Friday, November 27, 2020

Sidney Powell released the Kraken in Georgia - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

Having quickly read the 104-page complaint, here are the highlights.

Sidney Powell promised to release the Kraken and show Americans the scope of election fraud on November 3, 2020.  Shortly before midnight on Wednesday, she filed a 104-page complaint detailing everything she asserts took place in Georgia.  This post will give you a very brief overview of the allegations.

You can view the complaint here.  The narrative bounces around, so I've organized it by chronology and subject matter.  The causes of action arise under Georgia election law, federal law, and the Constitution.

The complaint repeats what Powell has said before about Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines being created to help Hugo Chávez win elections.  (You can learn more about Dominion's history here.)

Powell quotes a Venezuelan whistleblower's direct testimony about the two systems, including Chávez's requirements that the software would hide vote manipulation from audits.  The computers were designed to enable virtually endless vote manipulation throughout the voting process, whether printing ballots, feeding them into the counting machine, or actually counting them.

The computers were also connected to the internet, so, when it came to data manipulation, no one had to be physically present with the computers.  The systems have been associated with election fraud in various countries.

The fraud began when defendant Governor Kemp, defendant Secretary Raffensberger, and the Georgia Board of Elections (members of which are also defendants) hastily bought Dominion Voting Systems software and hardware.  Kemp and Raffensberger disregarded all the evidence from Texas and others showing that the machines were vulnerable to fraud and impossible to audit.  Ironically, it was Democrats who were initially worried about the systems' fraud potential.

Earlier this year (presumably in response to the Wuhan virus) Raffensberger illegally entered into a settlement agreement with various Georgia Democrat organizations by which he agreed to ignore the state's strong, specific statutory voting safeguards for absentee ballots.  This opened the door to massive fraud, as well as violating recount safeguards.  (Justice Kavanaugh's warning to federal courts not to alter with election statutes clearly applies to Raffensperger as well.)

With Raffensberger's guidance, election officials and poll workers refused to observe statutory safeguards.  Among other things, numerous eyewitnesses testified that they didn't verify signatures, check security envelopes, or allow challengers to observe the count.

They also allegedly destroyed documentary evidence that the law required them to retain in connection with mail-in voting.  (This matters because the legal doctrine of spoliation — deliberately destroying documents that can be used as evidence in a possible case — means that the missing documents will be presumed to have shown evidence adverse to the party that destroyed them.)

The complaint also offers voluminous eyewitness and expert testimony about Dominion Systems' vulnerability to fraud.  As noted above, both eyewitness and expert evidence shows that the machines were designed to offer every available avenue for fraud, including taking advantage of voter errors.

To optimize the fraud, late at night on November 3, Georgia's election workers stated a lie about a massive leak at the State Farm Arena that required them to shut down the count.  In fact, after the arena was closed, there's eyewitness testimony that several election workers spent approximately three unsupervised hours working at the computers.

As a matter of law, the pervasive pattern of fraud is so overwhelming that it precludes the "mistake" defense.  This pattern is shown through expert reports and statistical analyses proving that hundreds of thousands of votes for Trump were either lost or transferred to Biden.  Republican candidates in Georgia's 6th and 7th Districts were also affected.

Along the way, the complaint also alleges

1. China and Iran spied on the election (and possibly manipulated it),

2. Trump-hating Eric Coomer helped develop Dominion,

3. Almost 100,000 absentee ballots in Georgia were recorded as requested and were included in the vote count — except that there's no record they were ever returned to county election boards, and

4. Agents of China and Iran accessed the computers.

For those of us who have been following closely Ms. Powell's statements during various television and radio interviews, we're familiar with the factual outlines.  What's different is that (a) the complaint actually identifies and summarizes the specific witness statements, and (b) it details the specific acts of fraud and how they violate state and federal law, as well as the Constitution.  Instead of snippets, we now have the entire package of all the things that went wrong in Georgia.

Biden allegedly won the state by 12,670 votes.  If proven, the allegations in the complaint show that, at minimum, Trump lost almost 100,000 votes due to the alleged fraud.  Because this number exceeds Biden's alleged margin of victory, it requires that the election be put aside.

Please check out the complaint yourself.  Reducing a 104-page complaint to 700 words means I gave you the chapter headings without any details.


Andrea Widburg  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden’s National Security Advisor Pick: Our Adversaries’ Friend - Joseph Klein


​ by Joseph Klein

Jake Sullivan went on Chinese-government controlled TV to bash Trump’s Israel policy.


Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary during the Obama-Biden administration, warned that Joe Biden had “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Now it looks like Biden is on course to make many more mistakes, starting with his selection of veterans from the totally misguided Obama-era foreign policy establishment to serve on his national security team. Biden’s choice of Jake Sullivan as his national security advisor is a prime example of Biden’s colossal misjudgment.

Sullivan had served in the Obama-Biden administration as national security advisor to then-Vice President Biden and director of policy planning at the State Department, as well as deputy chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Introducing Sullivan and others he named to his national security team on November 24th, Biden effusively praised Sullivan as a "once-in-a-generation intellect with the experience and temperament for one of the toughest jobs in the world.”

This so-called “once-in-a-generation intellect” was a lead negotiator in the initial secret talks with the Iranian regime that paved the way for the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Sullivan also played a major role in shaping Obama’s failed interventionist policies involving Libya and Syria, which opened the door to the spread of ISIS and other Islamist terrorists throughout the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Sullivan was with Hillary Clinton when she launched her farcical “reset” with Russia in March 2009. Sullivan liked the idea. “It was actually Vice President Biden who first used the word ‘reset’ in his speech at the Munich Security Conference a few weeks earlier, but it was left to Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Lavrov to work out what exactly that meant,” Sullivan said. What “reset” turned into was a springboard for the Obama administration to appease Russia without getting anything in return. For example, Obama's decided in September 2009 to unilaterally abandon the George W. Bush administration’s plans to deploy a U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe, which had angered Russia.

While serving with Clinton at the State Department, Sullivan reportedly sent 215 messages deemed classified over the former Secretary of State’s unsecured private e-mail system, including e-mails containing information classified at the highest level of “top secret.” Will anyone be checking to see whether Sullivan, in his new job, will be communicating with Clinton and sharing top secret information with her over her current e-mail system?

After serving as a senior policy adviser to Hillary Clinton's losing 2016 presidential election campaign, Sullivan played the role of principal critic of the Trump administration’s foreign policies. He became a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which is financed in part by Chinese Communist-connected Zhang Yichen. While serving as the CEO of a large Chinese state-owned investment company and a member of an advisory group to the Chinese Communist Party, Zhang Yichen is also a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where Sullivan was a senior fellow. So it is no surprise that Sullivan used his perch at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to shamelessly criticize President Trump’s pro-Israel policies during an interview with a Chinese government-controlled media outlet.

Sullivan slammed President Trump’s decision to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He falsely claimed that the decision “created turbulence and turmoil” in the region. “It’s hard to find a good argument for this decision with respect to advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East,” Sullivan added. To the contrary, what followed was the normalization of relations amongst Israel and three Arab countries who are willing to prioritize working together to confront the Iranian regime’s threats over differences regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sullivan is still holding on for dear life to the fundamentally flawed Iran nuclear deal, which he is anxious for the United States to rejoin.

Biden’s “once-in-a-generation intellect” saw no problem that the Clinton campaign he advised was involved with the widely discredited Steele dossier. “There’s nothing about it that from my perspective is concerning,” Sullivan said back in 2018. In 2016, during the presidential campaign, Sullivan, acting as a loyal Democratic Party apparatchik, was spreading disinformation to reporters that Trump's campaign could have ties to Russia. 

Tom Rogan, a commentary writer on foreign policy for the Washington Examiner, hit the nail on the head in describing what to expect from Jake Sullivan. “I believe his selection will be received favorably in Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing for all the wrong reasons,” Rogan wrote. “Sullivan was a key architect of the Obama administration's too-deferential foreign policy structures. Which is to say, its willingness to play softball in the 2013-2015 nuclear negotiations which culminated with the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, its appeasement of China, and its failure to counter exponential increases in Russian aggression.” Rogan added that Sullivan “is more comfortable with addressing American enemies with words than confrontation, and with building alliances on the back of requests rather than reciprocity-driven action.”

In other words, Obama's lead from behind, blame America first approach to foreign policy and national security will be making a tragic comeback.


Joseph Klein  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bribed: Subverting American Universities - Raymond Ibrahim


​ by Raymond Ibrahim

More than one-third of the nearly $20 billion in foreign donations and contracts made to American universities between just 2014 and 2020 were never disclosed as required by federal law

  • More than one-third of the nearly $20 billion in foreign donations and contracts made to American universities between just 2014 and 2020 were never disclosed as required by federal law, according to "Institutional Compliance with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965," a Department of Education report released on October 20, 2020.

  • Among those "gifts" were more than $3 billion from the Muslim Brotherhood's number one state backer, Qatar; more than $1.1 billion from the chief disseminator of "radical" Islamic ideology, Saudi Arabia; and nearly $1.5 billion from China.

  • The reason U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally tended towards disaster may partly be -- in addition to the elixir of wishful thinking -- because policymakers and the advisors and analysts on whom they rely are products of programs in which benefactors are hostile to the United States.

(Image source: iStock)

A recent governmental report exposes the "purchased" influence foreign nations have on America's most prestigious universities and, as a result, on what America's current and upcoming generations of analysts and policymakers will think and believe.

More than one-third of the nearly $20 billion in foreign donations and contracts made to American universities between just 2014 and 2020 were never disclosed as required by federal law, according to "Institutional Compliance with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965," a Department of Education report released on October 20, 2020.

Among those "gifts" were more than $3 billion from the Muslim Brotherhood's number one state backer, Qatar; more than $1.1 billion from the chief disseminator of "radical" Islamic ideology, Saudi Arabia; and nearly $1.5 billion from China.

According to the report:

"[A]t least some of these foreign sources are hostile to the United States and are targeting their investments (i.e., 'gifts' and 'contracts') to project soft power, steal sensitive and proprietary research, and spread propaganda. Yet, the Department is very concerned by evidence suggesting the higher education industry's solicitation of foreign sources has not been appropriately or effectively balanced or checked by the institutional controls needed to meaningfully measure the risk and manage the threat posed by a given relationship, donor, or foreign venture."

This new report follows earlier initiatives. In March 2019, an event described as a "Three-Day Anti-Israel Hate-Fest," was sponsored by the University of North Carolina's Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies and the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies. Following this event, the Department of Education warned the Consortium, in a letter dated August 29, 2019, to stop misusing federal grants by advancing "ideological priorities."

According to the letter:

"The Duke-UNC CMES appears to lack balance as it offers very few, if any, programs focused on the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Christians, Jews, Baha'is, Yadizis, Kurds, Druze, and others. Also, in your activities for elementary and secondary students and teachers, there is a considerable emphasis placed on the understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East. This lack of balance of perspectives is troubling"

Similarly, a 2018 report found that "elite U.S. universities took more than half a billion dollars" from Saudi Arabia in gifts and donations between 2011 and 2017; as far back as 2005, Georgetown and Harvard each received $20 million "to support Islamic studies on their respective campuses."

Here the question arises: why would nations such as Saudi Arabia -- which treats women like chattel, teaches Muslims to hate all non-Muslims, arrests and tortures Christians "plotting to celebrate Christmas"; a nation that has crack units dedicated to apprehending witches and warlocks -- why would it become a leading financial supporter of America's liberal arts?

The answer would seem to be so that the foreign donors can influence what students are taught about the Middle East and Islam. The new report's concerns, for example, regarding Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which are paradigmatic of its overall concerns, are worth quoting at length:

"[T]he Center could advance Islamic ideology in a fashion that belittles opposition, threatens academic integrity, and improperly influences future civil servants. The Center also received criticism for deceptively labeling itself as pluralistic; according to critics, the 'Christian' studies portion of the Center was a 'misnomer' as there was no Christian representation. Additional worries spawned from Saudi Arabian infiltration of an institution commonly known to siphon graduates into government employment. Such concerns were salient because the Saudi Arabians had communicated that their money would 'follow' the Center's first Director. This strategy of funding a particular director [John Esposito] is concerning, as it would allow a foreign government unduly to guide the Center's content.

"This donation empowered the Saudi Arabian government to advance a particular narrative about Islamic society to the West via a legitimate Western institution like Georgetown University.....

"The Saudi Arabian government had successfully impacted American foreign policy thinking through money alone. The Saudi Arabian government invested significantly into the dissemination of its favored ideological views at Georgetown University and several other U.S. academic institutions. Prince Alwaleed has made considerable international donations and has conducted similar soft power operations by creating Islamic studies centers at the University of Cambridge and Edinburgh University located in the United Kingdom, for examples. Prince Alwaleed's controversial and political past, ranging from anti-Zionism to handsomely rewarding Saudi Arabians who participated in Yemen bombing raids, shadows him and his donations.

"Prince Alwaleed's agreement with Georgetown exemplifies how foreign money can advance a particular country's worldview within U.S. academic institutions — influence that has often remained undisclosed to American taxpayers as required by Section 117."

While raking in and failing to report on these billions in foreign "gifts," these same universities "depend on direct and indirect subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, including through Federal student loans that have encumbered Americans with staggering debt loads, to operate," the report states. Even so, "the evidence suggests institutional decision-making is generally divorced from any sense of obligation to our taxpayers or concern for our American national interests, security, or values."

In all spheres of life, education is an indicator of the potential for success; its opposite, ignorance -- or worse, indoctrination in falsehoods -- is an indicator of potential failure. The reason U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally tended towards disaster may partly be -- in addition to the elixir of wishful thinking -- because policymakers and the advisors and analysts on whom they rely are products of programs in which benefactors are hostile to the United States.


Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again and Sword and Scimitar, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Palestinians Owe Arabs an Apology - Khaled Abu Toameh


​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

The PA leadership's decision to restore ties with Israel and return the Palestinian ambassadors to the UAE and Bahrain is viewed by some Palestinians as an apparent attempt to cozy up to a possible new US administration

  • The Palestinian decision to renew ties with Israel comes at a time when the Palestinian media is continuing to condemn other Arabs for engaging in normalization with Israel.

  • "They [the Palestinians] were trampling on the pictures of our leaders. But we have not seen them trampling on the pictures of Abbas." — Emirati social media user BintUAE1900, Twitter, November 18, 2020.

  • Several Palestinians and Arabs took to social media to demand sarcastically that the PA withdraw its ambassador from Ramallah to protest its own decision to "normalize" relations with Israel.

  • The PA leadership's decision to restore ties with Israel and return the Palestinian ambassadors to the UAE and Bahrain is viewed by some Palestinians as an apparent attempt to cozy up to a possible new US administration under the presumptive new President-elect Joe Biden. Abbas is also likely hoping that in return, the US and some Gulf states will resume pouring money into the PA coffers -- for a start.

Will the Palestinian leadership apologize to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates for accusing them of betraying the Palestinians and Arabs by signing peace agreements with Israel? Pictured: Palestinians in Ramallah burn pictures of UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, on August 15, 2020. (Photo by Abbas Momani/AFP via Getty Images)

Will the Palestinian leadership apologize to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for accusing them of betraying the Palestinians and Arabs by signing peace agreements with Israel?

Last week, the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by President Mahmoud Abbas, in a surprise move, announced that it has decided to restore all relations with Israel, including security coordination between the PA security forces and the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank.

Abbas also owes Palestinians an apology because his decision to sever ties with Israel deprived Palestinian patients -- except for another prominent Palestinian leader, Saeb Erekat -- from receiving medical treatment in Israel. The decision also deprived thousands of Palestinians from receiving full salaries: Abbas had refused to accept tax revenues collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

In addition, the PA decided to return its Palestinian ambassadors to Bahrain and the UAE after recalling them for consultations to protest the peace agreements between the two countries and Israel.

The PA leadership had accused the UAE and Bahrain of stabbing the Palestinians in the back and "betraying the Palestinian people, Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque" by agreeing to establish relations with Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem had demonstrated against the normalization agreements by burning flags of Bahrain and the UAE and pictures of the rulers of the two countries.

Ironically, some Palestinians are now accusing the PA leadership of hypocrisy and "stabbing the Palestinian people in the back" by restoring relations with Israel. Several Palestinians and Arabs took to social media to demand sarcastically that the PA withdraw its ambassador from Ramallah to protest its own decision to "normalize" relations with Israel.

The PA leadership's decision to restore ties with Israel and return the Palestinian ambassadors to the UAE and Bahrain is viewed by some Palestinians as an apparent attempt to cozy up to a possible new US administration under the presumptive new President-elect Joe Biden. Abbas is also most likely hoping that in return, the US and some Gulf states will resume pouring money into the PA coffers -- for a start.

While a Biden administration may be happy about the Palestinian gestures, Arabs in the Gulf are demanding an apology from PA President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership. These Arabs are demanding to know why it is all right for the Palestinians to renew their ties with Israel, but not all right for Bahrain and the UAE to sign peace treaties with Israel?

Bahraini political analyst Abdullah Al-Junaid, addressing Abbas, wrote:

"Your Excellency President Mahmoud Abbas, as a citizen of the Arab Gulf states, I welcome the decision to return Palestinian ambassadors to Manama and Abu Dhabi, but you must immediately issue a formal statement of apology to all citizens of the Kingdom of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for your statements and insults against us."

Al-Junaid pointed out that Abbas chaired a meeting of Palestinian factions in September to condemn and hurl insults at the Arabs of the Gulf and their leaders.

"Since the 1960s, the children of the Gulf states used to contribute their daily allowances to support the Palestinians," Al-Junaid noted. In return, he added, the Palestinian leaders have shown nothing but contempt for the Gulf people:

"You accused us of selling Jerusalem and the Palestinian people, while you return to your security understandings with Israel without issuing an explanatory statement to the Palestinian public, let alone the Arabs. This was followed by the return of the [Palestinian] ambassadors to Abu Dhabi and Manama without any shame or the issuance of a statement of apology on your behalf. I am not concerned with your internal affairs, Mr. President, but any attack against a Gulf citizen is a matter that is no longer acceptable. You must publicly and personally apologize for what you have done to us."

Al-Junaid and other Gulf Arabs called for boycotting the PA leadership until Abbas issues an apology for having insulted and the Gulf states and incited their citizens to revolt against the rulers of the UAE and Bahrain.

Emirati writer Turki Hasher demanded that the PA leadership apologize before sending the Palestinian ambassadors back to Bahrain and the UAE. The Palestinian leadership, he said, has finally admitted that the withdrawal of the ambassadors was a mistake. "But I do not think that bringing them back will be so simple because there needs to be an official apology for this hasty decision, which reflects confusion and mismanagement," Hasher wrote.

Kuwaiti political analyst Mohammed Al-Mulla wondered why all those who had condemned the UAE and Bahrain for signing peace treaties with Israel were now silent over the Palestinian leadership's decision to renew relations with Israel:

"We heard about the threats and intimidation from all the Palestinian factions and Islamist parties on the subject of peace agreements between the Gulf states and Israel. But where are they today with regards to Palestinian-Israeli normalization?"

Emirati social media user BintUAE1900 replied: "They [the Palestinians] were trampling on the pictures of our leaders. But we have not seen them trampling on the pictures of Abbas."

Some Gulf Arabs responded to the PA leadership's decision to restore ties with Israel by calling for the expulsion of the Palestinian ambassadors to the Gulf states and boycotting Palestinian products.

Another Kuwaiti writer, Abdel Muhsen Husseini, said that he found it strange that while the Palestinian leadership denounced the normalization agreements between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, it welcomed its own decision to restore Palestinian relations with the Israelis.

Noting that the PA leadership's decision was tantamount to normalization with Israel, Abdel Muhsen wrote that the Palestinians remain divided due to the ongoing dispute between Abbas's Fatah faction in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. According to Muhsen:

"The Palestinians have wasted efforts and time without taking a step to complete the Palestinian project to establish a Palestinian state... [Former PLO leader] Yasser Arafat wasted all Palestinian efforts and always raised his hand with the slogan of victory, but he was unable to achieve anything."

Recently, the Gulf Cooperation Council demanded an apology from Abbas and other Palestinian leaders for their "irresponsible rhetoric, incitement and threats" against the Gulf countries that signed peace treaties with Israel. Abbas and the PA leadership, however, have chosen to ignore the demand.

The Palestinian leadership has soared to yet greater heights of hypocrisy. In Arabic, its decision to send the Palestinian ambassadors back to the UAE and Bahrain is called "wakaha" (effrontery). The Palestinian decision to renew ties with Israel comes at a time when the Palestinian media is continuing to condemn other Arabs for engaging in normalization with Israel. The next time the Palestinian leadership accuses Arabs of stabbing the Palestinians in the back, Abbas and his officials will first need to take a good look in the mirror and see that their earlier deceptions are no longer their present deceptions.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter


Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel's Arabs are finally waking up - Dr. Haim Shine


​ by Dr. Haim Shine

Having internalized the trap his voters are in, Joint Arab List MK and Ra'am party leader Mansour Abbas seems to have bravely and wisely decided the time has come for Israeli Arabs to worry less about the recalcitrant Palestinians and more about themselves.

The winds of peace and reason that have been blowing between the State of Israel and the Arab Gulf and moderate Sunni Arab states are quickly drawing closer to Israel's Arab citizens, many of whom are coming to see that, for decades, they have been held hostage in the service of the Palestinians.

For years, and under both left- and right-wing governments, Israel has made genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. These efforts did not bear fruit.

Palestinian recalcitrance prevented any kind of resolution to the conflict. This recalcitrance was led first by the terrorist Yasser Arafat and then by Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, both Palestinian Authority presidents. Over the years, a fictitious and bizarre theory was established, according to which there could be no peace accords with Arab states absent a solution to the Palestinian issue. Israel's government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in disproving this theory, thanks in large part to unrelenting efforts and the exposure of the Iranian threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Israel's Arab citizens are entitled to equality, just like every other citizen. Minority rights are guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Despite the sometimes justified criticism of their rulings and decisions, the Supreme Court and Israel's governments throughout the years have made remarkable efforts to ensure equality, but these efforts have not been fully realized and there are signs of discrimination against the Arab sector.

The greatest obstacle to realizing these rights is the political leadership of Israel's Arabs, a leadership that convinced many Israelis that their allegiance lies with the Palestinian narrative, even when it leads to suicide attacks, bombs on buses, ramming attacks, and stabbing attacks. Arab states have recently declared that the Palestinian narrative is a sham. The time has come for Israel's Arabs to admit the same. Many Israelis identify Israel's Arabs with the activities of former Joint Arab List Hanin Zoabi, members of the now-outlawed Islamic Movement's Northern Branch who incite against Israel at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque, the residents of Sakhnin who honored former MK Azmi Bishara, who is wanted for spying for Hezbollah, Islamic State recruits, and those lawmakers who smuggle cellphones to security prisoners.

Most Israeli Arabs do not take part in this kind of hostile activity. I doubt if there are any among them who are willing to give up their lives in Israel to move to the PA or some other Arab state. No one who has gotten a taste of democracy would ever exchange it for despotism and oppression. A historical revolution is now underway; Israel's citizens from the Arab sector are beginning to wake up. Mansour Abbas, the chairman of the Ra'am party, now a member party of the Joint Arab List, has wisely and bravely internalized the trap his voters are in and has decided the time has come for Israeli Arabs to worry more about themselves and less about the recalcitrant Palestinians.

There is no doubt in my mind that, should he persevere in this process, a great many of Israel's Arabs will support him, and the treatment of this sector will undergo incredible change. I do not doubt that support for Abbas will ultimately lead to an agreement with the Palestinians as well.


Dr. Haim Shine  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The hit that exposed Iran's ties with al-Qaida - Clifford D. May


​ by Clifford D. May

The assassination of Abu Muhammad al-Masri provides insight into relations between Tehran and the Afghanistan-based terrorist group.

The assassins were professionals and they had planned carefully. On Aug. 7, 2020, around 9 o'clock on a warm evening, they rode a motorcycle down a street in Pasdaran, a well-off Tehran neighborhood. They pulled alongside a white Renault L90. A middle-aged man was at the wheel, a young woman in the seat next to him. Five shots were fired from a pistol fitted with a silencer. The motorcycle sped off as the couple in the sedan drew their last breaths.

News of this assassination appeared in October on an al-Qaeda-linked social media platform translated by MEMRI. Unnamed intelligence officials subsequently confirmed details to the New York Times which on Nov. 13 published an extensive report naming the primary target of the assassination as Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, 58.

His nom de guerre was Abu Muhammad al-Masri (indicating his Egyptian origin) and the war he was fighting was al-Qaeda's: He was the organization's "deputy emir," second only to Ayman al Zawahiri, 69, who is presumed to be in hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

For years on the FBI's Most Wanted list with a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture, al-Masri is believed to have been one of the masterminds behind the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, precisely 22 years prior to the day of his sudden and violent demise. More than 200 people were killed in those attacks with 20 times that number wounded. He is linked to other terrorist atrocities as well.

The woman accompanying him was his 27-year-old daughter, Miriam. She also was the widow of Hamza bin Laden, a son of Osama bin Laden, who was being groomed as a future al-Qaida leader until he was killed in an American counterterrorism operation somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan within the last few years. She, too, was being trained for a leadership role in al-Qaida, an anonymous intelligence source told the AP.

The attack in Tehran "was carried out by Israeli operatives at the behest of the United States," according to the Times' sources. However, it is unclear "what role if any was played by the United States, which had been tracking the movements of al-Masri and other Qaeda operatives in Iran for years."

Al-Masri is believed to have been in Iran's "custody" since 2003, but at least since 2015, he had lived freely in Tehran. The clerical regime had even permitted al-Masri to adopt a false identity: Habib Daoud, a Lebanese history professor. It was this fictitious character that Iran's official media reported to have been killed. Lebanese media parroted those reports.

The revelation that Iran's rulers have played gracious host to an al-Qaida leader has caused bewilderment at the Times. "That he had been living in Iran was surprising, given that Iran and al-Qaeda are bitter enemies," the article noted. "Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy, and al-Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim jihadist group, have fought each other on the battlefields of al-Qaida and other places."

Perhaps I can help sort this out. The regime in Tehran and the terrorist organization with franchises in multiple countries have long collaborated against common enemies, the United States chief among them.

Their theological differences notwithstanding, they have much in common. Both are committed to waging jihad (with terrorism as a signature weapon), spreading their (not identical) interpretations of Islamic law, and re-establishing a great and powerful Islamic empire that is to diminish and eventually defeat America and the West. In other words, they are rivals. Rivals are not the same as enemies, bitter or otherwise.

My colleague, Thomas Joscelyn, has been studying and reporting on the Tehran/al-Qaida relationship for years. "There is a wealth of evidence, stretching back to the early 1990s, showing that the two have repeatedly cooperated," he wrote last week in The Dispatch. "The 1998 US Embassy bombings are a good example."

He pointed out that the US government's own 9/11 Commission "found Iran and its chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, gave al-Qaeda the 'tactical expertise' necessary for those near-simultaneous attacks" in Africa. "Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants were impressed with how Iranian-backed terrorists forced America's retreat from Lebanon in the 1980s. And al-Qaeda wanted to replicate that success."

The current administration has understood that Iran's rulers do business with al-Qaeda, as well as with the Taliban, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Sunni groups all. "There is no doubt there is a connection. Period. Full stop," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last April.

The Obama administration also was aware of the al-Qaida/Tehran relationship. Joscelyn noted: "Beginning in July 2011, the Obama administration's Treasury and State Departments began exposing the Iranian regime's 'secret deal' with al-Qaeda. This deal allows for al-Qaida to maintain its 'core facilitation pipeline' inside Iran."

But such ties did not impede Obama's outreach to Iran's rulers, in particular his provision of billions of dollars and the promise of lucrative trade in exchange for a pledge that they would delay – not terminate – their nuclear weapons program.

Concluded in 2015 without Congressional approval, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was not so comprehensive as to include anything in regard to terrorism sponsored by Tehran, or carried out by Tehran's proxies and partners, al-Qaeda among them.

Joe Biden has defended the JCPOA and indicated that he'd like to revive it. Will the revelation that al-Qaida's second-in-command has been living comfortably as a guest of the Ayatollah provoke second thoughts? The answer to that question will speak volumes about who Biden is and who he aspires to become.


Clifford D. May  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Greenfield Video: American Coup -


​ by

What do we do now and where do we go from here?


[Please help us continue to bring you these vital perspectives on the news – perspectives that you won’t find anywhere else. Donate to the Freedom Center HERE.]

This video is brought to you by a Freedom Center-Glazov Gang collaboration on a new exclusive webinar series, Teach-Ins for the Twenty-First Century. Join us as some of the leading thinkers and pundits on the scene today discuss key issues related to the coronavirus pandemic and its ongoing implications, confronting the Left, the jihad terror threat, and much, much more. And make sure to ask your own questions of our experts.

Hosted by Anni Cyrus, producer of The Glazov Gang and Founder of Live Up To Freedom.

This new webinar features Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow with the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He researches Islamic terrorism, left-wing radicalism, and the decline of the free world.

Daniel discusses American Coup, unveiling how The Democrats, Big Tech, and the media conspired to steal an election and silence half the country. What do we do now and where do we go from here?

Don't miss it!


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cops Refuse to be the Thanksgiving Police - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

“Don't feel a need to hide cars, cover with leaves or walk 3 blocks so your house doesn't become a target of the Governors EO."


After failing to deal with months of violent riots in Portland, Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced that she instead wants the police to go after families celebrating Thanksgiving.

When asked whether Oregonians should call the police on their neighbors if they have more than 6 people in their homes for Thanksgiving, she replied, “This is no different than what happens if there's a party down the street... they call law enforcement."

Except law enforcement has no interest in replying.

The Marion County Sheriff’s office, whose jurisdiction includes the state capital, declined, stating, "We cannot arrest or enforce our way out of the pandemic."

When Governor Cuomo of New York, whose order forcing nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients may have killed as many as 11,000 senior citizens, tried to enlist law enforcement in his crackdown on Thanksgiving, the sheriffs of New York also wouldn’t do it.

The Steuben County Sheriff's Office assured that "the men and women of the Steuben County Sheriff’s Office will not be peeking in your window or attempting to enter your property to count the number of persons at your table on Thanksgiving."

"I can't see how devoting our resources to counting cars in our citizens' driveways or investigating how much turkey or dressing they've purchased is for the public good,” the Saratoga County Sheriff's Office objected.

“This national holiday has created longstanding family traditions that are at the heart of America, and these traditions should not be stopped or interrupted by Governor Cuomo’s mandates,” the Erie County Sheriff's Office declared.

"With regard to the Thanksgiving Executive Order, the Fulton County Sheriff's Office will NOT be enforcing it," another office stated, "So don't feel a need to hide cars, cover with leaves or walk 3 blocks so your house doesn't become a target of the Governors EO."

Democrats and their media have blamed this rebellion on Republican sheriffs in conservative areas, but Suffolk County Sheriff Errol Toulon Jr is a black Democrat and his office still opted out of the "enforcement of Thanksgiving gatherings".

While Governor Cuomo fumed that this Irish Democracy was, "frightening to democracy", a Buffalo print shop began selling stickers of Cuomo's giant head peering into windows.

Next door in New Jersey, Governor Murphy threatened to be, “as all over it as we can be."

Then he was caught on a viral video dining out with his family. Meanwhile, the Howell Township police chief stated, “I wasn’t going to have my police officers going knocking on doors and ruining somebody’s holiday just to check how many people are inside their house.”

The law enforcement rebellion wasn’t new in California. It had been going on for some time.

After Governor Newsom issued his latest curfew, the sheriffs of Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, Sacramento County, Tulare County, Fresno County, El Dorado County, and others announced that they would not be enforcing it with either tickets or arrests.

And no one would be tampering with Thanksgiving.

"The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office will not be determining—including entering any home or business—compliance with, or enforcing compliance of, any health or emergency orders related to curfews, staying at home, Thanksgiving or other social gatherings," the Sacramento County Sheriff stated. “We will not dispatch officers for these purposes."

“From the very beginning, we have not enforced these orders. We are not going to make criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens," Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said.

In Ohio, some sheriffs were willing to be the Thanksgiving police, while others weren’t.

"It's not knocking on people's doors on Thanksgiving and saying, 'You've had more than eight or 10 people,' and it's not to make criminals out of everyday working people," Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones said.

The law enforcement uprisings in New York, California, Oregon, and Ohio are part of a larger trend with local police departments indicating that they don’t want to be the mask police.

A study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Online found that only 10% of police departments surveyed were acting as the mask police while 70% encouraged following the rules. This attitude by law enforcement forced some of the biggest cities in the country to bypass the police and utilize other means of enforcing their lockdowns and arbitrary decrees.

In Los Angeles, violators were threatened with having their water and power shut off. In New York City, a legion of city inspectors were pulled away from other duties to swarm Orthodox Jewish areas in Brooklyn after Governor Cuomo announced a crackdown on religious Jews.

The use of inspectors rather than police has become a widespread and illegal tactic for targeting small businesses, but has reached its limit as most businesses can’t survive if they close down.

The early months in the pandemic saw a boom in surveillance technologies, including drone flybys and infrared remote scans, but most police departments didn’t want anything to do with them.

A small number of police departments adopted the drones and made headlines for all the wrong reasons. Not only did most people hate them, but they also proved to be useless. Police departments that tried using the drones to break up large gatherings found that people wouldn’t listen. And the surveillance capabilities of the drones had been vastly overhyped.

As the Black Lives Matter riots broke out, police departments shifted away from coronavirus enforcement to cope with the violence and avoid being caught up in viral videos. It was around this time that the increased crime rate brought on by the riots and the mass jailbreak of prison inmates to protect them from the virus tied up the resources of underfunded departments.

Coronavirus enforcement, something most departments and officers didn’t want to do anyway, was the first casualty of the new dangerous environment brought on by the BLM riots.

Law enforcement had only been able to commit the spare resources to coronavirus enforcement because of a drop in crime rates early in the lockdowns, but once crime rates soared and cities and counties hit highs that hadn’t been seen in decades or generations, all of that ended. The budget cuts brought on by the collapse of small businesses and police defunding also left local law enforcement without enough resources to even answer calls, let alone play mask police.

And most law enforcement personnel are resentful of having been hung out to dry, robbed of resources and political support by Democrat governors and mayors, and then told to enforce widely unpopular shutdowns and mask fines by those same politicians.

Democrat politicians can’t defund the police and expect them to shut down Thanksgiving.

“It’s ironic on the heel of these cries to 'defund the police' and limit their response to what some perceive as non-emergency calls that the police department is now being asked to police family gatherings during the holiday season,” the president of Akron’s police union objected.

Not all law enforcement personnel have opted out of coronavirus enforcement. Elected sheriffs have the easiest time shrugging crackdowns away. Urban police chiefs appointed by mayors can’t put out dismissive press releases as easily, but they have made it a very low priority.

The struggle to enforce coronavirus lockdowns and codes without much support from police departments is a sign of just how challenging the post-police vision of the Democrats will be.

Democrats have turned to inspectors to fine small businesses and pull their licenses, but the inspectors are running into angry small business owners and patriotic crowds.

The Anne Arundel County Health Department was forced to cancel evening enforcement and daytime enforcement in rowdier bars. It also had to stop sending female inspectors. After Democrat Milwaukee health inspectors faced a backlash for harassing a pro-Trump rally, they no longer go anywhere without a police escort. That defeats the purpose of police defunding.

The bigger purpose of police defunding is to fundamentally shift enforcement priorities from fighting crime to pursuing social agendas, and while police departments dutifully rack up hate crime citations and participate in community policing events, their mission hasn’t changed.

The coronavirus lockdowns succeeded in dividing the country and destroying small businesses on an unprecedented scale, but they failed to turn America into East Germany. Instead the fault lines of the pandemic revealed that much of the country would not go along with the crackdown.

And the men and women of law enforcement, for the most part, did the right thing.

Even in difficult times, that ought to give us hope for the future of our country. And this Thanksgiving, it is another thing about this great nation to be thankful for.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, November 26, 2020

The Disunited States of America - Mark Tapson


​ by Mark Tapson

Biden has called for Americans to come together. But on what common ground?


Now that the Democratic Party and its media enablers have unilaterally and pre-emptively declared their empty-suit candidate Joe Biden to be the President-elect, and are eager to move forward with their fundamental transformation of the United States, the obligatory calls for unity have begun.

Biden himself presumed to deliver an election “victory” speech in which he made a plea so hypocritical that it would be comical if it weren’t so outrageous. “Now let’s give each other a chance,” he stated. “It's time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature.” Maybe that means he will stop referring to Trump supporters as “chumps” and will denounce Antifa violence against them as more than just “an idea.”

Biden went on to unintentionally acknowledge that his supporters have spent the last four years smearing us as fascist, violent, white supremacist deplorables: “And to make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as our enemies,” he urged. “They are not our enemies. They're Americans.” This statement would seem much more sincere and meaningful if he had declared it at some point in all the time that conservatives were being harassed in public spaces and assaulted in the streets in the lead-up to the election.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama, too, took to Twitter recently to urge Democrats to reach out to Trump voters. This is how she phrased it: “Let’s remember that tens of millions of people voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division. We’ve got a lot of work to do to reach out to these folks in the years ahead and connect with them on what unites us.” Even when calling for reconciliation the left demonizes conservatives as hate-mongers on the wrong side of history who need re-education camps to get their heads straight.

(To clarify: I use the terms “Democrats” and “the left” interchangeably, because the Democratic Party is not “liberal”; it is controlled by totalitarian radicals like the young members of “the Squad” in the House of Representatives. Conservatives are the classical liberals now. The only “liberals” remaining among the Democrats are waking up and #WalkingAway from their own Party’s illiberal radicalism.)

Apart from the fact that it is Michelle’s side that supported (and continues to support) the lies, hate, chaos, and division, we all know what “unity” means to Democrats: total compliance with their globalist, collectivist agenda. As the left’s calls to compile an enemies list of Trump supporters demonstrates, they have no intention of uniting, coexisting, or working with conservatives — only ostracizing, destroying, and eliminating any political opposition once and for all.

No matter whom is ultimately declared the winner of the presidential election, is any semblance of unity even possible? If Biden wins, half the country will consider him “Not My President” and resist his party’s radical agenda. If Trump wins, the other half of the country will consider him “Not My President” and will escalate its violent revolution already underway. Where is the common ground Michelle O alluded to between us?

There is none. There are two distinct Americas today, each side passionately supporting starkly opposed and irreconcilable worldviews.

One side acknowledges that America is imperfect but still takes pride in our exceptionalism; the other side believes America is the villain of history and must be fundamentally remade from the foundations up.

One side wants secure borders, legal immigration, and America First; the other wants open borders, amnesty for millions of illegals, and globalist policies.

One side holds to the principles of the Constitution and our God-given rights such as freedom of speech; the other believes the Constitution is outdated and unwoke, that God is dead anyway, and that free speech empowers fascists.

One side believes in the sanctity of unborn lives; the other considers the unborn a mere clump of cells that can be discarded when inconvenient.

One side rejects a Green New Deal as a big-government boondoggle and socialist power grab; the other frets that the world will end in twelve years without it.

One side rejects government COVID lockdowns and mask-and-social-distancing mandates as dehumanizing, tyrannical and destructive; the other embraces compliance as a loving gesture toward our fellow man.

One side believes fairness means equality of opportunity; the other believes fairness means equality of outcome.

One side believes the news media should strive for objectivity; the other believes objectivity is a racist Western concept and that journalists should reject it and be activists for social justice.

One side believes in reasoned debate; the other believes that words are violence, that there are no universal truths, and that reason itself is an oppressive tool of white privilege.

One side believes political violence is a sign of Third-World lawlessness; the other believes pre-emptive violence against political opponents is self-defense and anti-fascist.

One side believes nothing justifies rioting and looting; the other defends rioting and looting as reparations for slavery, and considers the terms “rioting” and “looting” themselves to be racist dog-whistles.

I could go on, but the obvious point is that on literally every issue facing America today, there is a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between left and right perspectives. There is no way to bridge this divide and bring these two Americas together, not even in a contentious coexistence. Matter cannot exist in the same space as anti-matter. To borrow from the tagline of the 1986 movie Highlander, “there can be only one.” For the country to survive, one of these worldviews must resoundingly defeat the other in the marketplace of ideas, in the halls of power, and if necessary, in the streets.

Does this mean a literal civil war is imminent? No, a civil war is already underway, but only one side is waging it. Video evidence of violence and unhinged harassment against conservatives abounds on the internet. Cells of Antifa shock troops have sprung up seemingly overnight to sow discord and brutalize Trump supporters. We are way past the point where the left will heed tepid pleas for civility; their lust for total power has vaulted them beyond law and order, beyond morality itself when it comes to crushing political opposition.

No one – not a man, woman, child, senior citizen, or disabled person – who openly expresses his or her conservatism or even basic patriotism can be assured of safety from vicious verbal or physical assault anywhere anymore – in the streets, in restaurants, in schools, anywhere. Writing about this normalization of leftist political violence at The Federalist, David Marcus warns that “a step back needs to be taken now.” It certainly does, but those who need to heed that warning have no incentive to do so. They have learned that violence and intimidation work. They have suffered precious little consequence from law enforcement, from the news media, and from their political leaders, so the verbal and physical brutality against conservatives will remain the new normal even if Biden is declared President. (If Trump is declared the winner, everyone knows that all leftist hell will break loose; the rioting and chaos we have seen thus far will be just a foretaste.) Yet the cultural complex of media/academia/showbiz continues to relentlessly promote The Narrative that the right is the violent, fascist threat. And now Joe Biden expects unity?

For the two Americas to find any common ground to work toward unity, they must share at least a few essential points of agreement like a love for country, a respect for law and order, and a shared sense of American identity, among others. But as long as the country is stretched to the breaking point between such ideological, existential, and moral opposites, the two repelling poles cannot come together. There can be only one.


Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sidney Powell is right about the Venezuela angle in our election - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

Because both Dominion and Smartmatic have opaque histories, people dismiss Powell’s claims – but Roger L. Simon has some helpful facts supporting her.

By the time you read this, Sidney Powell may have released her Kraken on America in the form of a filing about election events in Georgia. Until then, though, there is a healthy debate about whether Powell can make the case that Dominion and Smartmatic, both of which played a role in the disputed states, have Venezuela ties that prove their connection to American fraud. Roger L. Simon has entered the fray, detailing what two informants told him as background about these two companies and their ties to Venezuela.

Writing at the Epoch Times, Simon, who tackles facts like a rigorous reporter of old but with the grace of the screenwriter and novelist that he is, talked to two men with first-hand knowledge:

This [truly epic, international fraud] was corroborated by discussions I held with two men in a position to understand a great deal of this fraud that they say originated in and still emanates to a great degree from Venezuela (with a little help from Cuban, Iranian, and Hezbollah friends, possibly others).

These men wish to remain anonymous because they fear for their safety operating in foreign territory as they frequently do.

One of them is a former CIA officer who served in the Directorate of Operations and as chief of station in several countries. The other is of Venezuelan birth and lives in the United States.

The story is long and complicated, but Simon makes it easy to understand, so I urge you to take the time to read it. However, let me give you a brief overview:

Venezuela is one of the world’s most prolific narcotics trafficking countries, something it does in conjunction with Iran. This means that, even as its people starve in the streets, it has tentacles that reach around the world. In the legitimate market, its socialist policies make it a nonentity; in the world’s crime market, it’s a big player. There’s lots of money in Venezuela, which means it has the means to set up highly sophisticated election fraud systems.

In 2003, Venezuelan citizens signed a petition demanding that Hugo Chavez subject himself to a recall election. Chavez needed a way to count votes that would ensure victory. The answer came in the form of Smartmatic, which three Venezuelan engineers founded in Delaware in April 2000. In 2004, Cuban intelligence got a wealthy Venezuelan to invest $200,000 in Smartmatic. That businessman, allegedly, is under DEA protection now.

With that infusion of cash, and with Smartmatic counting the votes, Chavez won. Since then, Smartmatic has been trailing, ghostlike, around the world, wherever socialism and corrupt elections can be found. We know former deputy UN secretary-general Lord Malloch-Brown, a socialist friend of George Soros, has a role in it. A 2006 Wikileaked email still tied it to Venezuela. The same email said that, through its subsidiary, Sequoia, Smartmatic was moving into U.S. elections.

But what about Dominion? Simon explains the connection:

Well, in 2010, after working more than five years for Smartmatic, the former vice president, development at Sequoia who was also their chief software architect, Eric Coomer, went over to Dominion Voting Systems as vice president of U.S. engineering.

Coomer is an active participant in something called the IEEE common data format for election systems. It’s all enmeshed.

If Coomer’s name rings a bell, he’s the man reputed to have Antifa connections and to have promised that he would ensure a Trump loss.

There’s much more in Simon’s article. I’ve just given you the briefest overview. It’s almost hard to believe all this is true – it reads like an international thriller – but we’ve seen it play out before our eyes. As Shakespeare could have written in Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the State of Georgia, and Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and Wisconsin….”


Andrea Widburg  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter