Friday, December 4, 2020

Trump gave 'the most important speech' of his life - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

Using myriad facts, Trump described the election fraud that undercut the American political system and asked Biden to join his demand for an investigation.

President Trump appeared before the American people on Wednesday to give what he described as "the most important speech I've ever made."  Cleverly,  he'd already ensured a large audience by teasing in the past few days that he might be giving up.  Leftists tuned in to see him resign; his supporters tuned in praying that he wouldn't.  His supporters left happy, for Trump, twice using charts, detailed just some of the massive election fraud and promised to keep fighting: 


The president explained that our once sacred "Election Day" has turned into an election season, with opportunities for "lots of bad things."  While he was warned away from declaring a "premature victory," Biden was treated as the victor before the election happened.  "In fact, they were acting like they already knew what the outcome was going to be.  They had it covered, and perhaps they did, very sadly for our country."

Trump assured his supporters, though, that he will keep fighting, using the "constitutional process."  He explained that the fight is necessary because the election was corrupt.

Democrats engaged in a "relentless push to print and mail out tens of millions of ballots sent to unknown recipients with virtually no safeguards of any kind," which was a Petri dish for fraud.

Courts and politicians carried out a variety of changes to state election systems, bypassing legislatures that are constitutionally required to be involved.

States such as California and Nevada sent millions of ballots to every name on the voter rolls, while states such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin sent absentee ballot request forms to every name on the voter rolls.  Some people received multiple ballots, and Trump believes that "millions of votes were cast illegally in swing states alone."

The voter rolls are riddled with errors, including dead people; relocated people; non-citizens; and, in some counties, more names than voting-age people.

In Wisconsin, at 3:42 in the morning, Trump was leading until a massive dump of mysteriously originating Biden votes appeared.  In Michigan, at 6:31 A.M., 149,772 votes suddenly appeared for Biden.  In other jurisdictions, there were "20,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 discrepancies or fraudulent votes" that threw the election to Biden.

People have testified to the following frauds:

  • poll-watchers were locked out of buildings,
  • people were told they'd already voted by mail,
  • provisional ballots were not counted,
  • voting took place without any ID requirements,
  • Democrat voters received preferential treatment,
  • poll workers supervised Democrat party-line votes and illegally registered same-day voters,
  • 250,000 Wisconsin voters were classified as severely disabled to avoid the mail-in ballot signature requirement (up from 70,000 last year),
  • batches of Biden votes were counted multiple times,
  • Georgia officials didn't match mail-in ballot signatures,
  • no state checks for citizenship,
  • "absentee ballots" for Joe arrived in huge batches without envelopes,
  • 70,000 absentee ballots in Wisconsin had no matching applications,
  • in Georgia, absentee ballots for Biden lacked folds, meaning they couldn't have arrived by mail in an envelope,
  • the majority of recently located uncounted ballots were for Biden,
  • Republican canvassers in Detroit were coerced into certifying votes,
  • in Nevada, voting machines were set so that virtually no signature matching occurred,
  • some Native American Nevada voters got gifts for voting,
  • across contested states, the number of rejected mail-in ballots was dramatically lower than ever before,
  • Pennsylvania's Democrat secretary of state and supreme court unconstitutionally abolished signature verification requirements,
  • Trump had long, powerful coattails, which is inconsistent with his apparent loss, and
  • Democrats fought hard to loosen all voting safeguards, and the pandemic gave them a useful excuse.

Trump also touched upon Dominion, a company with shady foreign ownership, which made 96% of its donations to Democrats.  He worried that Dominion systems will compromise the Senate runoff in Georgia.

Given the overwhelming direct evidence and indicia of fraud, the only way to save the system is to overturn the election, "because our country cannot live with this kind of an election."  A revolt is unlikely because Trump's votes are real, so his huge pool of supporters will be happy.  Biden had many fewer votes than he now claims, lowering the risk of unrest.

The "entrenched interests" behind this fraud, whom (significantly) he does not name, "oppose our movement because we put America first.  They don't put America first, and we're returning power to you the American people.  They don't want America first; they only want power for themselves."

Trump wrapped up by urging the necessity of reviewing the evidence of fraud, not just for his benefit, but for America's good.  Without election integrity, we don't have a viable country.  Biden, therefore, should also want an investigation.  "Ultimately, I am prepared to accept any accurate election result, and I hope that Joe Biden is as well."

Image: Trump giving his most important speech.  YouTube screen grab.


Andrea Widburg  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Great Disruption - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

How Big Tech’s obsession with control is tearing us apart.


Of the 10 wealthiest men and women in America, 8 of them made their money in the tech industry. Of these, only 3 made their fortunes from companies that predated the internet era. The rest made it the 'new-fashioned' way, by developing and deploying internet platforms.

The great disruption of the internet made college dropouts into the wealthiest men in America, made the West Coast, for the first time, the equal of the East, and transformed the economy from manufacturing tangible items to reselling access to data and outsourcing manufacturing.

The men of the great disruption were libertarians, if not necessarily by politics then by cultural inclination. The original disrupters had been engineers and hackers who didn’t fit into conformist environments like IBM and were chasing the dream of doing their own thing. They set up shop in garages and basements, in small California, Oregon, and Washington towns, and a few cities, dressed casually, watched Star Trek, dreamed utopian ideals, and were bad at business.

The new disrupters were less interested in hardware or software applications than in using the power of the network to suck up the data of our interactions and turn it into a service. Their insights, building a search engine around link popularity, or a college face book by grabbing pictures of women, might be trivial, but were part of an emergent vision of the new data order.

The original disruptors had been concerned with empowering the end user to command the system, but the new disrupters were reversing the process that had taken users from terminals to personal computers, instead reducing a multitude of devices to terminals leaking data that made them easier to profitably manipulate. The early internet was empowering, but the internet of the Google, Amazon, and Facebook era is disempowering by design. It works by limiting your options and then using what it knows about you to push you in the direction it wants you to go.

Early computers had practically demanded programming skills. The new setup programs you.

As companies went public and college kids became billionaires, they stopped being disrupters and became concerned with maintaining the new order that they were building.

Every revolution ends with a pledge to make sure that no other revolution will happen again.

Google, whose empire was built on search because Yahoo, Netscape, Microsoft, and an array of other companies that allowed it to disrupt its way to power had failed to account for the importance of search, has spent a generation working its way from inside out, by building a browser and then an OS and devices, so that no upstart can do to it what it did to the industry.

The Google vision of its devices running its operating systems with its browser and search boxes built in is not disruptive: it’s the creation of a monopoly built to prevent another Google. Search, the core of Google’s business, is its worst maintained because having monopolized it, its focus is on expanding its hegemony outward to the farthest limits of the data economy.

The same is true of other Big Tech titans who exploited a niche, disrupted the existing setup, and then transformed their companies into the very thing they had been struggling against.

The Big Tech challenge was to manage the essential disruptiveness of the industry, stabilizing their power base, while finding other vulnerable points in the country to disrupt. And when there were fewer economic vulnerabilities to disrupt, they turned to the cultural and the political ones.

Like every past ruling class, the new one set out to remake the country in its own image by disrupting other sectors of society, some, such as politics, consciously, while others, such as culture, unconsciously, out of noblesse oblige, lust for power, and a sense of insecurity.

Every previous national transformation had come from ever narrower areas of the country and the great disruption had been the narrowest yet. The old visionary ideas of computer literacy, long since an outdated term, had given way to ‘learn to code’ as an obsolescence taunt. Most Americans would not be included in the revolution, not because they couldn’t be, but because the revolution was far too small to encompass more than a fraction of the population.

The economic momentum of the new disrupters was built on stock booms that were powered by the conviction of investors that these new titans would keep on growing until they took it all over. If investors thought otherwise, there would be 5 or 8 other wealthiest men in the United States. The vast frontiers of the computer revolution had passed through the range war stage and were gated off by giant monopolies using investor cash to strangle each other and their industry.

Compared to the challenge of disrupting the old economy, disrupting politics appeared simple, but the problem was that, unlike computers, the disrupters were also the thing they were disrupting. Society had no artificially neat separations between man and machine, code and flesh, and the disrupters were amplifying a cycle of disruption that was also disrupting them.

Big Tech had worked to exercise political power to stave off the very reaction it was inciting.

The disrupters turned leftward because from the commanding heights of the economy they tended to see society as a machine that was broken and needed fixing. Having few political ideas of their own, they adopted the leftist politics of their surrounding environment. Its reduction of society to a machine and men as moving parts in need of balancing out appealed to them.

The old disrupters had seen men and women on their own terms, struggling to reach their dreams, but that perspective, from the ground level of the world, had been lost to them.

The new disrupters could only envision their kind of world, diverse, urban, and with a mostly useless population whose grievances and inability to contribute to the new world order would have to be met with welfare checks and patient lessons on the dangers of intolerance.

And, most of all, control.

The original computer revolution had been built on freedom, but the titanic internet platforms depended on control. The control was meant to be unseen. The user would be manipulated into thinking it was his idea to click on that link, watch that show, search for that keyword, and buy that product by a series of invisible constraints and prompts to maintain the illusion of control.

The illusion of control, the myth of user agency, was at the heart of the new internet of platforms. The end user had never had less control over his virtual environment, even as it assured him that he could do anything he wanted. Once the user rebelled against the algorithm, the illusion of freedom collapsed leaving a choice between obedience or loss of access.

The system seemed to work as Big Tech amassed vast amounts of wealth and power, but on a social level, it was a disaster, albeit one that was invisible to the manipulators. In the tech industry, the engineers often don’t understand the end users. And vice versa. And the old conflict over system design was now playing out on the vast scale of human civilization.

The disrupters had broken the economy and the social system, and began trying to put it back together on their terms, buying up the media and elections, censoring the platforms they had built, bringing to an end the last of the open information frontier, and building a new order oriented around the technocratic imperatives of managing a global society. But the more they tried to control the human element, the more the societies began to fall apart and turn on them.

Greater control did not lead to greater trust, but an almost incoherent mistrust in which conspiracy theories became the one thing that everyone was coming to believe. The theories were mostly wrong, but in their own inchoate way, they were right because there was a loss of freedoms, because most of what the media broadcast was a lie, and there was an agenda, and though many of the conclusions were wrong, they were reacting to a real loss of agency.

Conspiracy theories thrive when people lose control over their lives, but can’t localize the blame. Big Tech built the conspiracy theories that it keeps trying to rein in by conspiring to control the public without understanding, as most tyrannies don’t, that it is the cause of its own problems.

The disrupters envision a society of useless people with few functions except binging Netflix originals and commenting on photos on Facebook to be subsidized with welfare checks so they can pay their subscription fees, click on ads, and buy Chinese junk from Amazon. But a welfare state is a signal that there is no future and it’s time to fight over the scraps that can be seized.

There’s no better formula for racial tensions, street violence, and bitter multicultural infighting than the combination of a welfare state and diversity. American diversity worked to the extent that there was upward mobility. When social mobility stalled, as it occasionally did in cities, brutal violence soon followed by people who had nowhere to go and nothing to live for.

The disrupters had wanted to find a middle ground short of full Marxism, but instead they were propelling the conditions for both leftist radicalism and a rightward reaction, while striving to hold on to their power and remake the world along the lines that they thought were best.

Their disruption of politics, childishly simple for men and women with enormous wealth and data insights, who could find a dozen ways to hack a system, didn’t move the country their way, but oscillated it back and forth between the extremes that were breaking it. Trying to control the country, they were crashing it instead, because organic life reacts, instead of waiting for input.

Unlike computers, organic life isn’t passive. And people are the least passive of all creatures.

The men and women who had been disrupters wanted a predictable world they could control, but were instead bringing into being an uncontrollable world that was reacting to their efforts, as society often does, the way that a body’s immune system reacts to a viral infection. Society was responding to Big Tech’s efforts at control by raising the temperature to kill the controlling virus.

And in the process it was wreaking the kind of havoc on society that a fever wreaks on the body.

The great disruption had interconnected the world in unprecedented ways. This vast interconnection had made the world more efficient in some ways, at the expense of becoming more interdependent and more vulnerable to disruptions. The internet had been built, in its earliest days, to allow the command and control functions of the military to survive a nuclear war. But the extension of the internet into everything made society less likely to survive.

What had been a means to an end had become its own end. Being online had become its own purpose. Big Tech companies existed to furnish that world with convenient services. The old hacker dream of a digital polis had become real and in its realization had killed the dream. A wired society wasn’t utopia, but a dystopia throbbing with the raw nerves of a lost frontier.

The disrupter elite were the first to leave their own digital prison, keeping their kids away from the services that had made them billionaires, and trying to disconnect from their connections. They took up eastern philosophies, hiked, bought homes in the woods in different states, and tried to get in touch with something real only to find that they carried the unreality inside.

Power is a practical and a philosophical problem. The old disrupters had mastered machines and then come to think of the world as a big machine. The new disrupters had layered machiavellian interfaces over that old heresy, making a collectivist machine with a human face. But the human face was stuck in the uncanny valley, both real and unreal, and so were they.

The new disrupters had reduced all of society to interfaces, external visual inputs that had originally been meant to allow the user to manipulate the world within the machine, but that had been reversed and were being used by the machine to manipulate the user. And in doing so, they had made the world an unreal place and raised generations of users to feel manipulated by an illusory world, lashing out with the one thing that no machine could cope with, unreason.

The great disruption of machines was meeting at last the great disruption of man. And society was shattering in the collision between the real and the unreal. It is no coincidence that the acolytes of the disrupters have adopted science as their slogan. They often claim to follow the science or the data, as if these were oracles instead of ideas only as valid as their proofs.

Human beings need to believe in things and commit to things, in order to feel real. And the men and women who built an unreal world had come to believe in that world as its own moral order. The world of the disrupters is not a world of science, no more than a warlord with a gun is an engineer because his power comes from a mechanical device, but it is a faith in the source of their power. And that power is disruption. It can in the end, like a gun, only disrupt.

The unreal disrupters of the real strive for control, but their control is, like everything about the unreal world they made, an illusion. They can disrupt what is real, but like all the disrupters of ideas who came before them, all that they replace it with is an unreality that does not stand. The revolutions collapse and what comes after them is not the future, but the return of the past.

Photo: Marketwatch


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

China's bullying of Australia is both scary and ridiculous - Thomas Lifson


​ by Thomas Lifson

Has there ever been a more ridiculous pose than China masquerading as a defender of free speech? Or a critic of military brutality? I wonder what the Uighurs have to say about it!

China, which aspires to shove aside the United States and become the world's hegemon, is very angry at Australia for its insistence on uncovering the truth about the origins of the Wuhan virus.  The Chinese are attacking Australia with substantive economic warfare, apparently believing that a nation with about one fiftieth of its population and just over a tenth of its GDP, dependent on exports of raw materials and agricultural products, can be bullied.  But China also has descended to contemptible attacks on social media from its Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian (dubbed China's "troll" in 2019 by Ben Smith, then of BuzzFeed), featuring an outrageously fake doctored photograph of an Aussie soldier in Afghanistan slitting the throat of a child.

Twitter screen grab.

Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison demanded an apology for the false image, which he called "repugnant," and China refused, playing too-clever-by-half word games ("Afghan lives matter"):

[A] Chinese government representative excoriated Australia for its troops' alleged brutality in Afghanistan.

"The Australian side has been reacting so strongly to my colleague's tweet," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said during a briefing Monday. "Why is that? Do they think that their merciless killing of Afghan civilians is justified but the condemnation of such ruthless brutality is not? Afghan lives matter!"

Both nations announced boycotts and punitive tariffs on each other, with Australian wines, which enjoy the largest market share in China, particularly vulnerable to the tariffs of up to 212 percent.  With 18% of its imports coming from China and an estimated 6% decline in GNP ahead if the boycott continues, Australian economic pessimism abounds.

But for now, the escalation is primarily rhetorical, and in this battlefield, China has a weak hand, and it shows.  China has just blocked P.M. Morrison from WeChat, the dominant social media platform there, to keep his side of the story from its own people and is doubling down, defending its fake photo as "freedom of speech" and falsely claiming it was a caricature or cartoon.  From Chinese Communist Party–dominated Global Times:

A cartoon is cartoon. It is not a photo. So how can it be "faked" as Morrison and some Australian outlets claim? Cartoon has characteristics that exaggerate some points with an emphasis on artistic expression and visual shock. This is very common around the world. This is far from fabricating facts. (snip)

The country that owes an apology is Australia — to China. And to Afghanistan first and foremost for slaughtering their innocent people. 

And the Chinese are publishing more visual arts attacks on Australia:


Has there ever been a more ridiculous pose than China masquerading as a defender of free speech?  Or a critic of military brutality?  I wonder what the Uighurs have to say about it!

The problem is far from Australia's alone.  Or even Australia's and India's alone, for India also is boycotting China, while a military confrontation with China over their border in the Himalayas continues.

China, with the world's largest population and a history as a continuous political entity longer than any other nation, has a legitimate claim on being recognized as a leading nation of the world.  I yield to no one in my respect and admiration for Chinese culture and the Chinese people.  But China's aspirations to replace the U.S. as the world's hegemon is downright scary, for two reasons:

- China is a corrupt dictatorship whose rulers enrich themselves and oppress their domestic opponents ruthlessly and have no respect for any human rights.

- China's history contains no models consistent with a world system composed of nations dealing with each other as sovereign equals.  Until the arrival of Westerners in the 1500s, China dominated its region and conducted trade and other international relations as a tributary system, with vassal states acknowledging China's commanding superiority.  And it got even worse when Western nations, armed with cannons and other superior military technology, horribly abused China, fostering chaos and mass opium addiction and basically disintegrating the Chinese nation.  Deep resentment, and desire for revenge, would be completely understandable, but it would not be acceptable to anyone outside China.

If China continues to move in the direction of bullying smaller, weaker nations, it is setting the stage for a catastrophic phase of world history.  It may be able to buy or intimidate some nations or interests in those nations (cough! Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street) into feigning acceptance of Chinese dominance, but those who cave in will find that living under a Chinese thumb is not comfortable.  Sooner or later, even if China succeeds, the rest of the world will not willingly accept Chinese dominance.

China's own people are the best hope to avoid a dystopian world conflict.  They deserve a government worthy of their magnificent history and culture.  But they face the most sophisticated high-tech system of surveillance and information control in history.  It is far from clear where this all is heading.

Hat tip: John McMahon.


Thomas Lifson  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Reema Dodin to be First “Palestinian-American” White House Staffer Under Biden - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

She justified the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.


“But it was so long ago when she said that. Eighteen years! Can’t people change?” Yes, we’ll get to that excuse a bit later on. “Reema Dodin to be first Palestinian-American White House staffer,” by Tzvi Joffre, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 2020:

Reema Dodin is a Palestinian-American who will serve alongside Shuwanza Goff as a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, President-elect Joe Biden announced on November 23.

Dodin will be the first Palestinian-American to serve as a White House staffer, according to Palestinian media.

The new White House staffer was born to Jordanian-Palestinian immigrants in the US. Dodin’s family is originally from Dura, near Hebron, according to Palestinian media.

Why is Dodin not a “Jordanian-American,” or more accurately still, simply an “American”? It’s because the “Palestinian” refugee identity has uniquely been treated as something that can be handed down from generation to generation. Henry Kissinger is a German Jewish refugee. His son, born in America, is not. Vladimir Nabokov was a Russian refugee; his son Dmitri, born in Berlin, was not. But the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, and so on, apparently forever, of “Palestinian refugees” – born and raised all over the world – continue to be considered “Palestinian refugees,” and remain, most beneficially for themselves, on UNRWA’s rolls. Of the tens of millions of refugees since World War II, only one group – the “Palestinians” – have this amazing ability to inherit from their parents and grandparents the status of “Palestinian refugees.” Only 30,000 real refugees – those who left Mandatory Palestine/Israel between 1947 and 1949 – are still alive. But according to the U.N., once you count up all the descendants of those who left Mandatory Palestine/Israel, there are five million “Palestinian refugees.” Indeed, Reema Dodin herself could right now be on those rolls and receive aid from UNRWA, for she, too, counts as a “Palestinian refugee,” despite her parents being Jordanian citizens and she herself being born in the U.S.

Dodin served as deputy chief of staff to Democratic Senator Richard Durbin and has also served on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, among other positions.

She is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is also a Truman National Security Fellow, a New Leaders Council Fellow, an Aspen Socrates alum, a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Jenkins Hill Society – a consortium of women in politics supporting female politicians.”

A careerist, forsooth, a winner of fellowships in an age of hypertrophied insistence upon “diversity and inclusiveness,” and a joiner, who knows just what to join, someone who unobtrusively climbs, step after step, the ladder of political success. A cheerful, smiling, industrious and eye-on-the-main-chance Palestinian-American Sammy Glick. So ask yourself: what makes Reema run?

During the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, California, saying that “suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people,” according to the Lodi News-Sentinel.

In 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel, according to the Berkeley Daily Planet, a local news publication. The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa….

What shall we say about this appalling choice? Yes, I know, she’s not being made Secretary of State or National Security Adviser, but as one of two deputy directors of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, she will be in a position to keep track of proposed or impending or about-to-be-voted on legislation about Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the whole Middle Eastern works. She will know which Congressmen are “on our [Palestinian] side,” who can be persuaded to move toward the Palestinian position, who supports Israel and cannot be moved; she’s in the perfect place to inform or warn her allies in the pro-Palestinian camp of what’s to come, and how best to promote or stop it. She’ll know what’s going on in each office in Congress: who’s in, who’s out, and where are the snows of yesteryear. Halie Soifer, a former Hill aide who now serves as executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, referred to Dodin as “a fixture of the Senate, who knows what’s happening in the Senate before most senators do.” Think about that last remark for a minute.

For several years, she worked as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Dick Durbin, who tweeted his pleasure over the appointment: “Excited that my Floor Director, Reema Dodin, will be joining President-elect Biden’s Leg Affairs team. She is smart, trusted, & has the respect of members on both sides of the aisle. Reema is just what our new President needs to help him in the Senate. Thrilled with the appointment.”

Durbin used to be a strong supporter of Israel. But in the last few years, he has become noticeably less so. He did not vote to condemn UNSC Resolution 2334, a grotesque anti-Israel resolution adopted by the Security Council’s kangaroo court on Dec. 23, 2019, after Samantha Power did as instructed from Washington, and abstained, rather than veto the bill. A parting fillip to Israel by Barack Obama. Durbin even held up a Senate resolution to condemn UNSC Resolution 2334, as was revealed by his fellow Democrat, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. Durbin voted “Nay” on the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, which had mainly to do with military aid to Israel. He was one of only 23 Senators to do so, with almost all the pro-Israel Senators voting for the bill. Durbin now believes the “settlements are illegal.” He has never mentioned, and appears unaware of, the significance of the Mandate for Palestine and the territories assigned by the League of Nations to the future Jewish National Home, which include all of Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the “West Bank”). Nor does he appear to understand what U.N. Resolution 242 was all about – as explained by its author, British Ambassador to the U.N. Lord Caradon – which was to ensure that Israel could retain territories won in the “recent conflict” (the Six-Day War) that it needed if it was to have, in that Resolution’s key phrase, “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries.”

I suspect Senator Durbin has been greatly influenced by in recent years by his Deputy Chief of Staff, the “Jordanian-Palestinian” or “Palestinian-American” Ms. Reema Dodin, articulate, well-organized, a master of parliamentary procedure, a pleasure to work with, who has provided Senator Durbin with a different “perspective” on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Now he has been told, I have a feeling, from Ms. Dodin, of the “terrible plight” of the “Palestinian people,” knows that there are things he can learn from the personal testimony she is ready to provide – goodness, what luck to have someone who can testify, almost at first-hand, about what the “Palestinian people” have endured. Reema Dodin is pleased to set him straight. To wit, I would guess, she’s explained that “settlements are illegal” as “the U.N. has said so many times,” that “if there is ever to be a genuine peace,” then Israel must go back to something close to the 1949 armistice lines, back to that nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea, that the “Palestinian people” have suffered terribly; that the only way that peace will come is if there are “two states, living side by side in peace,” and it’s long past time that Israel accepted “the outstretched hand of peace that the Palestinians have been offering for so long.” Just imagine over how many weeks, months, years of working so diligently for him, how many occasions there must have been for her to provide a stealthy stillicide of misrepresentation and misinformation. Reema Dodin has managed as a real “Palestinian” to serve as his native informant, all the while gently, carefully, first a little thence to more, providing her impressionable boss with the Palestinian Received Version of the Arab-Israel. dispute. “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” someone in Ramallah must be saying on hearing the news of her appointment, and as for CAIR, how could it not be delighted?

Given her intolerable remark, her appointment raises questions.

Did Biden not know when he appointed Reema D., that she had once offered an appeal for “understanding” suicide bombers – almost justifying them as driven to such acts because there was simply no other way for them to express their despair: “suicide bombers are the last resort of a desperate people”? Or did he not know, which raises questions about the transition team’s vetting of candidates? Think about that. Suicide bombers are the last resort of a “desperate people.” There are hundreds of millions of desperate people in this world, and they do not resort to “suicide bombings.” Think of the Christians persecuted in many Muslim lands: Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria.. Have any of them ever resorted to “suicide bombings”? When Jewish refugees were desperate to get to Mandatory Palestine, before, during, and after World War II, but were prevented from doing so by the British – in direct violation of Great Britain’s duty as Mandatory to “facilitate” Jewish immigration — did any those tragic Jewish refugees turned back ever become “suicide bombers”? Did Zionists in England, driven half-mad by the British refusal to rescue their coreligionists by letting them into Palestine, ever engage in the “suicide bombing” of crowds in Selfridges or Oxford Street or the Burlington Arcade or the Victoria-and-Albert Hall? Do the truly desperate people, far more wretched and desperate than the Palestinians – in Bolivia or Haiti or the Congo or Nepal, blow themselves up in a crowd of visiting NGO dignitaries because they needed to be heard, and that was only way they could get the indifferent world’s attention, with this “last resort of a desperate people”?

Of course, the Palestinians are not exactly “desperate” in the sense of not being attended to. Their cause is a regular item on the U.N.’s docket; it’s discussed, as Agenda Item #7, at every session of the UNHRC (U.N. Human Rights Council). The Palestinians are the object of more sympathetic attention than any other group in the world; they are not “desperate” for attention. Palestinian suicide bombers don’t need to attract the world’s attention — they already have that — they simply want to kill as many Jews as they can.

Let’s keep in mind that what Reema Dodin said was much more sinister than her expressing her support for the Palestinian Arabs, or her conviction – assuming she has it — that Israel was built on “occupied land,” or that Israel must “return to the 1949 armistice lines.” No, she said that she understood what led Palestinians to become suicide bombers – these were the “last resort of a desperate people.” Reema Dodin was explaining — and justifying — the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.


Hugh Fitzgerald  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Stacey Abrams's 'New Georgia Project' seems to have some problems with voter fraud - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

Finding all those vaunted new voters might just require dead people...

Stacey Abrams, who made the world's biggest stink when she narrowly lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, claiming voter suppression (over the legally mandated cleaning of voter rolls) and then famously refusing to concede, apparently has some pretty peculiar ideas about who's entitled to vote.

According to Fox News, citing the make-it-right voter registration group she founded (emphasis mine):

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has launched investigations into several groups, including one founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, for seeking to "aggressively" register "ineligible, out-of-state, or deceased voters" before the state's Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections.

Raffensperger's office on Wednesday said the investigations are into groups including America Votes, Vote Forward and The New Georgia Project — which was founded by Abrams and previously chaired by Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock.

Raffensperger for weeks has issued warnings against efforts to register individuals who are ineligible to vote in Georgia's runoff elections or to encourage people to come to Georgia with the sole purpose of casting ballots.

"I have issued clear warnings several times to groups and individuals working to undermine the integrity of elections in Georgia through false and fraudulent registrations," Raffensperger said in a statement Wednesday. "The security of Georgia's elections is of the utmost importance."

Raffensperger said Wednesday that his office has "received specific evidence that these groups have solicited voter registrations from ineligible individuals who have passed away or live out of state."

Turns out when she was whining and kvetching about her Georgia gubernatorial loss, she must have thought dead people and out-of-staters also had a right to vote.  The grassroots get-out-the-vote group she founded, The New Georgia Project, a $10-million effort that appears to be funded by the Soros-backed Democracy Alliance, is under investigation for just those practices.  Atlanta magazine notes that in 2015, the group was having trouble registering legitimate voters.  So it looks as if they've decided to expand the pool. 

Naturally, they deny it:

"As Georgians are turning out in record numbers to have their voices heard at the polls, the Secretary of State is resorting to desperate attempts to smear law-abiding organizations and scare eligible Georgians from registering to vote in critical upcoming elections. We will not be deterred," said Nsé Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project.

"This attack on our organization comes at a time when people across the country have witnessed the strength of our program and the collective power of a new Georgia electorate that embraces a system of inclusivity and opportunity for all Georgians. The timing is not accidental," she continued.

But Georgia official Raffensberger said he had "very specific" allegations of fraudulent registrations, and coming from her group among others.  It wouldn't be surprising if a group that had trouble finding legitimate voters might just move into new "markets" to achieve its unrealistic goals.  The group has many ties to the Communist Party USA, according to KeyWiki, and therefore zero scruples.

What's disgusting is that Abrams bills herself as Ms. Clean.  Actually, she could be even ethically dirtier than even the average machine Democrat.

Newt Gingrich, a fellow Georgian, knows the matter well.  According to the Associated Press, reporting on Abrams's lost 2018 election, he said:

"You have a Democrat Party that has a long history of stealing [elections] whose defense is to attack everybody else," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican who represented Georgia. "It's a strategy."

Mr. Gingrich argued that Democrats these days present themselves as presumed winners, whether in a swing state like Florida or a red state like Texas, with the angle of thus being able to challenge any election result that does not go their way.

"It's almost as if they believe they have a divine right to win. So if they lose in Georgia or they lose in Alabama it must have been stolen," he said.

Indeed, such prominent Democrats as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sherrod Brown of Ohio declared that the only way Ms. Abrams could have lost the election was if she had been cheated. They didn't change their position after the election was called in favor of Republican Brian Kemp.

And with a Georgia governor, Brian Kemp, apparently determined to be Georgia's Republican Jimmy Carter, Abrams's group is operating at maximum speed.  It's pretty ironic that a group that could paint itself so sensitive to electoral fairness could really be a front for stealing lost elections. 

Image credit: The Circus, YouTubeCC BY-SA 3.0.


Monica Showalter  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran's Mullahs Want the "Nuclear Deal", So Does Biden - Majid Rafizadeh


​ by Majid Rafizadeh

The nuclear deal, rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as it was falsely touted to do, in fact paves the way for Tehran to become a legitimized nuclear state.

  • Iran's mullahs love the nuclear deal because of its fundamental flaws, especially the sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after the deal expires soon. The nuclear deal, rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as it was falsely touted to do, in fact paves the way for Tehran to become a legitimized nuclear state.

  • With the nuclear deal, the regime would gain global legitimacy, making it even more difficult to hold Iran's leaders accountable for any malign behavior or terror activity across the world.

  • Finally, Iran's ruling clerics want immediately to rejoin the nuclear deal because it would again alienate other governments in the Middle East and inevitably lead to a worsening of relations between the US and its traditional allies, especially Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

  • This flawed deal, in favor of Iran, failed to recognize the rightful concerns of other countries in the region about Iran's potential nuclear capability, missile proliferation or funding of violent proxies -- both within and next door to their territories.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has advised presumptive US President-Elect Joe Biden to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran's mullahs love the nuclear deal because of its fundamental flaws, especially the sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after the deal expires soon. Pictured: Zarif (center) shares some laughs with his delegation during nuclear deal negotiations with then US State Secretary John Kerry in Vienna, Austria, on June 30, 2015. (Photo credit should read Carlos Barria/AFP via Getty Images)

Iran's ruling mullahs, who are celebrating presumptive President-Elect Joe Biden's possible presidency in 2021, are already calling on him to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which, incidentally, Iran never signed.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani -- already urging the next US administration, which he hopes is the Biden administration -- also pointed out, according to the state-run IRNA agency:

"Now, an opportunity has come up for the next U.S. administration to compensate for past mistakes and return to the path of complying with international agreements through respect of international norms."

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif also advised Biden on Twitter to abandon President Trump's Iran policy of maximum pressure and rejoin the nuclear deal.

The Trump administration, after pulling out of the nuclear deal, imposed significant pressure politically and economically on the Iranian regime and re-imposed sanctions on the mullahs.

Iran's leaders are excited about the prospect of resurrecting the nuclear deal for several reasons. First, the return to the nuclear deal means that the current sanctions against Tehran will be lifted and the regime will join the global financial system. Through the nuclear deal, the Iranian regime will again buy itself a blank check to advance its aggressive and fundamentalist policies across the Middle East as it did after the nuclear deal was reached in 2015.

The 2015 nuclear deal allowed the flow of billions of dollars into the Iranian regime's treasury, thereby providing the revenues for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that they needed to escalate their military adventurism in the region. That project included financing, arming and supporting their terror and militia groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip, as well as in South America (here, here and here). After the nuclear agreement, Iran's meddling, interventions in the region and funding of militia groups escalated. Iran also increased its deliveries of weapons to its militias, as the number of ballistic missiles deployed by Iran's proxies rose to an unprecedented level.

Now, however, due to the current administration's policies, a cash-stripped Iran is at least unable fund its mercenaries and proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Second, Iran's mullahs love the nuclear deal because of its fundamental flaws, especially the sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after the deal expires soon. The nuclear deal, rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as it was falsely touted to do, in fact paves the way for Tehran to become a legitimized nuclear state.

Under the nuclear deal, Iran's military sites, such as Parchin, which is reportedly where nuclear development and research is conducted, is out of the reach of International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors. In addition, the nuclear deal that Iran cherishes has no reference to Iran's ballistic missile program, a core pillar of its foreign policy and, as the delivery system for nuclear weapons, closely linked to the nuclear program.

Third, with the nuclear deal, the regime would gain global legitimacy, making it even more difficult to hold Iran's leaders accountable for any malign behavior or terror activity across the world.

Finally, Iran's ruling clerics want immediately to rejoin the nuclear deal because it would again alienate other governments in the Middle East and inevitably lead to a worsening of relations between the US and its traditional allies, especially Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The 2015 nuclear deal needlessly excluded Israel and Gulf states from negotiations with Iran, despite those countries living on Iran's doorstep and feeling the consequences of Iranian proxy action more acutely than any of the Western JCPOA nations. This flawed deal, in favor of Iran, failed to recognize the rightful concerns of other countries in the region about Iran's potential nuclear capability, missile proliferation or funding of violent proxies -- both within and next door to their territories.

The Iranian leaders are not alone in desiring to resurrect the nuclear deal: Biden has said that that rejoining the JCPOA is a top priority. After all, the deal was reached when Biden was the Vice President in the Obama administration. Additionally, in an opinion piece for CNN, Biden wrote:

"I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern."

Both the ayatollahs and Biden, it appears, want to resurrect the dangerous nuclear deal. It would not only empower Iran's predatory proclivities and terrorist groups, but also provide a glide path for Iran to obtain its long yearned-for nuclear bomb.


Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Masked Mass Murder - Lloyd Billingsley


​ by Lloyd Billingsley

Five years since Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 innocents in San Bernardino, California.


On December 2, 2015, employees at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, were gathering for a holiday party when they heard multiple popping sounds outside. Some thought it might be fireworks but the center was under fire from Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik. The black-clad pair gunned down two victims then headed inside. A National Police Foundation report provides a chilling account.

“Suddenly, a door swung open and a person clad in all black, with a mask shielding his or her face, stepped inside, wielding what appeared to be an automatic rifle. Without saying a word, the person, now believed to be Farook, opened fire.” Then Tashfeen Malik followed. “She also wore all black and entered the room shooting. Together, the shooters fired more than 100 rounds.”  The shooters then “hastily departed, heading out to a black SUV they had parked just outside, leaving behind a chaotic scene of noise, fear, and pain.”

In the ensuing chase, Farook fired at least 81 rounds at the police, wounding one officer. Police took down the terrorists with little collateral damage and inside the SUV they found a trigger apparatus to detonate bombs the Muslims had planted at the Regional Center, where they had already taken 14 lives: Robert Adams, Isaac Amianos, Bennetta Betbadal, Harry Bowman, Sierra Clayborn, Juan Espinoza, Aurora Godoy, Shannon Johnson, Larry Daniel Kaufman, Damien Meins, Tin Ngyen, Nicholas Thalasinos, Yvette Velasco, and Michael Wetzel.

Isaac Amanios, 60, immigrated from Eritrea to California in 2000 to escape violence and repression. Bennetta Betbadal, 46, fled to America with her family to “escape Islamic extremism and the persecution of Christians that followed Iranian Revolution.”

On December 2, in his first response from the White House, President Obama said it was still an active situation and “we don’t yet know what the motives of the shooters are.” In a December 6 statement, the president failed to mention a single victim and did not name the shooters, both Muslims.

Farook was American and Pakistani-born Malik held a green card but “we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas,” or part of “a broader conspiracy here at home.” In closing, the president said, “Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes,” as well as “our men and women in uniform.”

California attorney general Kamala Harris, in a December 17 statement, said “we must seek justice for those who lost their lives in the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” The attorney general failed to name any of the victims and her priorities seemed to lie elsewhere.

“Ultimately,” Harris said, “not only is it immoral and contrary to our values to stoke fear and cast aspersions against an entire faith and the millions of law-abiding American Muslims, but it is also strategically unwise. This very community is a critical ally in the short and long term fight combatting terrorism and radicalization here at home and across the world.”

Harris was joined by officials from the Muslim Public Affairs Council and CAIR, whose Los Angeles director Hussam Ayloush said “Islamophobic and xenophobic rhetoric by certain public figures has made Muslim communities an easy target for hate crimes.” Attorney general Harris, Ayloush added, “exemplified leadership” by addressing “the spike in hate crimes against American Muslims and other minorities.”

In a statement one year later, Harris recalled “those who lost their lives and the loved ones they left behind,” but named not a single victim or any of the “brave first responders.” Those were the San Bernardino police, but the word “police” does not appear. In similar style, Farook and Malik were not named, and Harris does not mention their possible motive for “the tragedy that took place.” Like the president, Harris hailed the Muslim community as an ally against terrorism. In this case, it wasn’t.

Muslim convert Enrique Marquez procured weapons for Farook and Malik, and in February of 2017, Marquez pleaded guilty to federal terrorism charges. Rafia Farook, mother of Syed, claimed she knew nothing of his deadly plans, but she shredded a map her son had made for the attack. As the U.S. Attorney announced on March 3, 2020, Rafia Farook, agreed to plead guilty to a one-count of “alteration, destruction, and mutilation of records.”

Nothing has emerged about members of the Muslim community attempting to stop the attack. Likewise, the FBI only came into play after the jihadists had murdered 14 people. The mass murder could well foreshadow what conditions would be like under a Biden-Harris administration or the reverse. The FBI would look the other way at Islamic jihadists and politicians would pass off terrorist mass murders as “tragedies” that simply “took place,” with no connection to Islam.

Conditions would be the same as under the “composite character” president David Garrow exposed in the 2017 Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. He’s the president who called Nidal Hasan’s mass murder at Fort Hood “workplace violence,” and said “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The newly released A Promised Land hints that the composite character expects to keep leading from behind and calling the shots. What goes around comes around.


Lloyd Billingsley 


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mozambique Terrorist Group Poised to Establish an Islamic Emirate - Lawrence A. Franklin


​ by Lawrence A. Franklin

The Islamic State's Central African Province may have bigger plans for Mozambique's Ansar al-Sunna.

  • Radical Muslims from Kenya and Tanzania are transforming what was initially a low-intensity ethnic rebellion, into a full-fledged Islamic jihad against Mozambique's central government.

  • Ansar al-Sunna, estimated to consist of about 20 cells operating throughout northeast Mozambique, is responsible for the murders of about 2,000 people, mostly civilians.

  • The terrorist group has driven approximately 200,000 people from their homes and burdened the majority Christian country's central government.

  • The Islamic State's Central African Province may have bigger plans for Mozambique's Ansar al-Sunna. If the terrorists are able to establish an Emirate under Sharia in Cabo Delgado Province, it could serve as a jihadi model, threatening the stability of other states in southern Africa. Malawi, Zimbabwe, South Africa, as well as Africa's Indian Ocean states of the Comoros and Madagascar, could be targeted.

Pictured: Burned and damaged huts in the village of Aldeia da Paz outside Macomia, Mozambique on August 24, 2019. On August 1, 2019, the village was attacked by an Islamist group. (Photo by Marco Longari/AFP via Getty Images)

Jihadists in northern Mozambique have intensified their military operations this year in an apparent attempt to establish an Islamic Emirate in the province of Cabo Delgado. The Islamist insurgency, which began in October 2017, remained below the radar until recently. The escalating violence, however, has become a security concern for Mozambique's regional neighbors, including South Africa, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Somalia. Radical Muslims from Kenya and Tanzania are transforming what was initially a low-intensity ethnic rebellion, into a full-fledged Islamic jihad against Mozambique's central government.

Ansar al-Sunna (Supporters of Sunni Tradition), aka Ahlu wa Jamo, is affiliated with the Islamic State's Central African Province and is inspired, in part, by Somalia's leading terrorist organization, Al-Shabaab. Ansar al-Sunna, estimated to consist of about 20 cells operating throughout northeast Mozambique, is responsible for the murders of about 2,000 people, mostly civilians. These martyred innocents are largely from the same ethnic Kimwani tribe as their murderers, who reside in villages in Cabo Delgado Province. The terrorist group has driven approximately 200,000 people from their homes and burdened the majority Christian country's central government.

Although Mozambique's Muslims are historically moderate and predominantly Sufi, the Islamic infrastructure (mosques, madrassas, and of Islamic courts) of Cabo Delgado is becoming increasingly radicalized. Ansar al-Sunna's guide was a Kenyan Islamist firebrand named Aboud Rogo.

Imam Rogo assisted Al-Qaeda's East Africa network to carry out the twin bombings of the US embassies in 1998 in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Rogo, assassinated by unknown gunmen in Mombasa, Kenya in 2012, remains an inspirational "martyr" of many sub-Saharan African jihadists. Some have infiltrated into Mozambique over the country's porous 800-kilometer northern border with Tanzania.

Ansar al-Sunna's tactics mirror the brutal atrocities of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Their attacks, mostly concentrated on towns and villages along Cabo Delgado's Indian Ocean coastline, include beheadings, torching homes, and seizing hostages. The terrorist network finances itself by ivory poaching, narcotics trafficking and other black market activities. Recruits include common criminals, corrupt police, and malcontent border guards, as well as some Mozambique Armed Forces personnel who are integrated into the group's terrorist cells.

The most significant territorial seizure by the terrorist group is Cabo Delgado's strategic port of Mocimboa da Praia. The port is adjacent to off-shore oil and natural gas reserves that have attracted heavy investment by US-based petroleum companies Exxon and Andarko, as well as the France-based Total. Reportedly, many members of the Kimwani tribe, who are the largest ethnic group in Cabo Delgado Province, are joining the jihad. The Kimwani resent foreign investment in the area's petroleum reserves; they apparently view the activity as exploitative. Extremist Muslims have used the presence of Western oil companies as a recruitment tool, exploiting Cabo Delgado's economically depressed population.

The most recent major attack by the jihadists took place in early November in Cabo Delgado's village of "24 de Marco." The assault claimed the lives of about 50 men, women, and children. All of the victims were beheaded, making the slaughter the most horrific terrorist incident to date.

The intensification of terrorist operations this year, coupled with the more radical theological profile of Ansar al-Sunna, has been motivating Mozambique's neighbors to take action. South Africa is deploying Special Forces' advisors from the Dyck Advisory Group alongside Mozambique's regular army units to combat the terrorists. Both Uganda and Tanzania are sending weapons to Mozambique's military. The central government has even hired the Russian mercenary Wagner Group to help fight the Islamist terrorists. Wagner combatants have been clashing with Ansar al-Sunna jihadists, and sustaining casualties in the process.

One sign that the fight against the jihadists may not be going well is a report that Eric Prince's American mercenary outfit, Frontier Services Group, has cancelled a logistics support contract with Mozambique. There are indications that US diplomats are indirectly joining the effort to assist Mozambique by encouraging Zimbabwe to explore ways in which it might help the government combat jihadists. The European Union also has announced its intent to help sustain Mozambique's government with financial assistance.

The Islamist cause has also been receiving international support. The Islamic State's Central Africa Province claims that jihadi volunteers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo are joining the ranks of Mozambique's terrorists. Clerics from Saudi Arabia and Sudan are providing ideological instruction in fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam to selected fighters. Ansar al-Sunna jihadists are, for the most part, trained in camps within Mozambique; some are trained in camps in Kibiti in northern Tanzania or in the Great Lakes Region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Islamic State's Central African Province may have bigger plans for Mozambique's Ansar al-Sunna. If the jihadists are able to establish an Emirate under Sharia in Cabo Delgado Province, it could serve as a jihadi model, threatening the stability of other states in southern Africa. Malawi, Zimbabwe, South Africa, as well as Africa's Indian Ocean states of the Comoros and Madagascar, could be targeted.

There is the serious possibility that what began as a localized insurgency by an economically deprived ethnic minority in northern Mozambique could develop into a full-fledged regional Islamic jihad, if not checked by a relentless and effective counter-terrorism program. Given the rapid radicalization of Ansar al-Sunna, this outcome seems an increasingly likely development. Indeed, Ansar al-Sunna's affiliation with the Islamic State's Central African Province could replicate in southeast Africa the challenges posed by the Islamic State of the Greater Sahara in Sahelian West Africa or Boko Haram in Nigeria.


Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter