Friday, December 25, 2020

Why Democrats Should Read the Navarro Report - Kenneth R. Timmerman


​ by Kenneth R. Timmerman

The report White House advisor Peter Navarro recently compiled as a private citizen should be required reading for Democrats who insist there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud.

Americans increasingly live in two parallel universes, and this is a shame.

One side takes it as Gospel that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won an overwhelming victory on November 3 and will take the oath of office on January 20.

Another half of the population – according to a recent Rasmussen poll – believes that Donald Trump won the highest number of votes in history for the re-election of a sitting president and was cheated out of victory by overwhelming and widespread election shenanigans. An earlier poll found that even 30% of Democrats said it was likely or somewhat likely that the election was “stolen from Trump.”

As former U.S. Senate Patrick Moynihan used to say before the era of Big Tech, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

The report White House advisor Peter Navarro recently compiled as a private citizen should be required reading for Democrats who insist there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud. The Big Tech bosses who plaster disclaimers over the president’s tweets should read it, too.

Peter Navarro (YouTube screengrab - cropped)

So should Never-Trumpers and members of Congress, who undoubtedly will be called to adjudicate between dueling slates of electors on January 6.

Navarro looks at the six swing states whose results the Trump campaign has been contesting, and lays out a grid of election irregularities that swung all of those states to the Biden-Harris ticket in the days following the November 3rd election. “These six dimensions include outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, contestable process fouls, Equal Protection Clause violations, voting machine irregularities, and significant statistical anomalies,” he writes.

He doesn’t engage in conspiracy theories, or impute malign intent or foreign domination of voting machine companies. While those may be true, it will take a criminal investigation that could last years to prove them.

In the real world, you don’t often get to see the man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz of election fraud and voting machine manipulation. It’s only in fiction that the mastermind has a name, a face, and a plot that rivets you to your chair.

But what thrills in fiction becomes horror in the real world. Half of the country is still reeling in shock as they watch the Democrat National Committee and their communications directorate in the national media continue to gaslight us.

We can’t believe this is actually happening. We can’t believe that in the real world – not some thriller – our democracy can be stolen right in front of our eyes.

For the nature of the evidence Navarro sets out – the evidence the Democrats and the media screams doesn’t exist – is glaringly obvious. As my father used to say, if it had been a bear it would have bitten you.

For example, hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters cast ballots that were counted in all six of the swing states – enough right there to tip the results in Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada to Donald Trump, putting him at 267 electoral votes.

Navarro explains precisely what he means by “ineligible” voters.

“Ineligible voters include felons deemed ineligible, underage citizens, nonregistered voters, illegal aliens, illegal out-of-state voters, and voters illegally using a post office box as an address.

“In a court filing by the Trump campaign legal team, lead counsel Ray Smith provided a list of more than 70,000 allegedly ineligible voters casting ballots in Georgia in the 2020 election. Also in Georgia, over 20,000 people appear to have filed a Notice of Changed Address form to the Georgia state government or had other indications of moving out of state. Yet, these clearly ineligible out- of-state voters appeared to have remained on the voter rolls and voted in the 2020 election.”

This is election fraud at the retail level. Voting illegally, or voting twice, or in multiple states, is a felony. These allegations are easy to verify – but so far, no court has allowed the Trump team to provide the lists of voters Navarro cites. And states controlled by Democrats have systematically refused any outside examination of their voter rolls and screamed “voter suppression” whenever groups such as Judicial Watch have forced them to hand over the evidence in the courts.

Then you have the cemetery vote – at least 8,000 of them in Pennsylvania, and probably more in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit – and “ghost” voters who were added to the voter rolls on Election Day by poll workers. In Michigan, for example, thousands of people who showed up without ID were assigned birth dates in 1900 and allowed to vote. This is fraud organized and carried out by others.

In addition, Navarro describes multiple cases of wholesale fraud, especially in Wisconsin and Michigan, where election workers were caught on camera or by multiple eyewitnesses who submitted sworn affidavits running batches of ballots repeatedly through tabulating machines. “Evidence of these particular kinds of “ballot stuffing” are present across all six battleground states,” Navarro notes.

Ballot mishandling was a “multifaceted problem across the battleground states,” he adds. It included poll-workers instructed not to check voter ID in states requiring ID at the polls, a failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots to those in the poll books, ballots accepted without postmarks, ballots arriving at counting stations in already opened envelopes, and large numbers of ballots – in some cases, truckloads – circulating without apparent supervision.

But again: no court has allowed the Trump legal team to present this evidence.

I’m not sure which type of fraud is the more shocking: the brazen willingness of hundreds of thousands of individuals to break the law, the utter contempt of election officials who stuffed the ballot boxes and instructed co-workers how to steal votes with no fear of getting caught, or the Democrat party operatives who organized illegal ballot boxes, such as the “Democracy in the Park” events in Wisconsin.

Finally, zoom out and place the documented examples of retail and wholesale election irregularities in the statistical context of 2020 versus earlier elections.

The failure to check ballot signatures alone would have turned the tide of this election, Navarro argues.

“For example, in Nevada, the overall [signature] rejection rate dropped from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0% dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%. The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8% in 2016 to a mere 0.34% in 2020.”

In 2016, the overall voter turnout rate nationwide was 59.2% of the voting eligible population, according to Michael P. McDonald of the non-partisan United States Elections Project. But in 2020, the national turnout rate skyrocketed to 66.7%, while the U.S. population grew by less than 2.8%. Navarro points to sworn testimony from former NASA and MIT data analyst Russ Ramsland, showing that 46 of 47 precincts in Wayne County, Michigan “displayed greater than a 96% voter turnout [while] 25 of those precincts showed a 100% voter turnout.”

Similar apparent overvoting occurred in Milwaukee and other key Democrat strongholds.

“This was theft by a thousand cuts across six dimensions and six battleground states rather than any one single “silver bullet” election irregularity,” Navarro concludes.

Or as the lead hacker in my fictional account, The Election Heist, explained, the Democrats had planned “a hail of silver bullets. A Gatling gun of silver bullets. A nuclear war of silver bullets.”

But, of course, it never happened. It was just a bad dream and we’re about to wake up. Right?

Nationally recognized investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman’s latest book, The Election Heist, is a fiction. It was published by Post Hill Press in August 2020.


Kenneth R. Timmerman  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Destination: Socialism - Allen Gindler


​ by Allen Gindler

The path to socialism will continue until people organize under the banner of a real right-wing party.

In a recent article, I stated that the U.S. lacks an influential right-wing party, and our two major parties — Democrats and Republicans — are left and center-left, respectively.  That is, the perceived rightness of the GOP makes sense only relative to the Democratic party.  It is refuted if one considers the actual policy carried out by Republicans for the last one hundred years.

First of all, it is necessary to clarify what we understand by the left-right political spectrum.  A political spectrum is a system of qualitative comparisons of different political philosophies.  There are plenty of approaches in compiling the political spectrum based on various factors, dimensions, axes, and cardinal points.  Most often, political spectrograms differ significantly from each other, and it seems that each of them describes an entirely different reality.

Recent developments in the analysis of political philosophies, based on a multi-disciplinary approach utilizing set theory and mathematical logic in a framework of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), started to remove the ambiguity in understanding a political spectrum.  The study identifies three main factors that influence the political spectrum polarization: attitude to private property, degree of individual freedom, and the scale of wealth redistribution.

The political doctrine is left-wing if it assaults private property rights OR subjugates the individual to the collective OR imposes compulsory and scaled-wealth redistribution.  The "OR" operand means that these factors can be employed individually or in concert and can be considered unique paths to socialism.  Thus, Bolsheviks utilized all three ways to build communism, and Italian Fascists and German Nazis used coercive collectivization of consciousness and generous wealth redistribution as the main paths to socialism.  In contrast, evolutionary socialists funnel the effort to implement a massive wealth redistribution along with the gradual indoctrination of the population.

Evolutionary socialism is the type of socialist movement that has become most prevalent in the United States.  This means that its signs must be sought in policies regarding compulsory wealth redistribution.  As a proxy for wealth redistribution, we can consider the indicator of welfare spending.  What is the position of the GOP on the issue of wealth redistribution?  The GOP platform does not explicitly address it.  Instead, there are vague statements about simplifying the tax code and boosting economic growth, along with promises not to divide the American people into winners and losers.  This silence is alarming because the Republicans either don't understand the implications of compulsory wealth redistribution or tacitly agree with the Democrats' agenda.

Figure 1 shows that spending on welfare has gradually increased since 1900 and now continues to rise regardless of which party is in power.  This graph represents the trajectory of the advance of socialist traits in American society.  The most surprising thing is to see a sharp decline in welfare spending during Obama's second term after a sharp rise during the recession.

Fig. 1. Total welfare spending.  Data were taken from

From year to year, the country became more affluent, so it would be correct to look at the change in welfare spending as a percentage of the GDP.  The graph in Figure 2 shows that despite the fluctuations, the general trend is still increasing.  But the fluctuations are also interesting in themselves.  It is theoretically assumed that a right-wing president would prevent the growth of wealth redistribution, but practice shows that this is far from the case.   

The largest spikes in welfare spending occurred during Republican presidencies: Hoover (1929–1933), Nixon (1969–1974), Ford (1974–1977), Bush Sr. (1989–1993), and Bush Jr. (2001–2009).  Under Reagan and Trump, spending declined.  Among the Democrats, Roosevelt (1933–1945), Truman (1945–1953), and Kennedy (1961–1963) were the champions of welfare spending.  During Clinton's term, welfare spending continually decreased.  It is impossible not to consider in whose hands the Senate and Congress were, and other historical and economic circumstances, but nevertheless, all Republicans, except for Reagan and Trump, not only did not put a halt to welfare spending, but increased it significantly.

Fig. 2. Welfare Spending through Presidency.  Data were taken from

Suppose Republicans agree with Democrats on wealth redistribution in principle, thinking it is the right thing to do out of compassion and high moral principles, which has nothing to do with socialism.  In that case, they cannot be more wrong.  Compulsory wealth redistribution is a gradual and latent assault on private property rights.  It is contrasted with the outright expropriation of private property as Marx prescribed, but it nevertheless would achieve almost the same result in the long run.  It is a mechanism that punishes success, chooses winners and losers, and creates conditions for chronic abuse of people's generosity.  Wealth redistribution diminishes self-responsibility and self-reliance and keeps the underclass hooked up permanently to the state redistribution machine.  It creates a false sense of economic equality between people and, on the contrary, creates a more stratified society comprising elites who possess the power to distribute wealth and recipients they control.  Such a structure resembles a socialist society and is a cell of socialism in the U.S.  As for the collectivization of consciousness, the right has outright lost the battle for the minds of youths since the American educational system, popular culture, social networks, and mass media have been under the rule of the left for decades already.

In recent years, many issues that have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism have been discussed by Democrats and Republicans.  These issues include the rights of gays and transgender people, women's rights, abortion, racism, nationalism, and whatever else but not the trajectory of society's development.  As if on purpose, these peripheral matters were chosen for discussion in order to disguise the principal consensus between the two parties on the country's development and show their presumed difference.  On the issue of public health care, which is directly related to the socialist transformation of society, the Republicans lost, and when they had the opportunity to correct the situation, they failed miserably to do so.

Based on the above, we can conclude that despite the right-wing slogans, the Republican Party, in fact, is not an effective defender of capitalism.  It allowed both a latent attack on private property and the collectivization of consciousness.  That is why the GOP is not a genuine right-wing but, at most, a center-left party.  Therefore, the slogan about the non-admission of socialism in the U.S. has long been late.  There are plenty of socialist traits in our society that Republicans failed to recognize.  We can't expect the party that allowed the socialist transformation of society to protect it from socialism.  The Democrats are the engine of socialist changes, and the Republican elites are enablers.

The Trump administration comes closest to the right-wing ideal (but is still too far), at least in terms of tax cuts and simplifying some business regulations.  Trump is not afraid to identify Democrats as socialists, tearing off the mask of humanists and moral authorities and exposing who they indeed are.  He stopped short of doing so with the GOP elites, but they pre-emptively struck.  The united privileged class of Democratic-Republicans has come to the defense of their status in the society, holding elections worthy of the Third World.

Therefore, I must conclude that the path to socialism will continue until people organize under the banner of a real right-wing party and begin to fight for economic and personal freedom.  There is a public demand for such a party, which will undoubtedly be realized soon, as the Tea Party was once organized.  This will inevitably happen because socialism is an evolutionary dead end.  History shows that countries that experimented with collectivization hit the wall and returned to the trajectory of society's natural evolution.  It's just a shame that, having defeated world communism led by the Soviets, we overlooked evolutionary socialism at home and helped to revive yet another communist giant: China.

Allen Gindler  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Progressives Are Dismantling America's Foundation - William DiPuccio


​ by William DiPuccio

Progressivism seeks to replace the U.S.'s founding principles with a new set of doctrines.

Undergirding the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution is a set of philosophical principles that are under assault by Progressives.  These founding principles, derived mostly from the Federalist Papers, provide the lens through which we read and understand the Constitution.  Without this lens, the meaning of the Constitution and American law becomes putty in the hands of every special interest group.

Progressivism seeks to replace the founding principles with a new set of doctrines based on the tenets of social justice — a system which elevate the rights of "protected classes" (non-whites, LGBTQ, women, etc.) by subordinating  the rest of society.  This so-called "just society" is not the kinder, gentler America that Progressives promise, but a dystopia where the rights of the many are trampled, dissenters are punished, and government has nearly unlimited power and scope.  The examples that follow are selected from my recent eBook, The War on America's Founding Principles: How Progressives Are Dismantling America One Plank at a Time.

Inalienable Rights.  The assault on America's Founding Principles begins by dismantling the inalienable rights upon which our nation is built.  An attack on these rights, which are endowed by God rather than the state, is an attack on our entire constitutional system.  The first inalienable right, according to the Declaration of Independence, is the right to life — the right to exist.  Legalized abortion on demand, which Progressives promote with fanatical zeal, is a complete rejection of this inalienable right.  Progressives have further embraced this rejection by elevating abortion access to a fundamental human right and insisting that the government fund abortions.  Ironically, this renders government, which is charged with protecting inalienable rights, complicit in violating the inalienable rights of the most powerless members of our society. 

Abortion is the first logical step in demolishing the American system of rights in order to construct a Progressive society with new rights, focused almost exclusively on protected classes.  A philosophy draconian enough to seize the most fundamental right from the innocent without due process will not hesitate to curtail or confiscate other rights, even if they are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Liberty.  American liberties include freedom of religion; freedom of speech (and, yes, that includes hate speech); freedom of the press; and the right to bear arms.  The principle of liberty restrains government power, preventing it from unduly interfering with or denying our divinely endowed freedoms.  Except where authorized by citizens through the Constitution, government does not have the authority to limit these freedoms (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).  Accordingly, every action of government should strive to protect liberty and should be weighed by this principle.

But we find an opposing inertia at work on the left.  Progressivism commences with an authoritarian, regulatory-minded impulse that restrains the freedom of citizens.  Government power is used reflexively to limit personal freedoms by regulating businesses, markets, consumption, education, speech, religious conscience, etc.  All of this is necessary, according to Progressives, to create a "just society." 

Examples of this authoritarian impulse include the House-approved Equality Act (which severely limits religious freedoms in order to accommodate LGBTQ "rights"); the Affordable Care Act (which attempted to force religious ministries and schools to cover the insurance cost of abortion-inducing birth control drugs); federal zoning laws (which are intended to destroy the suburbs by merging them with large cities); onerous gun control legislation; and the relentless attempts on social media, in corporations, and on college campuses to limit or deny the free speech of conservative speakers.  

In all of these examples, forced conformity to achieve a "just society" is valued by Progressivism above free thinking, individual liberty, conscience, and self-determination.  This stands in stark opposition to the goal of the Founders, which was to minimize government interference in our daily lives — the right to be left alone — allowing us to pursue our own happiness. 

Private Property.  "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort," said James Madison, including conscience, "the most sacred of all property."  The founding principle of private property is not limited to real estate.  It encompasses the natural rights of all individuals to create, obtain, and control their possessions, beliefs, faculties, and opinions, as well as the fruits of their labor (Fourth and Fifth Amendments). 

Progressivism subordinates the protection of private property to the goals of social and economic equality and environmental justice.  Equal outcomes, or "equity," as it is often called, can be achieved only by reallocating wealth through centralized planning and control, government coercion, confiscation of private property, and limiting individual economic freedom.

One of the primary vehicles for achieving these goals is excessive taxation, which is used to redistribute wealth through massive federal programs.*  Though Progressives are not seeking to abolish private property outright, they believe that their vision of a just society warrants government confiscation of private wealth and property to whatever degree is necessary to implement "economic justice."  Effectively, the purpose of government is to appropriate private property rather than to protect it.

Not only do these policies violate the natural right of private property, but, as history has shown, attempts to heavily regulate and control businesses and markets, and to redistribute wealth through taxation, end in widespread poverty, shortages, and even starvation (e.g., the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc.).

Limited Government.  The principle of limited government maintains that citizens are best able to pursue happiness when government is confined to those powers that protect their life, liberty, and property.  History is littered with innumerable examples of "absolute Despotism," to use the words of the Declaration of Independence.  The lesson is clear: tyranny grows in proportion to power, threatening individual liberty.  The Founders had a realistic understanding of the human condition and its tendency toward corruption and control.  "It will not be denied," warned James Madison, "that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it" (Federalist 48). 

Progressivism, on the other hand, originates from an entirely different set of assumptions regarding government power.  Progressives, as evidenced by their compulsive dependency on government, maintain that government should be as large and as powerful as necessary to implement social, economic, and environmental justice.  The government, especially at the federal level, is viewed as the first resort in resolving social and economic problems such as health care, education, unemployment, housing, poverty, and the environment.  

The Green New Deal, which will cost trillions of dollars, is the largest, most expensive proposed government expansion in history.  It would use federal control to restructure utilities, transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, society, and the economy.  Similar proposals include taxpayer-funded health care, taxpayer-funded childcare, taxpayer-funded college education (at state colleges), a minimum guaranteed income, slavery reparations, and even taxpayer-funded internet service.  These programs promote an uncontrollable dependency on government that is diametrically opposed to the Founders' vision of America.

The fatal flaw in the Progressive project is not just the expansion of government with its 430-plus federal  agencies, but the failure to connect this growing government power with increasing tyranny.  Progressivism has no limiting principle to restrain the growth of government because government is regarded as a benign agent of the people.  But this is a na├»ve delusion.  As we have already seen, a number of our constitutional rights are in jeopardy as government inches toward authoritarianism.  Innumerable examples across the globe, especially from socialist and former socialist countries, also give proof to the Founders' belief that tyranny and corruption always grow in proportion to power.  

Though Progressives, like most Americans, believe they are defending and preserving our democracy, they are actually undermining and replacing American democracy with something radically and dangerously different.  The threat extends far beyond the principles of limited government, private property, liberty, and inalienable rights.  Progressivism, in its relentless attempt to delegitimize our historical foundations, also endangers the rule of law, due process, consent of the governed, and federalism, among other principles, as explained in my book.  This sweeping demolition of our founding principles renders Progressivism the most dangerous existential threat America has faced since the Civil War.

William DiPuccio, Ph.D., is author of The War on America's Founding Principles: How Progressives Are Dismantling America One Plank at a Time, a free eBook.   His articles, books, and videos can be found on his blog, Science Et Cetera.

*Though citizens have a moral and civic duty to help those in need and improve society, it is not the prerogative of the federal government to coerce philanthropy.  State governments, which are closer to the people and whose powers are more general, may, as the Founders believed, undertake such relief as a last resort (e.g., to help children, the disabled, the destitute, etc.).  Thomas Jefferson, for example, co-authored the Virginia "Bill for Support of the Poor" in 1779.


William DiPuccio  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Eric Swalwell and the truth of communist infiltration in the USA - John Dietrich


​ by John Dietrich

There is only one thing worse than an unchallenged superpower: a superpower that has suffered a century of humiliation by European imperialists.

Recent revelations about Eric Swalwell's relationship with a Chinese spy are another reminder of the power of the Deep State.  Nancy Pelosi picked Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) for the House Intelligence Committee.  Swalwell's relationship with Fang Fang began sometime after Fang arrived in the U.S. as a student in 2011, before Swalwell was elected to Congress.  He was a city councilman.  It ended in 2015 when the FBI informed him that Fang was a spy and she suddenly left the country.  Fang targeted young ambitious politicians who had the potential to gain national prominence.  According to one U.S. intelligence official, Fang engaged in "romantic" relationships with at least two mayors of Midwestern cities.  This program is designed to pay off several decades in the future.  There were 369,548 Chinese students in the United States in 2018–2019.  These figures suggest that the number of Chinese agents may number in the thousands.

Minority leader Kevin McCarthy demanding that the FBI brief members of the Intelligence Committee on what the bureau knew about the relationship between Swalwell and Fang.  The FBI had canceled the briefing twice before they met with McCarthy.  They gave this briefing to McCarthy and Pelosi only.  McCarthy could not reveal what was said in the briefing but stated, "One thing that was fundamentally answered — he should not be on Intel."  Of course, Swalwell remains on the committee.  Swalwell is relatively young.  This will all be forgotten in thirty years when he runs for president.  If I were running Fang Fang, I would make sure there was plenty of video.  I am sure that I'm not smarter than the Chinese intelligence community.

The vice dean of the School of International Relations at Renmin University, Professor Di Dongsheng, gave a speech in Shanghai in which he revealed the extent of Chinese infiltration of the U.S.  Di claimed, "We have our old friends who are at the top of America's core inner circle of power and influence."  He even implied that Hunter Biden was the recipient of Chinese aid: "Trump has been saying that Biden's son has some sort of global foundation.  Have you noticed that?  Who helped [Hunter] build the foundations?  Got it?  There are a lot of deals inside all these."  Di relates a story about how he was assisted by a woman, "an old lady with a big nose, obviously a Jew."  She spoke fluent Mandarin and claimed to be a Chinese citizen.  He realized that she was what Chinese people call an "old friend."  Di claimed that the woman was in charge of Asian operations for a major Wall Street financial institution.  Imagine a major Wall Street financial institution employing an "old friend" to oversee its Asian operations.

A Chinese sociologist, Dr. Li Yi delivered a speech in October 2020 in which he claimed that China would overtake the U.S. by 2027.  Li Yi is also a full-time professor at Renmin University.  Yi claimed, "We are ahead of schedule in terms of overtaking the United States.  There will be no problem reaching this goal in 2027.  The U.S. will not survive."  Why would anyone believe that China would surpass the U.S.?  David P. Goldman described China as "ruthless meritocracy."  Ten million high school students take the gaokao (college entrance exam) each year, with math questions a lot tougher than our Graduate Record Examination.  The New York Times reported that Chine graduates 600,000 new engineers every year in 2006 as opposed to 70,000 in the U.S.  A Duke professor disputed this number and estimates 351,000 engineering graduates.  In 2011, the University of California at San Diego created a full-time "vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion."  It already had 18 diversity organizations.  At the same time, it announced that it would no longer offer a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering.  Author Scott Johnson claims that his alma mater, Yale, has 150 full-time diversity officers.  Diversity is our strength.

China also has a diversity program of sorts: "Xinjiang Aid."  Many of China's Turkic Muslim Uighur minority are being put through "re-education camps" and work programs.  Uighurs occasionally show their gratitude by donating organs.  Apple CEO Tim Cook gives an excellent argument about why the iPhone is manufactured in China.  However, he claims, "China stopped being the low-labor-cost country many years ago."  He is not considering the low cost of Uighur labor.  The Australian Strategic Policy Institute claims that as many as 83 major companies have ties to factories where the Communist Party has shipped Uighur Muslims to engage in slave labor.

There is only one thing worse than an unchallenged superpower: a superpower that has suffered a century of humiliation by European imperialists.

Fortunately, the United States has a powerful ally in its competition with China.  This ally has hamstrung the Chinese economy and even murdered as many as 100 million Chinese.  They are in the process of destroying the world's third largest capital market in Hong Kong and have managed to alienate the entire world with their coronavirus policy.


John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts degree in international relations from St. Mary's University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.  He is featured on the BBC's program "Things We Forgot to Remember:" Morgenthau Plan and Post-War Germany.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Breaking the Silence’s latest report is misleading and blatantly partisan - Alan Baker


​ by Alan Baker

BTS adopted extreme political and ideological anti-Israel bias and abandoned legal or historic substantiation.

(JNS) The Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence (BtS) published a study in December 2020 titled: “Highway to Annexation: Israeli Road and Transportation Infrastructure Development in the West Bank.” The study is highly critical of Israel’s transportation infrastructure projects in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria.

In content and tenor, the study portrays all transportation projects connected to Israel’s administration in those parts of the territories under its control through an extremely narrow political prism. Through this prism, any and all development activity is seen as “further entrenching Israel’s deepening hold on the occupied territories through continued suburbanization of Israeli settlements and the fragmentation of Palestinian territory.”

While transportation infrastructure in any modern society serves as a basic, logical and essential means of connecting people, modernizing society and ensuring efficient supply routes, the BtS study presents all Israeli infrastructure development projects in the West Bank as a means of advancing plans for de facto annexation.

BtS is a highly controversial and partisan organization, established in 2004 and ostensibly composed of Israel Defense Forces veterans. Its aim, as stated on its website, is “to bring an end to the occupation through exposing alleged abuses by Israeli soldiers and by boosting public awareness with the aim of giving the Israeli public access to the reality that exists only minutes away from their own homes, yet is rarely portrayed in the media.”

The BtS organization’s initial mission statement specified that it was oriented to give information to the “Israeli public.” Within a few years, BtS evolved into an international and multi-language organization seeking out international audiences and sponsors.

The expansion of the organization’s initial aims regarding actions by Israel’s soldiers into the field of government policy and transportation infrastructure projects is perhaps indicative of the inherent linkage between BtS and other organizations connected to the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The campaign and its agents are financed and supported by foreign states and organizations active in undermining Israel’s status in the territories.

Misleading and partisan portrayal of settlements

The flawed premise of the BtS study is fundamentally contrary to the actual legal and political situation pursuant to the Oslo Accords. BtS views the area in question as “occupied Palestinian territories,” and all Israeli settlements as illegal and intended to entrench and deepen Israel’s hold, with the ultimate goal of annexation.

By the same token, all road and transportation infrastructure connecting Israeli towns, villages and settlements to each other and Israel’s major population centers are considered equally illegal since they are solely intended to serve the policy of annexation.

While study’s descriptions of the infrastructure and road projects may well be technically accurate, its repetitive, fatiguing terminology makes its extreme partisan political nature obvious even to the casual reader. The study makes a point of presenting the transportation infrastructure in loaded terms taken from the most extreme Palestinian propaganda and indoctrination narratives, as well as from European Union Council resolutions and the BDS campaign.

This manipulative and exaggerated use of terminology, indoctrination and word-gaming barely disguises the weakness of any genuine, substantive argumentation presented in the study, and displays a complete lack of understanding of the international legal aspects inherent in the administration of territory after armed conflict. It ignores the relevant provisions in the agreements between the PLO and Israel regarding settlements, as an agreed negotiating issue between the two sides.

Regrettably, this study has recently been taken up and reproduced by reputable journals such as France’s Le Monde, in an article published by its Jerusalem correspondent Louis Imbert on Dec. 7 under the politically suggestive title, “In the West Bank, Colonization by Roads.”

Echoing Le Monde, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article on Dec. 11, by its West Bank correspondent Hagar Shezaf, reproducing the BtS study, with a typically political headline: “Highways to Annexation: Across the West Bank, Israel Is Bulldozing a Bright Future for Jewish Settlers.”

This shallow study by Breaking the Silence, and its publication and circulation, are meant to delegitimize Israel’s presence in the territories and undermine an agreed negotiation process. It cannot be divorced from those international and national non-governmental organizations and member states of the European Union and elsewhere, including some Israeli organizations, that advocate an identical anti-Israel political line and finance and support Breaking the Silence.

Money talks

According to the BtS web page, the study and the organization’s activities are supported financially by the following groups:

  • The Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) (Spain)
  • Bertha Foundation (U.S.)
  • Broederlijk Delen (Netherlands)
  • Catholic Committee against Hunger and for Development CCFD – Terre Solidaire (France)
  • Dan Church Aid (Denmark)
  • Die Schwelle, Foundation for Middle East Peace (Germany)
  • Medico International (Germany)
  • German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation Misereor (Germany)
  • The Moriah Fund (U.S.)
  • New Israel Fund (Israel)
  • Open Society Foundation (U.S.)
  • Pro Victimis (Geneva)
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund (U.S.)
  • Sigrid Rausing Trust (Sweden)
  • Support Committee for Israeli Peace and Human Rights Organizations SIVMO (Netherlands)
  • Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
  • Delegation of the European Union to Israel
  • Trocaire (Ireland)
  • Oxfam (U.K.)
  • Danish Representative Office in Ramallah (Denmark)
  • NGO Development Center (PLO and Sweden)
  • ZIVIK IFA Institut fur Auslandsbezeihungen, Germany

Misleading political and legal assumptions

The false and flawed premise that serves as the basis for the study, namely that Israel’s settlement policy is illegal and, therefore, the infrastructure and roads are illegal, adopts the Palestinian/European Union narrative. This narrative is based on false assumptions emanating from the premise that “occupation,” in and of itself, is illegal and that the territory belongs to the Palestinians.

Status of the territories

Israel’s entry into the territories in 1967 and subsequent control and administration of them were in accordance with international law as set out in the United Nations Charter, the internationally-acknowledged 1907 Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Occupation of territory during the course of an armed conflict is not illegal. To the contrary, it is an accepted and recognized legal state of affairs. Pending a negotiated resolution of the conflict, Israel committed itself to abide by the international humanitarian and legal norms for the administration of such territories, and its administration of them has been under strict judicial supervision by its Supreme Court.

All the relevant U.N. resolutions accepted by the parties that serve as the basis for the Middle East peace process, such as Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), call for negotiation and agreement between the parties as the sole means of settling the territorial dispute, including such issues as recognized boundaries, refugees, territorial inviolability and political independence.

Apart from numerous politically-generated, non-binding U.N. resolutions and statements by regional organizations, there exists no binding, recognized agreement, contract, or any other binding international determination or resolution that determines that the territories are Palestinian.

Similarly, according to the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, and specifically the 1995 “Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,” the permanent legal and political status of the territories has yet to be negotiated and agreed between the PLO and Israel, both of whom agreed in the Oslo Accords to negotiate the permanent status, without any unilateral action aimed at altering such status prior to the outcome of the negotiations.

Furthermore, and pending a permanent status agreement, the parties agreed in the Oslo Accords to divide between them the control and jurisdiction over the territories, such that the Palestinian Authority (established for that purpose) attained control and jurisdiction over the populated towns and villages in Areas A and B, whereas Israel retained control of Area C where Israel’s military and civilian infrastructures are located.

Thus, any determination that the territories are “Palestinian” is legally flawed and an attempt to undermine and prejudge the outcome of negotiation between the parties that has yet to be completed.

Status of settlements

Israel’s settlement policy has consistently been based on the applicable rules of international law, which enable legitimate utilization by the authority administering the territory of non-privately-owned land and property, pending the permanent settlement of the dispute. Thus, the use of non-privately-owned land for settlement or for agriculture is fully consistent with accepted international norms, as long as the status of the land is not changed pending its final negotiated outcome.

As such, Israel’s settlements cannot be seen to be a violation of international law. Any such determination is based on a selective, politically biased viewpoint taken outside the accepted international practice.

Furthermore, Israel and the PLO acknowledged in the 1993-9 Oslo Accords that the issue of settlements is an agreed negotiating issue between them as part of the permanent status negotiations. The Accords enable both sides, pending the completion of the permanent status negotiations, to conduct planning, zoning and construction activities in the areas under their respective jurisdiction (Palestinian Authority in Areas A and B, and Israel in Area C).

Thus, any attempt to claim that Israel does not have the authority and jurisdiction to construct transportation infrastructure in the area under its control displays a willful disregard or utter ignorance of the relevant instruments of international law as well as of the provisions of the Oslo Accords. It is even at variance with the Palestinian agreement to the fact that Israel has the right and responsibility to administer Area C.


According to its website, the basic aim of Breaking the Silence, initially directed toward the Israeli public, is to “expose alleged abuses by Israeli soldiers and boost public awareness” and thereby “bring an end to the occupation.”

This aim appears to have evolved and deepened into an extensive international outreach campaign aimed at the international public and financed by some of the most extreme elements in the international community, intent on undermining the legitimacy of Israel’s status and policies regarding its administration of the territories under its control.

The adoption of extreme political and ideological bias against Israel and the use of false and misleading accusations devoid of legal or historic substantiation undermine any credibility the organization and its founders might have had upon its establishment in 2004.

It is incumbent upon those organizations and states that support and finance Breaking the Silence to review their backing in light of the damage that the organization causes to their own credibility.


Alan Baker is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel: Note that the Sleeping Transatlantic Giant is Waking Up - Oded Eran, Shimon Stein


​ by Oded Eran, Shimon Stein

Relations between the United States and Europe, which reached a new low during the Trump presidency, are expected to pick up under a Biden administration, and this development could be troublesome for Israel. Jerusalem would do well to look westward and examine the renewed ties, and consider the latent risks and opportunities

After years of a weakening transatlantic alliance, exacerbated by President Trump's four years in office, strategic cooperation between the European Union and the United States is likely to resume. This cooperation is necessary to tackle the coronavirus crisis and its consequences, as well as the geopolitical and technological changes that have occurred over the last two decades. The renewed dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic will have implications for several other actors in the international arena, primarily Russia and China, as well as for actors on the regional level, including Turkey and Iran. Israel is also advised to consider the implications of the apparent change. Israel would do well to take into account the emerging changes and formulate its positions accordingly, particularly given that the US administration and the European Union will present coordinated stances on issues of importance to it.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc three decades ago started a process of the United States distancing from Europe and a weakening of the partnership between them. This trend was accelerated during the Trump presidency. Underlying this change was a lack of a strategic threat to European countries and the United States, along with the available option of implementing policies in various international frameworks and organizations as a substitute for bilateral dialogue. In addition, American willingness to use military force to advance goals and interests contrasted with the European aversion to this recourse, and the US made a geostrategic and economic pivot to Asia in the face of China’s rise. Under a thin layer of "business as usual," substantial disagreements arose between the countries on both sides of the Atlantic. While Europe continued to perceive the international legal system, institutions, and diplomacy as cornerstones of the international order, the United States preferred a separatist course of action, which sees international mechanisms and tools as an obstacle to policy implementation, and traditional partners more enemies than partners in the making and implementation of policy centered on prioritizing American interests. The displeasure of European leaders with the conduct of the United States and President Trump was accompanied by contempt for the President and their tendency to keep their distance – even before the concept of "America first" was incorporated into the international discourse.

However, the election of Joe Biden to the presidency increases the likelihood of a resumption of the strategic dialogue between Europe and the United States, which is essential to any successful confrontation with the challenges and dangers posed to values ​​and interests, as defined by the EU and the incoming US administration. This was reflected in the official platform of the US Democratic Party and by the President-elect during and after the election campaign. The European Union also issued a proposal for a transatlantic agenda and global cooperation that takes into account the changing geopolitical and technological power relations in the international arena. The framework formulated by the EU Commission was announced in EU-US: A new transatlantic agenda for global change, and was joined by the recommendations of a taskforce in NATO 2030: United for a New Era.


At the base of the transatlantic partnership is a common set of values, founded on respect for human rights and freedoms, gender equality, minority rights, the rule of law, democracy, and multilateralism, which in economic terms relies on a free market and regulated and fair international trade. The European side proposes to include a common approach to a range of global and regional issues in this agenda. The EU has prioritized the fight against the coronavirus outbreak and the ensuing economic crisis as well as the green agenda; technological issues; trade; standards for democratic order and the strengthening and expansion of democracy.

These principles are strategically and ideologically challenged by various countries and movements, most notably China and Russia. Both have demonstrated in recent years a growing assertiveness in the international arena, threatening stability in various regions around the world. In the opinion of the NATO member states, the organization has the resilience and economic and technological strength to meet the challenges, but to do so it must strengthen the coordination between them and agree on a platform and agenda for joint action.

Israel must carefully consider its own positions on issues where there is agreement in principle between the United States and Europe. Among them:

Values: The adherence by Europe and the United States to the values ​​of democracy, human freedom, the rule of law, and the international legal and institutional systems as a basis for joint transatlantic action may pose a challenge to several countries, including Israel. Indeed, Israel is increasingly seen among various groups in the liberal wing in the US and in Europe as often breaching this value system. For several years now, this view of Israel among several EU member states, compounded by Israeli government policies on West Bank settlements, has eliminated political dialogue on the most senior level. The renewal of transatlantic dialogue and the likelihood of US-EU cooperation may heighten Israel's negative image in Washington regarding its democratic steadfastness and commitment to individual rights and the rule of law.

The Iranian nuclear program: The EU praised President-elect Biden’s intention to return to the framework of the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) and emphasized that the agreement was adopted by the Security Council Resolution 2231 with the consent of the United States. Germany, France, and Britain have welcomed Biden's intention to return to the JCPOA and rescind the sanctions imposed by President Trump, in exchange for Iran's return to full compliance with the terms of the agreement. Biden and the JCPOA’s European partners have stated that a return to the agreement will be a starting point for further discussions on some related issues, as well as others that are not addressed within its framework – such as Iran’s missile program and its regional activity. The United States commitment to the JCPOA, in contrast to Israel's position, caused significant damage to US-Israel relations and the sharpened dispute between Israel and the EU. Therefore, and in view of Biden's intention to return to the agreement, Israel must formulate an informed position that takes into account the lessons of the campaign against the United States joining the agreement (in 2015, under President Obama); the implications of the United States 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, which prompted a series of Iranian violations of the terms of the agreement; and the US policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran, which Biden appears to oppose. Continuation of the current Israeli policy will create a confrontation with the incoming administration and with the European Union – or will just be ignored.

The political process between Israel and the Palestinians: While the Democratic Party and the European Union agree on the imperative of a two-state solution, their positions on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not entirely identical. Contrary to the EU's position, the Democratic platform does not mention the 1967 borders. It recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (without a separate reference to the eastern part of the city), while stipulating that the status of Jerusalem is a topic for negotiation in discussions on a permanent status agreement. For its part, the EU treats Jerusalem as one entity and the eastern side as part of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967. The EU opposes Israeli settlements in the West Bank; the Democratic Party platform opposes their expansion.

Alongside the differences with the United States, which will have significance if and when Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resume, the EU recommends joint action with the administration to establish the necessary conditions for significant progress in the political process, especially by working together to revive the Middle East Quartet. In a dialogue with the US administration in the context of the political process, the Israeli government will need to present a comprehensive outline for progress that will address sensitive issues such as further construction in existing settlements, as well as proposals for improving the economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sweeping Israeli opposition to individual actions, such as the resumption of US funding for UNRWA or discussions within the Quartet, if not accompanied by a list of constructive proposals, could lead to tensions with the administration.

The Eastern Mediterranean region: On both sides of the Atlantic, the recognition that Turkey is becoming a strategic nuisance has grown. A European-American dialogue on the issue of Turkey is a framework that will be convenient for Israel, which prefers that its own bilateral disagreements with Turkey do not command international attention. However, Israel has no interest in creating the impression that it is pushing for deterrence and sanctioning measures against Turkey.

In conclusion, Joe Biden's entry into the White House is an opportunity to open a new page in the transatlantic relationship. It is too early to assess the extent of the anticipated change in US policy, but it is expected that alongside disagreements, the United States will make an effort to coordinate positions with the EU on a number of issues that will shape the geostrategic reality of the coming decades, some of which are highly relevant to Israel. Israel would do well to take into account the emerging changes and formulate its policies accordingly, particularly given that the US administration and the European Union will likely present coordinated positions on issues of critical importance.


Oded Eran, Shimon Stein  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A toxic race curriculum has no place in Jewish schools - Jonathan S. Tobin


​ by Jonathan S. Tobin

The “1619 Project” version of history teaches students that Jews are racist beneficiaries of white privilege, a terrible blunder.

(JNS) Just how far are Jewish institutions willing to go to accommodate the principles of critical race theory and its “cancel culture” view of American and Jewish history? In the case of Brandeis University Press, even that respected liberal institution realizes that identifying American Jewish life as part of the fabric of institutional racism should not go unquestioned.

A controversy over the editors of that publishing house’s refusal to include an essay glorifying the Black Lives Matter movement by a historian who claims that Jews are guilty of taking part in “white supremacy” has shined a light not just on a debate going on within the academy. It has also brought attention to the question of whether the Jewish educational world is being hijacked by a radical mindset that sees the community as not merely a beneficiary of racism, but guilty of being part of an irredeemable institutional racist nation.

What happened at Brandeis is illuminating in that the university’s publishing house was actually in the process of putting out a second edition of Marc Dollinger’s Black Power, Jewish Politics, a book that promotes the dubious theory that post-1960s’ Jewish activism was a variant of the same identity politics as that expressed by radical African-American groups in the aftermath of the 1960s civil-rights movement. Dollinger, who holds a chair of Jewish Studies and Social Responsibility at San Francisco State University, was asked by Brandeis to write a new preface to his book that would relate his study to the events of the summer of 2020 and the Black Lives Matter movement. What he gave them was a polemic that both praised BLM and accused Jews of “white supremacy.”

According to The Forward, the editors objected to his linking the Jewish community to this blanket accusation of racism. As a result, the book went out with no preface at all. That has led to accusations that Brandeis University Press—and its Jewish history series edited by Jonathan Sarna, the pre-eminent historian of American Jewry—censored Dollinger for telling the truth about Jewish complicity in racism.

That radical revisionist view of American history has been bitterly criticized by a battery of distinguished historians for its glaring inaccuracies, appalling lack of context and myopic retelling of the nation’s story as one long tale of racism.
Of course, the fact that it published the book at all gives the lie to the accusation of censorship. But, and more to the point, as Sarna said, crediting the success of the American Jewish community primarily to its whiteness and white-supremacist racism is “not only wrong, but deeply hurtful.”

Yet as much as that decision was a heartening and somewhat surprising example of institutions standing up to the avalanche of delegitimizing rhetoric from the BLM movement and its supporters, a look around the contemporary Jewish educational world tells a very different and more dismal story. As historian Gil Troy noted in an insightful essay published last month in Mosaic magazine, the adoption by Jewish day schools of The New York Times’ 1619 Project curriculum is not so much unwise as a case of a community committing “ideological suicide.”

That radical revisionist view of American history has been bitterly criticized by a battery of distinguished historians for its glaring inaccuracies, appalling lack of context and myopic retelling of the nation’s story as one long tale of racism. Nevertheless, the attempt to argue that despite the enormous struggles to rid the nation of slavery and then to advance the cause of civil rights that America is, and always was, irredeemably racist won the newspaper an undeserved Pulitzer Prize.

Worse than that, schools around the nation are adopting a curriculum adopted from this biased compendium of untruths and misinterpretations to teach their students the nation’s history.

That’s hardly surprising given the free pass the BLM movement and its desire to smash—both literally and figuratively—American history has gotten from the mainstream media and many in the educational establishment.

The popularity of the “1619 Project” explains why cities and states are not just tearing down monuments to Confederates like Robert E. Lee but doing the same to Abraham Lincoln, the man who liberated the slaves. Some of his statues and those of other American historical figures not associated with slavery—are being destroyed and his name even removed from schools.

Yet it is especially troubling to see this trend spreading to day schools—institutions that play a vital role in reinforcing a strong sense of Jewish identity. Support for civil rights and racial equality is part of any ethical education. But essays by prominent Jewish educators, such as the one published by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism by its senior director of teen engagement Rabbi Joshua Rabin, in which he writes that “the problem of racism lies within me,” are deeply troubling. It reflects the critical race theory claim that all whites are racist and that Jews must also label themselves in this way.

The problem with this sort of teaching is that it treats race as not merely important but as the only possible defining characteristic. In its rush to try to cast blame for past discrimination and lingering problems, as well as its determination to label all Americans as guilty, individualism and belief in meritocracy are tossed into the garbage heap of history. The characteristics of American society that enabled immigrant Jews to go from, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, “a bookkeeper in Brooklyn to a Supreme Court Justice” in “one generation” are ignored, if not completely written out of existence. It was America’s inexorable progress towards liberty that enabled Jewish progress, not racism.

Nor can it be ignored that critical race theory is inextricably tied to intersectional ideology, which views Israel as an “oppressor” of indigenous people of color. Intersectionality isn’t just linked to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It ignores the fact that Jews are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, and that the majority who live there now are people of color whose families emigrated from Muslim countries.

When Jews adopt the fundamentally illiberal attitudes of the BLM movements and the charlatans who promote the theory of White Fragility, like the book's author Robin DiAngelo (see The Jewish stake in opposing ‘anti-racism’ training by this writer), or its Jewish offshoot articulated by people like Dollinger, they are trashing their own history. They’re also dooming their children to life in a system dominated by racial attitudes rather than that one in which the successful struggle for liberty is lauded as the right model.

No school should be poisoning the minds of its students with the ideological patent nostrums of the “1619 Project,” but that is especially true for Jewish ones. When American ideals are smashed along with the statues, a Jewish community that has thrived because of liberal ideas that are antithetical to the racialism of BLM will inevitably suffer.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @j


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter