Friday, October 2, 2020

Black Lives Matter Leaders Support Violent Riots, Biden Won’t Condemn Them - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield


If Biden won’t condemn Black Lives Matter, he supports its riots.




After the recent toll of mostly peaceful Black Lives Matter rioting wrecked cities and tilted the polls toward Trump, Joe Biden and even Kamala Harris began condemning “violence”.

Biden has said meaningless things like "we condemn the violence", and "I condemn this violence unequivocally" as if violence were an independent entity. Condemning violence, like condemning war, is either pacifism or evasion. Since Biden isn’t a pacifist, he’s evading.

Violence is a concept. You don’t condemn a concept: you condemn its perpetrators.

The Democrats embraced Black Lives Matter, they even fundraised on behalf of the rioters and looters. Senator Kamala Harris tweeted out a link to the Minnesota Freedom Fund which bailed out rioters and looters, and Jaleel Stallings, who was accused of shooting at police officers.

According to police officers, Stallings had crouched near a car during the riots and opened fire on them. He faced two counts of attempted second-degree murder and the bail fund backed by Kamala Harris and several Biden staffers still bailed out the alleged wannabe cop-killer.

Once Biden goes into details, then his condemnation of “violence” actually turns out to be a condemnation of cops and conservatives. Or, as he put it, “I have condemned all forms of violence – police violence, lawless violence and violence perpetrated by extreme, right-wing militia groups.” When he condemns “violence”, he really means he’s condemning the police.

The closest that Biden comes to condemning the violence by Black Lives Matter, a racist domestic terrorist group which has devastated entire cities, is condemning the “lawless”. And he does it so vaguely as not to offend BLM and its supporters while giving the shopkeepers whose lifetime of work, his supporters burned to the ground, the false impression he stands with them.

Biden’s toothless condemnations of “violence” are a meaningless cowardly evasion of moral responsibility. He’ll even occasionally condemn “looting or destroying property or burning churches” without naming who’s going around looting, destroying, and burning churches.

Burning churches is a bad thing. But not so bad that Biden will name the church burners. And when Biden fails to condemn Black Lives Matter, he supports its violent riots.

Even while the media falsely claims that the riots are peaceful, the hate group’s co-founders, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, have not been asked to condemn it. On the rare occasions when they’ve been asked about it, they’re deflected or dismissed the violence.

Ask BLM’s co-founders about the hate group’s violent riots and they’ll typically reframe the question by dismissing it as a mere issue of property and claim that they value life more. That’s despite the fact that hundreds of first responders and civilians have been wounded in the riots.

Speaking at a Penn State virtual event, Cullors described rioters as "expressing righteous rage" and suggested that society needs to avoid situations where "people feel like they have to be so desperate that they disrupt people’s businesses.” Not only didn’t the Black Lives Matter co-founder condemn her movement’s violence, she justified it, while denouncing capitalism.

Cullors, who has in the past been paid $10,000 to appear at virtual college events, is represented by CAA, the top talent agency in the country which was accused of complicity in Harvey Weinstein’s abuses, and whose clients include Tom Cruise and Robert De Niro.

She’s also the author of “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir”, with an introduction by Angela Davis, a domestic terrorist who endorsed Biden, and an opening quote from Assata Shakur, a black nationalist cop-killer listed by the FBI as a most wanted terrorist.

That quote from the fugitive cop killer, "It is our duty to fight for our freedom" has become a BLM chant  It appears in Shakur’s biography just after she indirectly mentions the shootout that killed Trooper Werner Foerster and hails the “guerrillas” of her Black Liberation Army terrorist group.

The phrase just before the chant is, “We must gain our liberation by any means necessary”.

After the chant is a dedication to, among other black nationalist terrorists, Mark Essex, a racist killer who opened fire on New Year’s Eve in New Orleans killing, among others, a honeymooning couple. Betty Steagall was shot in the back of her head while embracing her murdered husband. Essex left a Black Liberation flag lying near the corpses of the doctor and his wife.

This is not the chant of a peaceful movement, but of a violently racist terrorist organization. And it’s been utilized by Democrats, including the Arizona Senate Democrat caucus.

“I just don’t equate the loss of life and the loss of property,” Alicia Garza, another BLM co-founder, replied, when asked about the violence. “We want to value our love of people over property.”

Not only did Garza fail to condemn the violence, she reduced it to a question of property, while reframing the violent riots as a love of people over property. Property, like violence, is an abstraction, a way to avoid confronting what happens when people are terrorized, when the small shop they’ve poured their life and dreams into goes up in flames, while BLM’s founders get tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to condemn capitalism and defend the looting.

When the National Guard was sent to Baltimore, Garza complained that the soldiers were “standing between Black people and access to resources, they are protecting property”.

"I’ll be really honest: I’m not really concerned about broken glass," Opal Tometi, the third BLM co-founder, argued. "Property can be replaced, people cannot."

Not only do all of Black Lives Matter’ co-founders find ways to justify the violent riots, but some local chapters, which have more control, have been more direct about supporting the violence.
After the massive outbreak of looting in Chicago, Black Lives Matter Chicago issued a press release describing looters as protesters, and claimed that the products in the stores were "hoarded" wealth. The official press release ranted that "black lives are and always will be more important than downtown corporations" and claimed that, "when protesters attack high-end retail stores that are owned by the wealthy and service the wealthy, that is not 'our' city."

Black Lives Matter Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins called the looting, “reparations", claimed that, “winning has come through riots,” and declared, "I will support the looters."

“Anything they want to take, take it,” she said.

Hawk Newsome, the Greater New York Chair of BLM, refused to condemn looting and instead claimed that America is based on looting.

“People just manifested it in different ways. Some people there just raised their fists and said 'I stand with the masses.' Other people were there to destroy things,” Newsome had said earlier of the Minneapolis BLM riots.

Melina Abdullah, the lead organizer of Black Lives Matter in Los Angeles, whose chapter has collaborated with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, had its rally lead to multiple attacks on Jewish synagogues and businesses complete with antisemitic chants and graffiti.

Before the rioting began, her daughter, and the co-founder of the BLM Youth Vanguard, ranted, “I know you want to tear some s___ up... if you want to set some corporations on fire, you know what? I don’t care about Target burning. I don’t care that capitalism burns. I don’t care that white people in their f____ office buildings are upset."

Abdullah, like her hate group’s co-founders, dismissed the rioting. “The looting is not as violent as the police violence that is the source of the protesting. Focusing on broken windows is a deliberate decision.”

Much like Kristalnacht.

The media has repeatedly mischaracterized Black Lives Matter riots as “mostly peaceful” as long as there is a prologue during which the racists at the rally chant slogans before the violence begins. This is a fundamental distortion of the truth. A peaceful march ends peacefully. A violent rally ends violently. A mostly peaceful march is really a violent riot.

Would you go out and meet someone if they told you it would be a mostly peaceful encounter?

A peaceful event has to be peaceful all the time. Or it’s violent. A mostly peaceful event is like a mostly non-toxic toothpaste, a mostly safe ladder, or a mostly solid bridge. Mostly counts when it comes to statistics, not when it comes to harm and danger. Most serial killers were mostly peaceful. They spent less than 1% of their time hunting and killing their victims.

That’s not what peaceful means. Like Biden’s condemnations of violence, it’s an evasion.

Nobody in the media bothers to ask or discuss whether the Black Lives Matter philosophy and ideology is peaceful. That’s because there’s a large body of evidence that shows it isn’t. Instead the media nods along as BLM leaders pull the same tired old trick of reframing their movement’s violence as an affirmation of the value of black lives and reduce their victims to “property”.

Black Lives Matter violence springs directly from the violent ideology of black nationalism. The movement’s leaders make no secret of drawing their inspiration from domestic terrorists like Assata Shakur and Angela Davis. Democrats and their media choose to ignore these facts.

After the poll numbers turned against both Black Lives Matter violence and the movement, Joe Biden began condemning the violence, as if it exists apart from its perpetrators, without condemning the violent movement whose rioters were carrying out the violence.

Anyone can condemn an abstract evil. The challenge is condemning the perpetrators.

Joe Biden refuses to condemn Black Lives Matter. He can’t. They’re part of his base. While Americans are increasingly turning against the racist hate group, Democrats still back it. After months of rioting, support for Black Lives Matter has dropped 12% among Americans, but only 4% among Democrats, 92% of whom still support the violent black nationalist movement.

And so Joe’s trying to have it both ways. He’s condemning the violence while allying with the violent. He won’t disavow BLM or his endorsement from Angela Davis, while claiming to oppose violence. He’s refusing to condemn the perpetrators, while condemning the outcome.
That’s as worthless as his career and his candidacy.

If you support the violent, you support the violence. If your campaign and your veep help fund bail for a group bailing out rioters and an attempted cop-killer, you can’t claim, as Biden does, to oppose violence “across the board”. Until Biden publicly breaks with the Black Lives Matter movement and condemns its violence by name, he’s complicit in every burned store, every wounded cop, every terrorized child, every lost job, and every broken American city.


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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/black-lives-matter-leaders-support-violent-riots-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



James Comey’s 'no clue' routine on Russia probe exposes an FBI in distress - John Solomon


by John Solomon

The head of the FBI claims he was ignorant of crucial facts and trends going on right under his nose. What should we conclude from this?


When history looks back decades from now, fired FBI Director James Comey's latest testimony before the Senate may be remembered, remarkably, not for what he knew but, rather, what he claimed he didn't know. 

Time and again on Wednesday under the intense glare of the political spotlight, Comey claimed he had been kept in the dark or did not remember anything about essential developments in the Russia collusion probe that implied President Trump's innocence.

"That doesn't ring any bells with me," Comey answered when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked about a September 2016 referral to the FBI alleging Hillary Clinton and her campaign may have concocted the whole Russia collusion case against Trump to hide her own vulnerabilities.


Similarly, Comey testified he either did not remember or was not told there were serious problems with the Christopher Steele dossier, that the dossier contained Russia disinformation, that Steele's primary sub-source had disputed information in the explosive document or that the primary sub-source had previously been judged to be a possible Russian asset back between 2009 and 2011.

All those essential facts were kept from the FISA court, and Comey signed three FISA warrant applications approving surveillance targeting the Trump campaign and former adviser Carter Page without disclosing the flaws in the case.

Senators reacted with incredulity.

"Comey said he didnt kno abt problems w Page FISA b4 he approved again+again," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), one of the chamber's longest serving members, tweeted in shorthand. "If true wheres his outrage that agents made him look foolish by w/holding details? I often tell new agency heads either u run agency or agency runs u Who ran FBI during Russiagate+Where is accountability?"





Grassley repeatedly slammed Comey's "no clue" answers as outrageous. Similarly, Graham repeatedly challenged Comey's account, calling one of his answers "far-fetched."

"A bunch of crap to be used against an American citizen," Graham said, referring to now-disproven information in the Page FISA. "You don't recall this?"

"It doesn't sound familiar," Comey answered.

Lawmakers weren't the only ones in disbelief.

Former senior executives of the FBI told Just the News that Comey's testimony laid bare an institution in deep distress that either was keeping its director in the dark about one of the most explosive political cases of all time or engaging in a coverup of epic investigative misconduct that deceived the FISA court and the Congress.

"'I don't recall' is the last defense of someone who has been painted into a corner. If Comey was truly this ignorant of arguably the most consequential case in FBI history, then he was pathetically inept," said Kevin Brock, the former assistant director for intelligence under Comey's predecessor as director, Robert Mueller.

"But it is far more likely that he was provided with detailed briefings of such a high-profile case on a daily basis, as is routine tradition with FBI directors.  Comey knows what he is forgetting," he added.

In his testimony, Comey chose to embrace the first theory — incompetence — telling senators the pattern of mistakes and misconduct identified in the Russia probe "reflects entirely on me" in his role as top executive at the FBI.

When Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) called the problems identified in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigative report "really embarrassing," Comey agreed while insisting none was intended to be criminal conduct.

"I think I share your reaction Senator Sasse," Comey answered. "It's embarrassing, it's sloppy. There's no indication that people were doing bad things on purpose, but that doesn't mean it's not embarrassing."

You can watch Comey's full testimony here.



But Jeff Danik, a former supervisory FBI agent, said he fears Comey may have put himself in legal jeopardy with Wednesday's testimony.

"I do not understand him going on out there and putting himself in position where there are so many people who can claim you did know," Danik said in an interview.

"All he is doing is putting himself in jeopardy or proving he was an incompetent director with no leadership skills," he added. "It's like a general who says there was a battle plan and all these guys got killed, but it isn't my fault, I'm just the general."

Brock agreed Comey's testimony could have consequences, especially if U.S. Attorney John Durham possesses or obtains testimony or evidence that contradicts Comey's claims.

"Comey will have to be wary of statements from other FBI officials being gathered by John Durham that document what he was told and when he was told it," he said.


John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/james-comeys-clueless-routine-russia-probe-exposes-fbi

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Iran's Other Threat to Civilization - Peter Vincent Pry and Peter Huessy


by Peter Vincent Pry and Peter Huessy


An EMP attack -- would confer upon Iran an "assured destruction" capability against the United States.

  • The US and its allies need to do everything possible never again to be caught in a state of unpreparedness.
  • The Congressional EMP Commission estimates that, given U.S. current unpreparedness, within one year of an EMP attack that causes a nationwide blackout... up to 90 percent of the U.S. population could perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse. An EMP attack, therefore, would confer upon Iran an "assured destruction" capability against the United States.
  • The Congressionally created EMP Commission assesses that North Korea already has super-EMP nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.... Iran may also already -- or soon -- have the capability to deliver an EMP attack.
  • "By sending a military satellite into space, Iran now has shown that it can target all American territory; the Iranian Parliament had previously warned [the U.S.] that an electromagnetic nuclear attack on the United States would likely kill 90 percent of Americans." — Iran's state-controlled Afkar News.
  • The formal end of the UN arms embargo -- at the end of September 2020 -- could provide Iran with even more missile and nuclear technology possibly from Russia or China.
  • "Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies... The fact of Iran's ICBM capability and their proximity to nuclear weapons necessitates that Iran be regarded as a nuclear missile state — right now." — William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth and Peter Vincent Pry, Newsmax, February 1, 2015.

The Islamic Republic of Iran may soon have the capability, if it does not already, of carrying out electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks against its enemies. An EMP attack could black out not only the US national electric grid but also virtually all life-sustaining equipment that relies on electrical power and computer systems. An EMP attack could thus pose an existential threat to modern civilization. (Image source: iStock)

The Islamic Republic of Iran may soon have the capability, if it does not already, of carrying out electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks against its enemies. Such an attack involves exploding a nuclear warhead some 30-400 miles above the United States, for instance, and unleashing a downward electronic pulse that can destroy the (currently unprotected) infrastructure. That would include such as critical electronic systems in virtually all civilian systems: food manufacturing and supply chains, automobiles, airplanes, trains, elevators, communications and the US electric grid -- actually, just about everything on which a modern country relies.

An EMP attack could black out not only the US national electric grid but also virtually all life-sustaining equipment that relies on electrical power and computer systems. An EMP attack could thus pose an existential threat to modern civilization. This would totally alter the risk-benefit calculations for the United States and its allies for being able to defend the post-1945 world order.

Recently, the Iranian state-controlled Afkar News claimed that Iran is now able to carry out just such an EMP attack over the United States:
"By sending a military satellite into space, Iran now has shown that it can target all American territory; the Iranian Parliament had previously warned [the U.S.] that an electromagnetic nuclear attack on the United States would likely kill 90 percent of Americans."

Does Iran Already Have Nuclear Weapons?

Washington's conventional consensus is that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons or missiles capable of threatening the United States with a nuclear attack. The Obama Administration assessed that Iran could develop an atomic weapon in six months to two years, prior to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which pretended to stop an Iranian A-bomb. Iran ostensibly agreed to the JCPOA five years ago, on July 14, 2015. Iran never signed the agreement, and started violating its terms almost immediately.

A 2020 assessment by Israel confirmed that Iran continues to cheat on its JCPOA obligations and will be able develop atomic weapons in six months to two years.

Some senior Israeli analysts and U.S. experts disagree with the "consensus view" and assess that Iran already has nuclear weapons. According to a report in Newsmax, titled "Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting US":
"Regardless of intelligence uncertainties and unknowns about Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs, we know enough now to make a prudent judgment that Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies...The fact of Iran's ICBM capability and their proximity to nuclear weapons necessitates that Iran be regarded as a nuclear missile state—right now."

The North Korea Connection

The Congressionally created EMP Commission estimates that North Korea already has super-EMP nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them. North Korea and Iran are collaborating and have signed an agreement to cooperate in "science and technology."

Iran may already -- or soon -- have the capability to deliver an EMP attack. It has successfully launched several civilian satellites -- in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2015 -- including on southern polar trajectories, assisted by North Korean missile technology and North Korean technicians. On April 22, 2020, Iran orbited a military satellite over the United States, launched by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- the world's deadliest terrorist organization. The IRGC's Noor-1 satellite is tiny, weighing only about 30 pounds, but the Space Launch Vehicle's third stage also went into orbit, demonstrating a capability to circle over the U.S. a net payload weighing several hundred pounds -- enough for a nuclear weapon.

North Korea sold the mullahs much of the technology for Iran's most sophisticated ballistic missile, the Shahab-III, which is an improved version of North Korea's Nodong missile. Iran's Shahab-III is capable of delivering a high-altitude EMP attack over America's heartland if the missile is launched, say, from a freighter in the Gulf of Mexico. Iran has apparently already practiced launching and fusing Shahab-III missiles that could carry out a high-altitude EMP attack. Iran has also demonstrated that it is capable of launching a ballistic missile from a vessel at sea. Worse, the formal end of the UN arms embargo -- at the end of September 2020 -- could provide Iran with even more missile and nuclear technology possibly from Russia or China.

The Terrorist Connection

Iran, as the "world's worst state sponsor of terrorism," could become a conduit for giving nuclear EMP attack capabilities to terrorists. The EMP Commission warns:
"Terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or military base, they may obtain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such weapons by using them — or threatening their use — in an EMP attack."
Congressional testimony in 2004 by US President Ronald Reagan's Science Adviser and one of the EMP Commissioners warns of the prospects of an anonymous EMP attack launched from a freighter by Iran hired terrorists:
"DR. GRAHAM: Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism, has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of the Shahab-III, a test mode consistent with EMP attack, and described the tests as successful. Iranian military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States."

Iranian Military Doctrine Endorses EMP Attack

An official Iranian military textbook from 2010, but not released until 2017, endorses a nuclear EMP attack against the United States, as well as deception measures to conceal nuclear weapons -- in violation of international agreements. The textbook is used to train officers at Iran's prestigious military academy and think tank, the Martyr Lt. General Sayad Shirazi Center for Education and Research.

Strangely for a book titled Passive Defense, its overarching focus is offensive -- how to black out electric grids -- including by nuclear EMP attack.

Calculations in the book that America could be vanquished by a nuclear EMP attack appear to be correct.

Strategic Implications

The Congressional EMP Commission estimates that, given U.S. current unpreparedness, within one year of an EMP attack that causes a nationwide blackout, two-thirds or more, up to 90 percent, of the U.S. population could perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse.

An EMP attack, therefore, would confer upon Iran an "assured destruction" capability against the United States. The geopolitical consequences of this development are so grave that U.S. and global security would, in effect, go into free-fall. Where the U.S. would land, into what kind of future, is of course unknown.

If Iran and North Korea both decided to use threats to America or its allies with an EMP-generated genocide, it could destroy the foundations of the existing world order. If the US can no longer be the superpower that since 1945 has halted the cycle of world wars and sustained the global advancement of freedom, the consequences would be existential and catastrophic.

An EMP assured destruction capability changes the strategic calculus of risk for the United States in being able to uphold its role as a superpower and would necessarily erode the confidence of U.S. allies -- perhaps to the point where they would feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Most alarmingly, the U.S. is fast moving to a place where, for the first time, smaller failed states such as Iran and North Korea would have the power to blackmail or destroy the largest and most successful societies on Earth. These rogue states have long perceived themselves to be at war with the United States, and have already demonstrated that they are desperate, highly dangerous characters.

The US and its allies need to do everything possible never again to be caught in a state of unpreparedness. We know how to protect our electric grid and the President of the United States has ordered the government bureaucracy to take the necessary steps to do so. Progress, however, regrettably remains slow. The emerging threats from Iran and North Korean outlined here should compel the United States to take faster action -- now.


Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. 
Peter Huessy is Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute. He is also senior consulting analyst at Ravenna Associates, a strategic communications company.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16524/iran-emp-nuclear-attack

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Antifa as 'Merely an Idea, Not an Organization' - Leo Hohmann


by Leo Hohmann

A bad omen for Christians in Joe Biden’s America.





The first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump reflected the state of America in 2020.

Chaotic, confusing and hopelessly divided.


Past debates, while heated, contained at least a moment of congeniality and even humor. Who could forget when Ronald Reagan, fending off charges that he was too old to be president, grinned and stated that he would not hold his opponent Walter Mondale’s “youth and inexperience” against him. Mondale could be seen chuckling at Reagan’s deft handling of the pin-prick attack.

Compare that with Biden’s vicious accusations against the President of the United States – calling him a “racist,” a “liar,” a “fool” and a “clown.” He told the president to “just shut up, man!”

Biden’s arrogance was on full display, saying at one point “I am the Democratic Party.” Hmm, I wonder what AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talaib and Bernie Sanders would say about that. Not to mention George Soros, who owns the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel and no doubt owns Biden as well.

Biden refused to call for law and order in the streets when pressed by Trump.

The biggest takeaway from this debate, however, should be Biden’s cavalier reaction to the issue of Antifa, a well-funded group that has organized the rioting, looting and burning of American cities, often in cooperation with Black Lives Matter, another Marxist organization bent on the destruction of the nuclear family, our free-enterprise system and America as we know it. Biden refused to denounce the radical Marxist groups. He said Antifa was merely “an idea, not an organization.”

Even if Antifa could be reduced to an idea, Biden couldn’t bring himself to declare it a bad idea. Is it any wonder that when Trump asked him point-blank whether he could name even one law-enforcement organization that has endorsed him, Biden fell silent?

So if Biden is the Democrat Party, and he approves of Antifa, the takeaway should be obvious for anyone paying attention.

Democrats are Antifa and Antifa are Democrats. Whether they have any formal ties, they are two organizations working toward a singular goal.  This is huge, as it confirms our worst nightmare should Biden become our next president.

If elected, Biden will not rein in Antifa, and in fact will unleash them on his political opponents similar to the way Hitler unleashed his Brownshirts on Jews. It will be open season on Christian conservatives. They will be assaulted in the streets, coming out of their churches, in their homes. Their businesses and property will be fair game for attack under a Biden-Harris regime, whose attorney general will simply turn a blind eye while the media continues to do what the media always does – ignore that Antifa even exists.

How do we know this? Because the beginning of this assault is already underway. The only difference is that under Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, the federal government is encouraging and assisting state and local police in the investigation and prosecution of these attacks. Earlier this week, Trump declared Antifa a domestic terrorist organization [something I advised the president to do more than a year ago]. A President Biden could be expected to overturn that designation and let the group run wild, hunting down and attacking the enemies of the Democrat Party.

No matter how staunchly they will try to deny it, Biden’s bowing to Antifa in the first debate provides the clearest evidence yet that the Democrat Party has completed its transition into America’s most powerful communist party.  Biden had an opportunity to denounce Antifa, or at least draw a clear line of distinction between it and his party, and he passed.

Here are just some of the recent attacks by lawless thugs working with the full support of Antifa, BLM and the new Democrat [Communist] Party. [Many of the links provided include videos of the attacks]
There are no doubts hundreds if not thousands more of these incidents but only a small fraction get caught on video or documented by police reports.

The vast majority of the Republicans still don’t understand what is going on. The people breaking into churches, vandalizing sacred statues and accusing everyone and everything related to patriotic America as being part of a conspiracy theory of “systemic racism” are not simply malcontents hoping for police reform. These are hardcore Marxist revolutionaries and anarchists who only understand one thing – brute force.

If President Trump gets re-elected, he can be counted on to treat Antifa as the threat that it is. Biden would use them as his attack dogs, sic them on his enemies. And atop that list of enemies will be conservative Christians – evangelicals and conservative Catholics – along with more secular conservatives who regard the U.S. Constitution as a sacred document.
It was extremely telling how debate moderator Chris Wallace made a point of asking Trump, “Mr. President, will you denounce white supremacist groups?” But he did not ask Biden, “will you denounce Antifa?”

Brace yourself and prepare for what’s coming. Whenever you see unchecked chaos, in the streets or on a debate platform, you know civil war is just around the corner.


Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative reporter and author whose book, Stealth Invasion spent the majority of 2017 among Amazon.com’s top 10 books about immigration policy. He has spent decades researching and writing about education, immigration, crime, politics and religion.  Visit his website: https://leohohmann.com


Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/antifa-merely-idea-not-organization-leo-hohmann/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



A Victory over Terrorists Raises a Question over Election Reporting - Chris Farrell


by Chris Farrell

What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting -- questions about a different outcome -- must be banned and suppressed?

  • An interesting legal question or two popped-up... right at the intersection of free speech and technology. Corporate standards for content and how Internet platforms engage in editorial decisions over content material (they supposedly are not responsible for) is increasingly becoming a point of contention.
  • Policing content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism.
  • Corporate America, and especially the Internet tech giants, do not see it that way. Consider the multi-billion-dollar Internet pornography industry that exploits and denigrates human beings through exploitation, child abuse and trafficking.
  • What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome, a different way, must be banned and suppressed?


Policing internet content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism. What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome must be banned and suppressed? (Image source: iStock)

We have good news: Terrorists were stopped from exploiting the Internet and a state university event to propound their violence-inspiring, hate-filled rhetoric. Ten days ago, several online news and social media fora sounded the alarm over San Francisco State University (SFSU) hosting the terrorist Leila Khaled on September 23, 2020 via an Internet-based open classroom event. The occasion was described as "a historic roundtable conversation with Palestinian feminist, militant, and leader Leila Khaled, followed by Q&A discussion with students, activists, and scholars."

Billed as "Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance: A conversation with Leila Khaled," the event featured at least three other terrorists from the Weather Underground, Black Panthers and an advisor to Hamas. Today, the good news with which we are following up is that Khaled and the other terrorists did not win.

While Khaled is not a specially designated terrorist, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a designated organization -- and Khaled is a member of the terrorist organization's politburo. Because the online event was an Internet open classroom, there were no specific issues related to her physical admissibility to the U.S. Khaled has spoken in Europe several times (including at an EU conference in Brussels in 2017) but the same year, was denied entry to Italy.

Khaled was invited by the roundtable organizer, Professor Rabab Abdulhadi of the SFSU Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) program. She has a long history of Palestinian, anti-Jewish activism, including establishing ties between SFSU and Hamas-affiliated universities. In 2014, she led a university-funded delegation of academics to the Middle East, where it met with Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah, "leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel who has funded the terrorist organization Hamas." Co-sponsors of the event included the Marxist Workers World Party and leading BDS organization Al-Awda -- The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, which has called for the elimination of Israel and earlier this year had its GoFundMe account terminated on account of its anti-Semitic views.

Here is the good news: First, Zoom, then Facebook, and finally YouTube rejected hosting the terrorists. Zoom sent the following statement to The Lawfare Project:
"Zoom is committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations, subject to certain limitations contained in our Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions, and anti-terrorism laws. In light of the speaker's reported affiliation or membership in a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, and SFSU's inability to confirm otherwise, we determined the meeting is in violation of Zoom's Terms of Service and told SFSU they may not use Zoom for this particular event."
As one might expect, the SFSU president, Lynn Mahoney, conjured up an excruciating statement rationalizing virulent anti-Semitism:
"Zoom's cancelation of the event will be deeply wounding to some members of our community who will feel themselves and their dissent silenced once again, just as the participation of Leila Khaled in a class panel discussion is deeply wounding to others in our community. We cannot embrace the silencing of controversial views, even if they are hurtful to others."
Where does one go to have their Internet event cancellation deep wounds treated?

Some would argue a First Amendment or international Internet freedom case supporting the "right" of Khaled to contaminate the already poisoned minds of the students and faculty at SFSU. Material cooperation with atrocities -- in this case, terrorism -- explodes that argument. We cannot glorify or promote atrocities.

Corporate America, and especially the Internet tech giants, do not see it that way. Consider the multi-billion-dollar Internet pornography industry that exploits and denigrates human beings through exploitation, child abuse and trafficking.

In the case of Khaled, the other terrorists and their supporters, we can be satisfied that Zoom, Facebook and YouTube did the right thing, even if they did so for the wrong reasons. The corporate counsels were probably looking at the legal exposures and liabilities for charges of "material support to terrorist organizations" (18 US Code § 2339A) when they made their recommendations, not thumbing through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. That's okay. Sufficient awareness and pressure were brought to bear by a legion of organizations, activists and ordinary citizens to make the tech firms, SFSU and senior U.S. government officials aware of what was planned and how it needed to be stopped. It happened.

An interesting legal question or two popped-up along the way, right at the intersection of free speech and technology. Corporate standards for content and how Internet platforms engage in editorial decisions over content material (they supposedly are not responsible for) is increasingly becoming a point of contention. Policing content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism. In this circumstance we have a victory.

Thinking more broadly, one can imagine how the same techniques could be employed and justified to suppress the speech of domestic political opponents of the social media tech giants. What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome, a different way, must be banned and suppressed? Perhaps we will find out.

Democratic political operatives are already feeding the "Don't Fall for the Red Mirage" storyline -- suggesting a Trump landslide on election night is "fake" and that "all of the ballots must be counted." This narrative suggests that there is no way there could actually be a legitimate victory by the candidate they do not like and that election night becomes election month. The Left wants to count and count and count until they get a number that beats Trump.

Suppose Trump declares victory? Is that "fake news?" Does Trump's Twitter feed get cut? What about the Trump campaign's social media accounts? You see how this all plays out, of course.

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.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16561/leila-khaled-terrorists-internet

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Lebanon, Israel announce progress in maritime dispute - Ariel Kahana , Reuters and ILH Staff


by Ariel Kahana , Reuters and ILH Staff

Lebanese parliament speaker Berri says negotiations would be held in south Lebanon near the border under the auspices of the United Nations and the United States.


US official says progress made in Israel-Lebanon talks over maritime borders

An gas platform off the coast of northern Israel | Photo: Courtesy



Lebanon and Israel have agreed to a framework for US-mediated talks aimed at ending a long-running dispute over their maritime border.

Lebanon and Israel, still in a formal state of war, have contested their land and maritime borders for decades, including an area on the edge of three Lebanese energy blocks. Washington been mediating in efforts to bring the two sides to the table.

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said the framework for talks had been agreed after US sanctions were imposed on his right-hand man for corruption and financially enabling Hezbollah, the heavily armed terrorist group, Iran-backed.

He said the United States would push for an agreement as soon as possible, but told reporters the agreement on a framework was reached prior to Washington's move to impose sanctions on his aide, Ali Hassan Khalil.

"This is a framework agreement, and not a final one," Berri told a news conference, saying discussions would be held under the auspices of the United Nations in a base near the UN-monitored boundary with Israel, known as the Blue Line.

Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz confirmed on Thursday that Israel and Lebanon will hold US-mediated talks to end a long-running maritime border dispute between the two nations that are formally at war.

In a statement, Steinitz said the talks were expected to take place after the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, which ends on Oct. 9.

Lebanon's change of tack has come when the country is facing a crippling crisis as its economy has been crushed under a mountain of debt. The crisis was compounded by a massive port explosion that ruined a swathe of Beirut on Aug. 4.

Ariel Kahana , Reuters and ILH Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/01/lebanon-israel-announce-progress-in-maritime-dispute/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Stripping Jews of their Self-Defense is What the U Illinois at Champagne-Urbana Divestment Vote is About - Richard L. Cravatts


by Richard L. Cravatts

The dark side of the BDS intersectionality agenda.





Led by the virulent anti-Israel, often anti-Semitic group Students for Justice in Palestine, the student government at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently passed a resolution calling on the university to oppose anti-black racism and also to divest from Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Company, Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar Inc. and Elbit Systems Ltd., firms, the activists allege, that are “involved in human-rights violations and violations of international law, including the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian lands, criminalization of immigrants and communities of color, and other human rights violations,” offenses that would “make UIUC complicit in these crimes.”

Although this was the third time in four years the toxic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign has appeared on this campus, this permutation included, predictably, language on anti-black racism and police brutality. In fact, the anti-Israel portion of the resolution was furtively obscured by the language of racial equity, defunding law enforcement, and emptying prisons—even the absurd idea to defund the University’s own police department.

Conflating the alleged oppression of the Palestinians by the IDF with the oppression and racist treatment blacks in the United States purportedly experience at the hands of police officers, the resolution garnered support from those currently energized by the Black Lives Matter movement as well as those anti-Israel campus activists who promiscuously malign, slander, and libel the Jewish state.

For social justice warriors, to know one victim group is to know any victim group – with Israel being a tempting and habitual target of their opprobrium. Thus, for instance, supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement have often linked racism and police violence “from Ferguson to Palestine,” making Israel somehow complicit in American racism and police brutality, and even regularly suggest that Israel is practicing “apartheid” and is engaged in “genocide” against the Palestinians. The false charge that Israel practices apartheid, and therefore is a racist “regime,” frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in racial terms, and the Jewish state’s “colored” victims are analogous to the white supremacists of the United States who oppress and deprive human and civil rights to American blacks. This is the essence of intersectionality.

The UIUC resolution presented a dilemma for Jewish students, of course. Not only was the resolution presented for a vote during the Jewish high holidays, so that many Jewish students were absent, but those pro-Israel students who would have normally denounced the resolution were torn between defeating an anti-Israel vote for divestment and, at the same time, wanting to support the portions of the resolution dealing with racial justice.

As is frequently the case when BDS resolutions are pushed through student governments, the discussion often glosses over, or ignores completely, the real problems of Palestinian culture, politics, and society (including its cult of death, terrorism, and martyrdom), and targets all criticism on Israel, Zionism, and Jewish power. All of the blame for the conflict is placed on the so-called occupation, the “apartheid wall,” Jewish “racism,” the oppression and militarism of the “Zionist regime,” and the brutal humiliation, collective punishment, and even “slow-moving” genocide Israel is said to mete out on a daily basis upon the wholly innocent Palestinians. This is a clear example of another underlying factor in the BDS campaign: the soft bigotry of low Palestinian expectations.

Methods have also been put into place by divestment proponents which help solidify the movement and enable campaigns on different campuses around the country to speak in a unified, consistent voice. One of these were detailed manuals, or guidebooks, written by individual BSD groups, but shared with others so that tactical approaches could be compared, built upon, and disseminated widely among those intent on weakening the Jewish state. One example, Fighting the New Apartheid:  A Guide to Campus Divestment From Israel, written by Fayyad Sbaihat of the University of Wisconsin Divestment from Israel Campaign Project of Al-Awda Wisconsin, revealed the sinister rhetoric and execution of the divestment proponents. Its purpose, Sbaihat wrote, was “to provide a mechanism for sustaining momentum via continued connection and communication with divestment-active groups across the globe.”

To accomplish that, the guide suggested that “In order to be successful, the divestment from Israel campaign must focus on addressing the deep-rooted issues of Israel’s racism and ethno-religious centricity rather than debating facts on the ground that can prove illusive when one attempts to build a case around them,” particularly the type of “facts on the ground” such as those which recognize perennial Arab hostility to Jews and the state of Israel, homicidal terrorism committed by Palestinians against Israeli citizens, and the intractability of Palestinian leadership in entering into fruitful negotiations, accepting any peace settlements, or being reasonable about their list of demands.

That core sentiment has come to define the BDS movement, the notion that the repeated defamation of Israel will result in its eventual expulsion from the supposed civilized community of nations. But the call for divestment is merely a tactic through which Israel will be marginalized, and eventually extirpated, as a pariah state with no moral justification for existing. Thus, those pro-Palestinians, who give public expression to notions of “social justice” for everyone in the Middle East but actually mean justice for the Palestinians alone, and not to Israelis, admit, when pushed, that the sole underlying purpose of their calls for divestment is the eradication of Israel with a Palestine in its place.

UIUC’s divestment resolution took a very targeted tact than earlier divestment campaigns at other universities: instead of calling for a complete divestment from any firms doing business with Israel, this resolution made, in their minds, an important distinction: only firms connected to the Israeli military would be targeted. The companies listed in the resolution are, according to the activist students who crafted it, involved in facilitating the ongoing military oppression of the Palestinians and supplying weaponry, surveillance equipment, and other hardware with which Israel is able to maintain its illegal occupation of Palestine.

Of course, no acknowledgement is forthcoming as to the reasons why the use of force against the civilian Palestinian population exists as part of daily life for Israeli citizens as well as Arab ones; that is, that Israel’s so-called “brutal occupation” and its military incursions were necessitated by Arab aggression and terrorism, and the use of force is not a random occurrence based on the whims of a sadistic Israeli military. In fact, by targeting firms which supply arms to Israel, this divestment effort was actually helping to achieve what Israel’s Arab foes have long-wanted, a militarily-weak Israel whose defenseless citizens could be massacred and, in the favorite exhortation of jihadist foes, “driven into the sea.” More ironically, the UI-CU divestment proponents fell into the morally-convenient trap which ascribed the root cause of terrorism not where it belongs—with the homicidal madmen who perpetrate it in the name of Allah and the desire to murder Jews—but once again to Israel, due to its very presence in the Levant.  

At base of this particular resolution, one that seeks to weaken Israel’s defense by punishing the firms who supply it with military hardware, weaponry, and surveillance equipment. Israel-haters do this, purportedly, because they allege that Israel is an aggressive, militaristic entity that regularly and maliciously brutalizes wholly innocent Arab Palestinians in the Jewish state’s insatiable lust for territory and control. They denounce the existence of the “apartheid wall” and assert its illegality, conveniently overlooking the fact that the wall was built in the first place, not as a racist barrier to keep colored Arabs away from white Jewish neighborhoods, but as a necessary way of thwarting the terrorist attacks of genocidal psychopaths seeking to murder Jews. The fact that terrorist attacks, indeed, were reduced by some ninety percent after construction of the fence evidently escapes the notice of BDS supporters.

Sacrificing Jewish lives in the name of Palestinian self-determination actually has never seemed to have been a concern for the campus moral narcissists who promote divestment resolutions like this one, or who enthusiastically and very publicly chant “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada” and “we support the intifada” at anti-Israel protests; in other words, extolling the decades-old homicidal rampage in Israel in which Arab terrorists have used explosives, knives, guns, stones, and vehicles to randomly murder Jewish civilians. In fact, the use of that word “intifada” is a grotesque and murderous reference to the Second Intifada that began in 2000, during which Arab terrorists murdered some 1000 Israelis and wounded more than 14,000 others.

The quandary that Jewish students found themselves facing with this resolution vote is one in which supporters of Israel continually find themselves. Since progressives have now put Zionism outside of the circle of acceptable ideology, those who support Israel but are also aligned with gay rights, anti-racism, women’s rights, and other liberal causes frequently are excluded from progressive campaigns.

“This is the dark side of the BDS intersectionality agenda,” observed Cary Nelson, professor emeritus of English and Jewish culture and society at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in his book Israel Denial, discussing how Zionists can no longer find a safe space in progressivism. “Zionist Jews do not ‘intersect’ with just causes.  Zionists embody injustice no matter what issues are at stake. They contaminate and undermined every campaign for human rights.  Zionists themselves are to be excluded, banished, boycotted, no matter who they are or where they live.  Of course, we will be told this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism . . . .”

In commenting on the divestment vote, the University observed that “it is unfortunate that a resolution before the group tonight was designed to force students who oppose efforts to divest from Israel to also vote against support for the Black Lives Matter movement.” On that point they were correct. And even more unfortunate is the fact that yet another campus campaign against Israel reveals that the effort to libel, slander, and weaken the Jewish state, while positioned as a quest for social justice, includes a genocidal aspect that should worry us all.


Richard L. Cravatts

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/stripping-jews-their-self-defense-what-u-illinois-richard-l-cravatts/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter