Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the communist government and the People's Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow. And last but not the least, it was found that Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an "Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring." This is the same Hunter Biden who had well-known compulsive relationships with prostitutes and strippers back home. Even though Jill Biden claims that she "knows her son's character," so he couldn't do "anything wrong," paying women for sex and being associated with prostitution rings is something that resonates with Hunter's character just perfectly. Sentiments aside, it is simply hard to argue with stone-cold evidence of money wires.

You certainly may try to imagine one of Trump's children being in Hunter's place. The hell of professional protestors would have stormed the White House by now demanding "justice," because "no one is above the law." The media reaction to the 87 pages of the detailed report of the Biden's sketchy schemes? Don't roll your eyes too hard, you don't want to injure yourself. Trump and Russia are to blame. 

The New York Times and The Washington Post scorned the report as an "inconclusive" partisan smear echoing of Russian propaganda. "Republican Inquiry Finds No ­Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden," was the Times' headline. "GOP's Hunter Biden report doesn't back up Trump's actual conspiracy theory — or anything close to it," said the Washington Post. "GOP senators' anti-Biden report repackages old claims" was another typical headline dismissing the ­report, this from Politico.

A story of a then-Vice President's son receiving millions of dollars from foreign entities associated closely with their governments and whose interests did not necessarily coincide with America's best interests gets frowned upon with such unseen hypocrisy and blind bias, that one may wonder that if democracy truly dies in darkness, then maybe it is an ultimate leftist plan for this country, after all. 

Mainstream media may deliberately shut their eyes on the facts of the unfolding case of the Biden family getting rich in exchange for American interests. They may even distort the gross and, as it seems, criminal wrongdoings, as in some wild junkie's dream, and present it as a legit business venture. They may put as much lipstick on a pig as they wish. But an demented, enormously corrupt man who reeks of treason cannot be a president of the United States. 

Please follow Veronika Kyrylenko, Ph.D on Twitter or LinkedIn.
Photo illustration by Monica Showalter with use of images by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0, Acaben, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0, PxFuel public domain, ABC News YouTube screen shot, and Voice of America // public domain

Veronika Kyrylenko


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

BLM, Antifa and the Communist Strategy to Destroy the United States - Joseph Hippolito

by Joseph Hippolito

Today’s woke violence - yesterday’s red tactics.

The unprecedented violence perpetrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter embodies two of the Left's biggest tactics in its quest to fundamentally transform the United States.

One is to force a race war by radicalizing African-Americans to a violent degree. The other involves making mayhem more intimidating by spreading police and firefighters as thinly as possible, thereby limiting their ability to respond quickly.

Manning Johnson, an African-American, spoke about the first tactic from personal experience. Describing himself as a "dedicated 'comrade' " and a "professional revolutionist," Johnson belonged to the Communist Party USA for 10 years. He served as a union organizer, director of agitation propaganda, and a member of the party's national committee. Johnson even ran as the party's candidate for a Congressional seat in New York.

But when the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany concluded their non-aggression pact in 1939 -- nine days before Germany invaded Poland and began World War II -- Johnson left the party. Following the war, Johnson testified about Communist activities to various legislative committees. In 1958, one year before his death, Johnson wrote about his experiences in Color, Communism and Common Sense.

Why did Johnson become a Communist at 21?

"Like other Negroes, I experienced and saw many injustices and inequities around me based upon color, not ability," he wrote. "I was told that 'the decadent capitalist system is responsible,' that 'mass pressure' could force concessions but 'that just prolongs the life of capitalism;' that I must unite and work with all those who more or less agree that capitalism must go. 

"To me, the end of capitalism would mark the beginning of an interminable period of plenty, peace, prosperity and universal comradeship. All racial and class differences and conflicts would end forever after the liquidation of the capitalists, their government and their supporters. A world union of Soviet States under the hegemony of Russia would free and lead mankind on to Utopia. 

"Being an idealist, I was sold this 'bill of goods' by a Negro graduate of the Lenin Institute in Moscow."

That graduate probably was Harry Haywood, who joined the Communist Party in 1925 and studied in Moscow soon afterwards. Johnson credited Haywood with playing a major role in convincing Stalin to incorporate blacks into the American Communist leadership during the Communist International's 1928 meeting in Moscow.

"Stirring up race and class conflict is the basis of all discussion of the Communist Party’s work," Johnson wrote. "The evil genius, Stalin, and the other megalomaniac leaders in Moscow ordered the use of all racial, economic and social differences, no matter how small or insignificant, to start local fires of discontent, conflict and revolt.

"Black rebellion was what Moscow wanted. Bloody racial conflict would split America. During the confusion, demoralization and panic would set in." 

Johnson's own training reflected that strategy. Once he joined the party, Johnson received "two years of practical training in organizing street demonstrations, inciting mob violence, how to fight the police and how to politically 'throw a brick and hide,'" he wrote. Johnson then attended a school where he studied "red political warfare," he wrote, in which he "learned to use secret codes, 'mail drops,' organize clandestine meetings, 'shake police shadows'" and grasped "the nature of communist sabotage and espionage."

Compare Johnson's descriptions with BLM's activities, beyond the obvious similarities of arson, looting, assault, harassment -- even murder.

"We actually have an ideological frame," co-founder Patrisse Cullors told a left-wing podcast. "Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on ideological theories."

Cullors studied under Eric Mann, a left-wing organizer who worked with the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground in the 1960s. "Alicia" is fellow co-founder Alicia Garza, who also created the Black Futures Lab, a BLM subsidiary that organizes African-Americans and develops policies. The Black Futures Lab, states its website, "is a fiscally sponsored project of the Chinese Progressive Association."

The CPA dedicates itself to promoting the interests of China's government and Communist Party in the United States, which include Marxist revolution.

As an organization led by "trained Marxists," BLM also opposes capitalism, the nuclear family and religion, especially Christianity. BLM agitators burned Bibles in Portland, Ore. and chanted "(Fornicate) your Jesus!" at a black street preacher in Charlotte, N.C.

Regarding the family, BLM stated its position before deleting it from its website:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

That position not only restates Karl Marx's demand to end the nuclear family. It alludes to the alternatives Leon Trotsky advocated.

"Abolition of the family!" Marx wrote. "On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie."

Trotsky proposed "a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, crèches, kindergartens, schools, social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc." that would bind "all generations in solidarity and mutual aid," he wrote.

Even the quest to defund the police embraces Marxist ideology. These words Mann wrote in 1999 express attitudes that are all-too-familiar to today's Americans:
The Black Panthers in particular argued that the prisons and police were colonial instruments, and thus bourgeois concepts of 'crime' or 'innocence and guilt' could not be used to justify the military occupation of an oppressed community. The demands to free all political prisoners including all black men and women were based on the assumption that the greatest danger to the black community was not black-on-black crime, but police-on-black crime. Armed self-defense groups, community patrols to monitor police behavior and the demands for the most stringent police review boards were efforts to structurally reduce police brutality by placing the police under black civilian authority.
The protesters in this video epitomize Mann's thinking. Their leader asks, "Who do we protect?" They respond, "Black criminals."

Garza succinctly summarized BLM's objectives and ideology at a left-wing conference in 2015:

"It's not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it's under capitalism, and it's not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression."

BLM and Antifa would have found a kindred spirit in Robert Williams, a black activist in the mid-20th century. In the final third of his career, Williams embraced radical Marxism and history's worst political mass murderer, Mao Zedong. Williams' newspaper, The Crusader, advocated "an urban guerrilla war of self-defense" to foment revolution, he wrote in 1964.

Such a war, Williams wrote, would involve violent sabotage on a large-scale. Guerillas would derail trains and fire Molotov cocktails, acid bombs, hand grenades, machine guns, bazookas and rocket launchers from rooftops to kill law enforcement and make streets impassable. Kitchen matches placed in air-conditioning ducts would cause explosions that destroy buildings.

But perhaps Williams' favorite technique was arson.

"The most aggressive and irrepressible arm of the overall organization would be the fire teams," he wrote in 1965. "The mission of these thousands of active fire teams would be setting strategic fires. They could render America's cities and countryside impotent. The fire teams roving in automobiles would find unguarded rural objectives even more accessible. A few teams could start miles and miles of fires from one city to the other."

Such arson would have two goals. One would be to overwhelm first responders and the military.

"State forces would be forced to spread their ranks and would not be able to sustain massive troop concentrations in a single community," Williams wrote. "The heat and smoke generated from the fires would render some of the highways impassable to repressive troop reinforcements. The rural countryside covers vast areas and would require exhaustive man power, equipment and security forces."

The second goal would be to create mass terror.

"The psychological impact would be tremendous," Williams wrote. "By day the billowing smoke would be seen for miles. By night the entire sky would reflect reddish flames that would elicit panic and a feeling of impending doom."

Given Antifa's popularity in Oregon's largest city, some members might be implementing Williams' plan. Despite denials from law enforcement in Portland, numerous Oregonians recorded videos of arsonists caught in the act. One man arrested for arson in Washington even attended anti-police rallies.

Perhaps more incriminating is Antifa's message to its members: "Be water. Spread fire." A sheriff's deputy from Oregon's Clackamas County even connected Antifa to the state's wildfires. Those comments got him placed on leave.

Johnson's epitaph as a "professional revolutionist" resounds with even greater force today:
I saw Communism in all its naked cruelty, ruthlessness and utter contempt of Christian attributes and passions. And, too, I saw the low value placed upon human life, the total lack of respect for the dignity of man, the betrayal of trust, the terror of the Secret Police and the bloody hand of the assassin...

Joseph Hippolito


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Palestinians Have Been Lying For Years. Can They Still Get Away With It? - Prof. Hillel Frisch

by Prof. Hillel Frisch

The UAE and Bahrain are no longer swallowing Palestinian lies, and other Arab states might join them.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,757, September 24, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Palestinians have been lying in all directions for far too long. A gullible liberal public might buy into their lies for a while, but not forever. The UAE and Bahrain are no longer swallowing Palestinian lies, and other Arab states might join them.

The Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels unfortunately proved to the world that it is possible to lie in several contradictory directions at once: for example, you can claim that Jews are both innately capitalist and innately communist, two conflicting vilifications that facilitated the Holocaust. Of course, some Jews were capitalists and some were communists, but this was also true of almost everyone else.

One would like to believe that educated and decent citizens of the world would reject the authenticity of lies that contradict one another.

But do they? The claims made by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and the many media sites they support and spawn, mostly with the help of the EU (which should know better), put these decent citizens to the test.

Officials in the Palestinian Authority and members of the BDS movement frequently accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing. At the same time, in Arabic, they boast of the power of the Palestinian womb to overcome Israel in the long term. The second statement irrefutably contradicts the first.

In reality, neither is correct. The Palestinians have a high population growth rate that exposes the lie of the claim of ethnic cleansing, but their fertility—as is true elsewhere in the Arab world—is rapidly falling, especially in the West Bank.

Depopulation (rather than ethnic cleansing) is taking place in the Balkans, including Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo, thanks in part to the EU’s policy of encouraging the young to emigrate to Germany and the Scandinavian countries. There, they are eagerly absorbed by the local labor markets, leaving much of the Balkans and eastern Europe geriatric disaster areas.

The Palestinians’ pattern of lying in opposite directions is illustrated by the invocation of the most ubiquitous term used to describe Israel’s relationship to its historic homeland: “occupation.” The mere mention of the Gaza Strip will almost immediately prompt a reference to Israel’s “occupation,” despite the incontrovertible fact that Israel relinquished control of the Strip’s Palestinian population in Gaza and withdrew from it down to the last Jewish man, woman, and child in 2005.

Yet even as Israel is mysteriously continuing its virtual “occupation” of Gaza, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and their respective military wings have an annual celebration at this time of year to commemorate the liberation of Gaza from Israel, which they classify as a first step toward the complete “liberation” of Palestine “from the river to the sea”—that is, the destruction of Israel. Gaza is thus simultaneously occupied and liberated, a remarkable feat.

The PA and Hamas take pride in the innate tolerance of Islam, Islamic society, and the many and varied Islamic entities of the past. As they vilify Israel for its supposed treatment of Muslims regarding the Temple Mount, they stress that hundreds of thousands of Muslim worshippers have come to protect the site in past years—a fact documented by Palestinian-supported media sites. But if Israel is so intolerant and harsh toward Muslim worship, how are these hundreds of thousands managing to assemble in the area?

And as they vilify Israel for religious intolerance, the PA, Hamas, and most of the other factions cannot stand the sight of religious Jews visiting the Temple Mount or praying and sharing the space with Muslim worshippers. At the graves of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the Palestinians often describe visits by Jews to the site as “pollution” (tadnis) by “herds of settlers.”

Israel is accused of laying siege to Gaza to destroy its economic and demographic foundations. At the same time, Hamas threatens Israel with rockets if it does not extend more power lines to the Strip to meet its growing energy demands. If Israel is attempting to impoverish Gaza, how is it that there is so much demand for energy? And if Hamas has liberated Gaza from the Israeli yoke, why does it want to increase its dependence on a state (to control coronavirus, to get hospital treatment for family members of Hamas officials, and so on) whose destruction it seeks to the point of threatening terrorism if it refuses such dependence?

The Palestinians have long gotten away with spreading contradictory lies among a public that should know better: liberals and progressives. But they are not the only people listening, and there are signs in other quarters that patience is starting to wear thin.

The Abraham Accords Peace Agreement signed between the UAE and Israel and the Declaration of Peace signed between Israel and Bahrain on the White House veranda have mostly to do with the typical geostrategic factors that dictate the strategic behavior of states—a common threat (Iran), a common powerful ally (the US), the promise of economic and technological benefits from making peace—but one cannot underestimate the importance of the Arab states’ growing distaste for a Palestinian movement that has lied for far too long.

The PA came into being in 1994 as a result of a negotiation process between the PLO and Israel (the “Oslo process”). So how can it deny the right of Arab states to negotiate with the same State of Israel? Hamas wants the Arab states to be in a state of perpetual war with Israel, while at the same time it periodically negotiates with Israel to fill its coffers and bring benefits to placate a growing and hostile Gaza population.

The Palestinians should learn from the master of this technique. Goebbels’ evil, triumphant as it seemed in the 1930s and early 1940s, was nevertheless short-lived. Somehow, truth prevails in the end.

Prof. Hillel Frisch is a professor of political studies and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lefties at The Nation discover that (non-FBI) feds have been tracing the puppet masters behind Antifa and BLM - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

"It's not a group or an organization. It's a movement or an ideology,"

Is an unexpected October Surprise on the way?

They think it's a bad thing, but I give The Nation credit for reportorial digging. The hard-left magazine has discovered that federal law enforcement agencies (though not the FBI) have been tracing whom the mobs in Portland have been communicating with. The apparent lead role in utilizing hi tech and classified electronic means is being played by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), while the U.S. Marshals Service is dispatching street-level personnel. This bypasses the FBI, whose director, Christopher Wray, is on the record in sworn testimony, dismissing any such superstructure:
"It's not a group or an organization. It's a movement or an ideology," he said, explaining that "folks who subscribe or identify" with antifa do not operate at a national level, but instead organize "regionally into small groups or nodes."
The Nation reports:
A current DHS official described a colleague with expertise in electronic surveillance who was being deployed to Portland. But for what purpose? "Extracting information from protester's phones," the DHS official said. While in Portland, an interagency task force involving DHS and the Justice Department used a sophisticated cell phone cloning attack — the details of which remain classified — to intercept protesters' phone communications, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.
Cell phone cloning involves stealing a phone's unique identifiers and copying them to another device in order to intercept the communications received by the original device. The former intelligence officials described it as part of a "Low Level Voice Intercept" operation, declining to go into further detail — one of them citing the sensitive nature of the surveillance tool and the other an ongoing leak investigation within I&A.
"You're getting an inside view into your targets, who they are, who they're talking to — the hierarchy," the former intelligence officer said, explaining that many within the DHS believe that antifa is an organized group — as opposed to the largely spontaneous, decentralized ideological tendency that most experts, including Trump's own FBI director, believe it is. DHS intelligence has even found some limited evidence, which he considered thin, of foreign sponsorship. Attorney General William Barr, however, recently claimed that antifa is receiving foreign sponsorship — a necessary criterion to formally designating it a terror organization, which President Trump vowed to do in July. (The Nation recently reported on DHS intelligence's attempts to tie antifa to Kurdish militant groups in Syria.)
"Signals intelligence collection would not be useful for preventing opportunistic looting or violent confrontations. It presumes the existence of coordinated, purposeful, and unlawful activity that is conducted through electronic means," said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "The general concern is that DHS treated mass public protests — not just violent individuals — as suspicious and targets of investigation, or worse." (snip)
In addition to signals intelligence collection, the Portland operation involved clandestine aspects, according to the former intelligence officer. This appears consistent with a tip received this summer. Several members of the US Marshals Service (USMS) — part of the Justice Department — sent to Portland claimed to be affiliated with a private firm called "Strategic Oil," according to travel records obtained by The Nation. While they did not identify themselves as law enforcement, the travel records contain information indicating that they were marshals, including that they were given a special discount for federal government employees. Clandestine methods tend to be used only for the most sensitive operations, more commonly overseas than domestically. (The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
News Thud, from which I learned of The Nation's reporting, suspects that an October Surprise is on the way.
So the DHS and the FBI have been listening to Antifa and they know who in the media and in politics they have been talking to. You can tell by reading the report from The Nation, the left is getting real nervous about this because it is the number one report on their website as of the writing of this post.

Last May, Posobiec (of OAN) warned that media ties to Antifa would be exposed:

I have been saying for years that President Trump understands better than anyone else that in this age, politics is a reality TV show for most people and that a three-act structure has the greatest impact. Well, we are in Act Three, folks, when questions and conflicts raised in Acts One and Two are answered and dramatic conflicts start to be resolved.

To put it differently, Rush Limbaugh correctly predicted some weeks ago that the real issues that would affect the election were not yet on the table. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the media obsession with her successor may be considered the first of such issues and the beginning of Act Three. The activities of John Durham and the other federal prosecutors may also figure in the act. But if the activities of the DHS and U.S. Marshals Service lead to indictments or at least the exposure of the ties behind the rioters, that could provide even more factual basis for voters to reconsider assumptions that the media have foisted on the public.

Correction: FBI director's name corrected to Christopher

Hat tip: J.J. Sefton.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A ‘Safe Space’ for Terrorists at San Francisco State - Richard L. Cravatts

by Richard L. Cravatts

Toxicity under the cover of free speech.

If any area of the United States can be identified as the epicenter of anti-Israelism on campus, California, the nation’s most populous state, can certainly be said to have earned that dubious distinction. In fact, observers of out of control anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic activity on campuses consider California’s universities to be the veritable ground zero of such vitriol, with particularly troubling and persistent problems of radical student groups, venom-spewing guest speakers, annual hate-fests targeting Israel and Jewish students, entire academic units in the thrall of Israel hatred and anti-Zionism, and a pervasive mood on campuses in which Jewish students and other pro-Israel faculty and students regularly experience visceral and real “harassment, intimidation and discrimination,” as a 2004 Zionist Organization of America’s complaint to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights described the situation on one California campus.

A particularly execrable record for radical anti-Israel, anti-Semitic campus activism is to be found at San Francisco State University, and specifically in the pseudo-academic machinations of Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, director of the school’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies (AMED) program. Abdulhadi, who, among other slurs, referred to Zionists as white nationalists during a 2019 UCLA lecture, is embroiled in controversy once again for the upcoming virtual speaking appearance, to be held on September 23rd, by Leila Khaled, a terrorist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, whose resume includes her role in the 1969 hijacking of an Israel-bound plane and her arrest the following year during a failed hijacking of an El Al flight.

Promotional materials for the roundtable discussion with Khaled, entitled “Whose Narrative? Gender, Justice, & Resistance,” (and which included a photograph of Khaled proudly brandishing an AK-47, with which she no doubt intended to murder Jews), glowingly describe her as a “Palestinian feminist, militant, and leader,” someone who Abdulhadi has described as a “Palestinian feminist icon,” an “icon in liberations movements and . . . an icon for women’s liberation.”

Khaled and Abdulhadi have previously collaborated in this toxic academic activism. In 2014, Abdulhadi was criticized for using $7,000 of SFSU’s taxpayer funds to travel to the Middle East to conduct what she described as “research,”  but was actually a “political solidarity tour,”  to meet with Khaled and representatives of designated Islamist terror organizations. On that activism tour, Abdulhadi also set up a collaboration between SFSU and Al-Najah National University in the West Bank. That academic marriage might justifiably seem perverse to some critics: the 11,000-student Al-Najah is the largest university in the territories, noted Matthew Levitt,  director of the Washington Institute's Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence, and Policy, and “the terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and radicalization of students for which Al-Najah is known typically take place via various student groups,” among them the Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc.

More recently, when in 2018 outgoing SFSU President Leslie Wong apologized to Jewish students and faculty for his chronically disappointing record in addressing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic activism on his campus, he publicly proclaimed that, contrary to his past statements, Zionists were, in fact, welcome on the SFSU campus. That small step at “normalizing” Zionism was just too much for Abdulhadi, however, who harbors the poisonous view—shared by other Israel-haters and anti-Semites—that Zionism is a racist, political ideology; in fact, she audaciously “rejects the equation of Zionism with Judaism.” Wong’s apology, to her, was a capitulation to an ideology she wanted purged from campus. “I consider the statement . . . from President Wong, welcoming Zionists to campus, equating Jewishness with Zionism . . . to be a declaration of war against Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and all those who are committed to an indivisible sense of justice on and off campus.” [Emphasis added.]

And just in case anyone would possibly draw the wrong conclusion from her hateful rhetoric, Abdulhadi clarified that, “I am anti-Zionist. I’m not anti-Jew. So don’t call me anti-Semitic.”

Not surprisingly, given Abdulhadi’s track record, criticism of the upcoming Khaled event forced SFSU’s president, Lynn Mahoney, to publish an op-ed in which—while she distanced herself from terrorism and disavowed any implied support for the toxic ideology behind the event—she defended AMED’s right to sponsor such speakers based on academic freedom and the purported desire to “hear divergent ideas, viewpoints and accounts of life experiences.”

In response, 86 groups issued an open letter, organized by the AMCHA Initiative, which questioned whether the Khaled event was an example of the presentation of diverse viewpoints at all, as opposed to one-sided, highly incendiary ideology with the specific and habitual purpose of libeling Zionism, Israel, and Jews. “What if an invitation to speak to a class — in fact an entire event — is an endorsement of a point of view and a political cause?” the letter read. “And what if the intention of the faculty member who extended such an invitation and organized such an event was not to encourage students ‘to think critically and come to independent, personal conclusions about events of local and global importance,’ but rather to promote the faculty member’s own narrow political view and to weaponize students to be foot soldiers in the faculty member’s own political cause?”—exactly what Abdulhadi has been doing in her role as AMED’s director.

University officials regularly use the cover of academic freedom to insulate them from criticism for allowing repellent guest speakers and events to take place on campus, just as President Mahoney has done here with the Khaled lecture. The belief that “divergent ideas, viewpoints and accounts of life experiences” are valuable in academia’s marketplace of ideas is, of course, a good one, something central to the mission and purpose of a university. The problem is that academic freedom is permitted selectively, depending on who is speaking and who the target of their activism is.

Militant, violent liberation to promote Palestinian self-determination and to simultaneously degrade Zionism and extirpate Israel may be an invigorating ideological mission for Abdulhadi, Khaled, and their fellow travelers, but their planned hate-fest, though disguised as an academic event, has as its purpose only to attack Zionism and Israel and the Jewish students who support them, and to further the belief that Israel’s existence is so repugnant and immoral that the appearance at a school event by a terrorist who wanted to kill Jews is morally acceptable.

Imagine for a moment that, in an alternate moral universe, an SFSU professor chaired a department of white studies, and he planned an event at which well-known racist speakers would rail against the threat of non-whites to a white culture and values, the harm that non-whites do to society through criminality, high birthrates, and questionable morality, the overall superiority of the white race to other, “lower” forms of human existence, and the moral feasibility of using violence, if necessary, against black people as a corrective measure to racial strife.

Would SFSU’s president similarly tolerate this event because it would offer “divergent ideas, viewpoints and accounts of life experiences?” Would any black SFSU students care whether or not the event offered an airing of alternate viewpoints and supposedly encouraged rigorous debate and dialogue? Would they say that the speakers had a right to express these noxious views safely under the umbrella of academic free speech, and that such an event, and the ongoing teaching and programs by this department, would not create a hostile campus climate for minority students being targeted by this virulent ideology?

The answers to those questions are obvious, but not, apparently, when the topic is Israel and Zionism and the targeted group is Jewish students.

And that is central problem with pseudo-academic events parading as scholarship and actual intellectual debate. “Abdulhadi’s continuous and intentional use of her SFSU position and the name and resources of the University to indoctrinate students with her own personal animus towards the Jewish state and its supporters and to promote anti-Israel activism,” the AMCHA letter points out, “does not constitute a legitimate use of academic freedom, but an abuse of it.”

That such morally and intellectually flawed individuals are able to spew forth their toxic ideology with impunity, and under the cover of academic free speech, should frighten us all.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'Nevermind.' The New York Times goes Emily Litella on its garbage '1619' project - Monica Showalter

by Monica Showalter

Gaslighting us into thinking they never claimed that America's primary founding principle was slavery, Actually, that was exactly what they tried to shove down our throats and they've gotten caught.

With its case for America being founded entirely on the idea of perpetrating slavery meeting pushback and as factual history falling apart, the New York Times is now very, very quietly trying weasel out of the worst claims of its "1619" project, hoping no one is going to notice.

According to the Washington Examiner's Becket Adams:
New York Times Magazine editors have quietly removed controversial language from the online version of Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, a package of essays that argue chattel slavery defines America’s founding. Hannah-Jones herself also asserts now that the project’s core thesis is not what she and everyone else involved originally said it was.
It “does not argue that 1619 is our true founding," she said on Friday. She declared elsewhere in July that it “doesn’t argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding.”
This is a brazen lie. When the 1619 Project debuted both online and in print in August 2019, the online version’s text stated originally [emphasis added]:
The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.
That same online passage, which was the source of so much controversy among historians on both sides of the aisle, now reads:
The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.
That wasn't the only change, Adams notes. The '1619' driving author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who won a Walter Duranty-style Pulitzer Prize for her efforts, argued that America was founded entirely on the idea of perpetrating slavery on her Twitter page, and even had '1776' crossed out on her Twitter banner with '1619' replacing it. She got rid of that mendacious little propaganda, too.

Legal Insurrection notes that the far-leftists at World Socialist Web Site have noticed and are plenty upset. Here's what they concluded, writing what they write as if it's a bad thing:
These deletions are not mere wording changes. The “true founding” claim was the core element of the Project’s assertion that all of American history is rooted in and defined by white racial hatred of blacks. According to this narrative, trumpeted by Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, the American Revolution was a preemptive racial counterrevolution waged by white people in North America to defend slavery against British plans to abolish it.
Which is pretty sneaky indeed. Already historians have discredited '1619' as garbage. Yet '1619' has drawn slavering from the Pulitzer committee and numerous other awards, and is now being formed as a packet to be taught in schools, teaching America's little kids that America is a disgusting place and its founding a fraud.

President Trump pushed back on this juggernaut, and since then, toppled the whole house of cards, driving even the Times to want to pretend it never happened. They made no notations of changes in their content on this garbage, they just wanted to gaslight us that none of their earlier claims had ever happened.

Which is why they ought to be held accountable.

Here's the stellar summary as to why from Instapundit's Sarah Hoyt:

She's right - there should be a cost for shoving those kinds of lies at America's little kids, making them hate their own country. As Eric Hoffer once noted "Is there any greater freedom than to be wrong?' Next time these clowns claim to be oppressed, this garbage needs to be thrown at them. And the entire project needs to be pulped. One hopes that the Times with its backtracking eventually gets the intestinal fortitude to do it, but no one should hold their breath. They'd just as soon lie to you about their lies at this point.

Or go Emily Littela, and say 'never mind.'

Pushback's a beach. President Trump deserves America's thanks for calling out a very big ugly emperor parading around as naked.

Image credit: Twitter screen shot, meme

Monica Showalter


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

In Florida's Election: It May be Legal, but is It Right? - Chris Farrell

by Chris Farrell

It appears to -- be a cynical, orchestrated, vote buying and manipulation process.

  • Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency.
  • One is left to wonder about what appears to be a slick, well-financed, lawyered-up, manipulation of the electoral process. It appears to have less to do with a legitimate, grassroots campaign to rehabilitate persons who have paid their legal dues for past misconduct than it does as a cynical, orchestrated, vote buying and manipulation process.

Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, has "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote. Pictured: The Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building, home of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Image source: Warren LeMay/Wikimedia Commons)

Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who raised more than $16 million for this purpose, has, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote.

Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency.

The organization Bloomberg is working with in this reinstatement effort is the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC). The FRRC has received an unspecified amount of funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF). There isn't a specific grant listed in the OSF's 2018 Internal Revenue Service filing, but it identified FRRC as a grantee in an April 2019 Facebook post.

FRRC's partners include the Alliance for Safety and Justice, which is a project of Tides Foundation -- a public charity and financial supporter working to advance "progressive" causes and policy initiatives -- and received $1.2 million from the Open Society Foundations between 2016 and 2018. At present, there is no publicly available documentary connection with George Soros' Safety and Justice PAC, a Florida affiliate.

It is informative to examine the other organizations involved in supporting the objectives of Bloomberg and his colleagues at the FRRC. Other FRRC partners include:
The president of the FRCC, Desmond Meade, is also the chair of the Floridians for a Fair Democracy PAC, which has received significant financial support from the Brennan Center, the ACLU, New Ventures Fund, the Advocacy Fund, the Tides Foundation, Organize Florida and other Soros-funded entities, as well as numerous liberal mega-donors. It has also received funding from the FRRC and the Alliance for Safety and Justice. (Florida's campaign finance database is not particularly user-friendly, but the full list of contributors is there.).

Perhaps this is just one example of "democracy in action?" Perhaps it is not? One is left to wonder about what appears to be a slick, well-financed, lawyered-up, manipulation of the electoral process. It appears to have less to do with a legitimate, grassroots campaign to rehabilitate persons who have paid their legal dues for past misconduct than it does as a cynical, orchestrated, vote buying and manipulation process. Nothing illegal, of course! Just the opposite -- perhaps hyper-legal -- in a way that manipulates the law and the process in ways the Left is most comfortable with when winning is all that counts.

Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump Rebukes China During His UN Speech - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

A communist tyranny's calls for supporting multilateralism ring hollow.

The United Nations’ annual General Assembly high level debate week is usually a very big deal on the diplomatic calendar. World leaders have traditionally assembled in New York with their entourages, delivered their perspectives on the state of the world in long-winded speeches, and conducted numerous conferences and bilateral side meetings on a variety of global issues. Of course, the world leaders were also busy attending a multitude of fancy receptions. This year, however, is very different due to the coronavirus pandemic. The UN headquarters building is eerily quiet. There are no foreign dignitaries to be seen. Speeches by heads of state and heads of government are being delivered via prerecorded videos. Although President Trump could have delivered his speech in person, he opted not to make the trip to New York and speak in front of a few UN ambassadors in a virtually empty General Assembly chamber. But President Trump nevertheless delivered via video his usual tour de force.

President Trump wasted no time holding China responsible for the global spread of the coronavirus. “We have waged a fierce battle against the invisible enemy — the China virus — which has claimed countless lives in 188 countries,” President Trump said. The United Nations “must hold China accountable.” He noted how China had criticized his restrictions on travel from China even though China had “locked down travel domestically while allowing flights to leave China and infect the world.” The president then recounted his administration’s unprecedented mobilization of resources to defeat the virus, including the progress being made to develop potential vaccines. "We will distribute a vaccine, we will defeat the virus, we will end the pandemic, and we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation and peace," he declared.

President Trump also took China to task for its record on the environment and its hypocrisy regarding its participation in the “one-sided” Paris Agreement on climate change from which the United States has withdrawn. China, he said, has dumped millions and millions of tons of plastic and trash into the ocean. It “emits more toxic mercury into the atmosphere than any country anywhere in the world.” President Trump added that “China’s carbon emissions are nearly twice what the U.S. has, and it’s rising fast.”

The U.S. president challenged the UN to remain relevant in dealing with the many problems besetting the world today. “If the United Nations is to be an effective organization, it must focus on the real problems of the world,” he said. “This includes terrorism, the oppression of women, forced labor, drug trafficking, human and sex trafficking, religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.”

President Trump extolled America’s economic and international security leadership in pursuing peace with strength. He also pointed to the historic agreements his administration brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain, as well as the one between Kosovo and Serbia. Inexplicably, the UN’s Secretary General Antonio Guterres made no mention of these agreements in the remarks he delivered in person before President Trump’s speech.

“By taking a different approach, we have achieved different outcomes — far superior outcomes,” President Trump said. He predicted “more peace agreements shortly.”

As President Trump has done in the past, he explained that putting one’s own country first is not incompatible with multilateral cooperation. In fact, they reinforce each other. He said that “only when you take care of your own citizens will you find a true basis for cooperation.” He concluded his speech asking for God’s blessing for America and the United Nations.

China did not take long to release a rebuttal press statement accusing the United States of “spreading political virus.” China's press statement is a shameless exercise in blame-shifting and deception.

The press statement charged that the United States was “abusing the platform of the United Nations to provoke confrontation and create division,” adding that “the United States is weakening the UN, the WHO and other UN bodies, and undermining the authority and effectiveness of the UN.” The press release then tried to defend China’s indefensible record on dealing with the coronavirus. It made the false claim that “China, with an open, transparent, and responsible attitude, has been giving updates and sharing experience with the WHO and other countries from the very beginning and providing active assistance to many countries, including the United States.”

China’s President H.E. Xi Jinping’s General Assembly speech, which followed shortly after President Trump’s remarks, was also prerecorded. While President Xi did not himself have the opportunity to reply in real time to President Trump’s extensive criticisms of China’s behavior, he obviously anticipated what President Trump would have to say about the coronavirus. Taking a not too subtle dig at President Trump’s frequent labeling of the coronavirus as the “China virus” and the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, President Xi declared: “We should follow the guidance of science, give full play to the leading role of the World Health Organization, and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic. Any attempt of politicizing the issue or stigmatization must be rejected.”

President Xi tried to portray China as the leader of multilateralism in dealing with the virus, ignoring the indisputable evidence of the Chinese regime’s refusal to make full disclosure of what it knew early on about the highly contagious nature of the virus’s human-to-human transmission. “China is actively involved in the international fight against COVID-19, contributing its share to upholding global public health security,” President Xi said with a straight face.

“COVID-19 reminds us that we are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake,” President Xi added. “No country can gain from others’ difficulties or maintain stability by taking advantage of others’ troubles.”

Then why did the Communist China regime hide the truth about the coronavirus from the world when the virus could have been contained, hoard critical medical supplies imported from countries abroad to meet its own immediate needs, and then sell the supplies back to those countries at inflated prices after they became Covid-19 infected?  President Xi’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

President Xi urged the world to “uphold the multilateral trading regime with the World Trade Organization as the cornerstone.” Only so long as his regime can continue bilking the world on its way to prosperity by manipulating the global trading system will President Xi support the World Trade Organization and, in his words, “stay true to multilateralism and safeguard the international system with the UN at its core.”

Finally, the United States has a president courageous enough to see through the empty rhetoric of such phony multilateralism and tell China and the rest of the world the truths they do not want to hear.

Joseph Klein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter