Saturday, January 16, 2021

Twitter 'whistleblower' leaks video of Dorsey telling staff actions will be 'much bigger' than Trump ban - Joseph A. Wulfsohn


​ by Joseph A. Wulfsohn

'This is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day,' CEO says

O'Keefe: Big Tech whistleblowers having 'crisis of conscience'

A leaked recording of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey suggests that the company's policy enforcement actions will go far beyond banning President Trump

The right-wing guerilla news outlet Project Veritas released a clip on Thursday given to them by a purported Twitter "insider whistleblower" who secretly recorded remarks by Dorsey to staff.

"You should always feel free to express yourself in whatever format manifestation feels right," Dorsey said in the clip. 

Dorsey, who recently addressed the controversy over his company's decision to permanently suspend the president, told staff in a virtual meeting that Twitter will do a "full retro" that will "take some time," but drew focus to the platform's former most high-profile account. 


"We know we are focused on one account right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and go on beyond the inauguration," Dorsey said. "So, the focus is certainly on this account and how it ties to real-world violence. But also, we need to think much longer-term around how these dynamics play out over time. I don't believe this is going away anytime soon."


Dorsey then referenced actions taken against QAnon conspiracy theorists as part of a recent purge of Twitter accounts, telling staff it's part of a "much broader approach that we should be looking at and going deeper on."

"You know, the U.S. is extremely divided. Our platform is showing that every single day," Dorsey later said. "And our role is to protect the integrity of that conversation and do what we can to make sure that no one is being harmed based off that. And that is our focus."


Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe teased Thursday that more leaks from Twitter may come, saying "we've had over a dozen people reach out to us this week with video evidence inside Twitter."

"Stay tuned," O'Keefe told viewers. "They may be private companies, but they have more power than all three branches of government."

A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News, "The remarks shown in the video were delivered to our more than 5,400 employees and are nearly the same words Jack shared in a recent Tweet Thread offering context around and reflections on our work to protect the conversation in recent weeks." 

On Wednesday, Dorsey defended Twitter's decision to permanently suspend President Trump's account, saying that it was the "right decision."


He did acknowledge, however, that taking such actions "fragment the public conversation", "divide us" and "limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning." He also admitted that the power of his corporation in the "global public conversation" has set a "dangerous" precedent. 

In a recent interview on "Hannity," O'Keefe told the host that "in this time of moral and political crisis, I think courage is contagious, and we have all these whistleblowers coming to us, insiders helping us expose." 

"We need more of these people," O'Keefe added. "Right now, I think, is the time to be hopeful if we can create an army of exposers, because exposure itself, sunlight needs to be the best disinfectant. Exposure itself is the solution."


Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Conservative Purge Won’t Stop With Big Tech - Tod Starnes


​ by Tod Starnes

A great darkness sweeps across the world.


I think there's a bit of confusion over the meaning of the First Amendment. 

Twitter has every right to decide who uses its platform. So does Facebook. And Google. Whoever pays the mortgage gets to decide the rules.

I own a broadcast media company that includes a news-talk radio station and two prominent websites. And just like Twitter and Facebook, I get to decide who has a voice on my platforms.

Unlike Big Tech, I actually cherish free speech. I believe in spirited debate. And I believe in the free exchange of ideas.

That's why this rock-solid constitutionalist conservative permits liberals to host radio shows in my company.

We have rules governing foul language, but otherwise you can say what you want to say on my pages and my air waves.

And why is that? It's because I'm confident in my beliefs and I'm a staunch defender of the United States Constitution. That’s what it means to be a conservative.

So, it's troubling that Big Tech has declared war on conservatives. Thousands of Trump supporters were purged on Twitter over the weekend, though the company claims the action was part of a routine audit to remove bots. Every freedom-loving American should be alarmed by this, which I wrote about in my book, “Culture Jihad: How to Stop the Left From Killing a Nation.”

What should be of even greater concern, however, is the Democrats and their propagandists in the Mainstream Media who are encouraging what has become a political cleansing.

They want to punish anyone who supported President Trump. It's not about reconciliation, it's about retribution.

What happened at the U.S. Capitol was an attack on the very foundation of America. Those responsible should face the stiffest penalty under the law.

But to suggest that every conservative and every Christian conservative in the nation bears responsibility is nonsense.

We called to be happy warriors - defending freedom guided by our faith in Almighty God.

Whether you like it or not, Big Tech has every right to decide what information you receive on their platforms. They have a right to determine who gets a platform and who does not. They get to determine who has a voice and who is silenced.

What they do not have a right to is special protections provided by the federal government. Unfortunately, Republican leadership in the House and Senate squandered any opportunity of us righting this offensive wrong.

It's not the first time in world history that authors and artists and political pundits have been silenced. Look no further than 1930s Germany to see what happens when your ideology clashes with the ruling class.

A great darkness swept across the world and I fear we may be in for some very difficult days.

Over the weekend the political director of ABC News literally called for the cleansing of Trump supporters - a tweet he later deleted.

But, still. He said it.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden told us darkness was coming to America. Believe it.

There is no doubt in my mind that on January 20th our nation will be less free. In the coming years I suspect that Christians and conservatives will be the target of relentless attacks.

They have already announced their intentions to declare an all-out war on the traditional American family. The Democrats will seek to shut down our businesses and our church houses.

If you are a follower of Almighty God, you need to prepare for the coming days of persecution. But as Christians we must be courageous – knowing that Light dispels the darkness. And one day morning will return to America.

This article first appeared in Townhall.


Tod Starnes  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden’s Disastrous Pick to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division - Joseph Klein


​ by Joseph Klein

Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.


Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, is a disastrous choice. Clarke has a long record of making racially charged-comments, going back to her time in college and continuing to this day. She also has spoken out in favor of anti-Semites. Back in college, Clarke led a student group that provided an anti-Semitic professor a platform to spew his vile remarks. Much more recently, Clarke supported an advocate of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. If Clarke’s name is not withdrawn from consideration, the Senate must reject her nomination.

Back in the day when Clarke served as the president of the Black Students Association (BSA) at Harvard, she co-authored a letter to the Harvard Crimson asserting that blacks are born with “superior physical and mental abilities.” It’s all due to the chemical melanin, Clarke claimed, which “endows [b]lacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." The Harvard Crimson editors at the time called for Clarke to resign her position at the BSA unless she was “prepared to retract her statements, and apologize publicly for making them.” The furthest that Clarke was willing to go at that time was stating that "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe.” [Emphasis added] There was no public retraction back then.

Clarke also invited the late Wellesley Professor of Africana Studies Anthony Martin to speak at a 1994 Black Students Association-sponsored event. Clarke’s guest used his time to slander Jews with the accusation that Jews had a “tradition” of persecuting blacks. "There was a Jewish monopoly over Blacks being cursed," Martin said during his address.

Clarke defended the choice of Martin to speak after receiving criticism from the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel. "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact," Clarke said. The real indisputable fact is that Jews have put their lives on the line in the cause of the black civil rights movement. For example, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman served in 1964 as voting-registration volunteers in Meridian, Mississippi and were murdered by Klansmen.

Now that Clarke is craving for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights position in the Biden administration, she wants a do-over. In a recent interview, Clarke said that she realizes it was a mistake to invite Martin to speak at Harvard. “Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” Clarke said, adding that “I unequivocally denounce antisemitism.”

Clarke’s recantation comes way too late. If Democrats had an ounce of intellectual honesty, which they do not, Clarke’s invitation to an anti-Semitic professor to speak at Harvard when she was a student would be reason enough for them to “cancel” Clarke now. After all, Democrats in the Senate were willing to throw Trump nominees’ alleged behavior in college and high school back at them when their nominations were being considered. The worst case involved the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But there were others as well who were targeted by the cancel culture crowd.

In any case, we don’t even have to look back at Clarke’s college days to find proof of her support for radicals who espouse anti-Semitic views. In 2018, for example, Israel denied Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, entry to the country because of his organization’s support for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Clarke tweeted, “Incredibly disturbed to hear that @VinceWarren was detained and denied entry into Israel on a trip that was carefully and thoughtfully planned out over the course of several months. #CivilRights Lawyers should not be penalized for their work to promote justice.”

As for the letter to the Harvard Crimson Clarke co-authored, claiming that blacks have “superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke is now saying that it was all a misunderstanding. She claims that the letter was intended as a satirical response to the book The Bell Curve, which posited genetic differences between whites and blacks. Clarke wants us to believe that her letter’s references to melanin as the cause of black superiority “was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.” That’s disinformation. At the time when the letter was written, Clarke said that she was uncertain whether the melanin theory of black superiority was true or not. There wasn’t a hint of sarcasm in the letter.

Putting aside her comments about melanin back in college, Clarke certainly shows no uncertainty today in embracing critical race theory, which posits that America is inherently racist. In her capacity as president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Clarke condemned the Trump administration’s decision to remove critical race theory from federal government training programs. "Our nation stands at an inflection point as communities are grappling with the ongoing threat of racism, white supremacy and police violence," Clarke said in a statement. "President Trump's latest federal directive is an attempt to discredit, condemn and silence important conversations happening in communities and workplaces about anti-racism and about our nation's history of white supremacy. By banning government support for these discussions, he sends a dangerous message to the country that racism is a fallacy."

Last year, Clarke denounced what she claims is “systemic racism that pervades every aspect of our lives, especially when it comes to policing and the operation of the criminal justice system of our country.” She supports defunding of the police. “I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and contributed to mass incarceration, while investing more in programs and policies that address critical community needs,” she wrote last June for Newsweek. She called the concerns regarding the violence that broke out last year in the wake of the George Floyd killing a “distraction.”

Clearly, if Clarke were to become Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and have her way, she would push to put the police on trial all over the country. She would also force-feed critical race theory to all federal employees and beyond. She would support the BDS movement as a civil right.

The Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.


Joseph Klein  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanon Wants an End to Iranian Occupation - Khaled Abu Toameh


​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Lebanese are demanding an end to Iranian occupation of their country; they are clearly hoping that the international community will intervene to assist them in freeing Lebanon from Iran's control.

  • The Lebanese are worried that their country will meet the fate endured by Iraq, Syria and Yemen, where the Iranians and their militia proxies are playing a major role in the civil wars currently plaguing these countries.

  • The Lebanese are demanding an end to Iranian occupation of their country; they are clearly hoping that the international community will intervene to assist them in freeing Lebanon from Iran's control.

  • A policy of appeasement or engagement with the mullahs will yield only one thing: blood running even more freely in the streets of Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq -- as well as nuclear weapons.

A recent announcement by the chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh (pictured), that Iran intends to use Lebanon as a "forefront" for waging war on Israel, has enraged many Lebanese, who say that the time has come to end the Iranian occupation of their country. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Iran's recent announcement that it intends to use Lebanon as a "forefront" for waging war on Israel has enraged many Lebanese, who say that the time has come to end the Iranian occupation of their country.

The Lebanese are worried that their country will meet the fate endured by Iraq, Syria and Yemen, where the Iranians and their militia proxies are playing a major role in the civil wars currently plaguing these countries.

The Lebanese were reacting to statements by the chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, who was quoted as saying that Lebanon is at the forefront of Iran's battle against Israel.

Referring to the missiles Iran has supplied to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip, Hajizadeh said: "Whatever you see in Gaza and Lebanon is with our support; these days they use missiles instead of simple rockets.

"Making Lebanon an extension of Iran violates the country's sovereignty and independence," wrote Lebanese commentator Souad Lazkani.

"Iran can and will use its rockets to fire from Lebanon to Israel if need be and whenever it wants, even if Lebanon does not agree to it. It will fall on the Lebanese people to pay the price of the heavy consequences as its territory becomes an arena for Iran's battle with Israel."

Hussein Wajeh, media adviser to Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, warned against turning Lebanon into an Iranian province:

"Some Iranian officials are trying to involve the Lebanese people in the Iranian regime's open wars with the international community.

"Lebanon has not – and will not – be the front line on behalf of Iran in any confrontation. The Lebanese will not pay the price for the Iranian regime. Lebanon is an independent, free and sovereign country."

To express their rejection and fear of Iran's malign intentions, many Lebanese have taken to social media to warn that they will not allow the mullahs of Tehran and their Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorist organization to drag their country into another war with Israel.

A hashtag currently trending on Twitter under the slogan "Beirut is Free, Iran Out," shows how eager the Lebanese are to end the Iranian occupation of their country. The criticism, of course, is also directed toward Hezbollah, which has long been using Lebanon as a launching pad for carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel with Iranian-supplied weapons.

One of the posts on Twitter reads: "The defendant: The Iranian Hezbollah. The charge: Participation in the wars in our region."

"No to terrorism, no to Hezbollah, no to Iran," wrote Aline Hatem, a Lebanese woman. "Lebanon is always going to be independent."

George CK Wardini, a Lebanese citizen who describes himself as "center-left, progressive and secular," remarked: "Lebanon is under Iranian occupation and it needs to be freed from this oppressive dictatorship!"

Addressing Hezbollah and all Lebanese who support Iran, a Lebanese social media user called Cactus Jack commented: "if you love Iran so bad, why don't you go there and leave us the f*** alone? Lebanon is not for Iran or any rapist terrorist or warlords. Lebanon is for us, always life will win over death."

Sara Abou Rjeily, a Lebanese artist and photographer, wrote that any Lebanese politician who ignores the threat Hezbollah poses to Lebanon is acting against the interests of his or her own country: "Every Lebanese politician who does not publicly acknowledge that Hezbollah is an occupier and a terrorist and criminal [organization] and an existential threat is the one who denies Lebanon's rights, its identity and its independence."

Adding insult to injury, last week, Iran's allies in Lebanon unveiled in Beirut a statue of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in a US drone attack in Iraq a year ago. In the past few weeks, several images of Soleimani have appeared on boards in the Hezbollah-controlled districts of Beirut and southern Lebanon, sparking a wave of online criticism from many Lebanese.

"Hezbollah seems pretty damn desperate to make late Iranian General Qassem Soleimani a local hero, despite knowing that for a majority of the people in Lebanon he simply represents a foreign power," said Lebanese researcher Nizar Hassan.

The Lebanese Social Democratic Party, Kataeb, urged the Lebanese government to summon the Iranian ambassador to Beirut for clarification regarding Tehran's ongoing military support for Hezbollah. The party accused Iran of holding Lebanon hostage and violating its sovereignty. "Hezbollah's illegal weapons did not protect Lebanon in the past and will not protect it today," according to a statement by Kataeb. "Instead, these weapons subject Lebanon to all forms of isolation, boycotts and sanctions."

The Lebanese, like a growing number of Arabs in the Gulf states, are saying that they prefer peace, stability and prosperity over weapons, statues and wars with Israel. The Lebanese are making it clear that they have suffered more than enough from Iran's endless meddling in their internal affairs. The Lebanese are demanding an end to Iranian occupation of their country; they are clearly hoping that the international community will intervene to assist them in freeing Lebanon from Iran's control.

The message the Lebanese people are sending to the international community is encouraging: Lebanon does not want war with Israel; Lebanon wants to get rid of Hezbollah and Iran. We Lebanese ask you to support this goal by applying unyielding pressure on the mullahs in Tehran. A policy of appeasement or engagement with the mullahs will yield only one thing: blood running even more freely in the streets of Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq -- as well as nuclear weapons.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Amazon Goes Mad - James V. DeLong


​ by James V. DeLong

By nixing Parler, Amazon has exposed itself to an impressive spectrum of risks, both legal and business.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." —Euripides

Amazon abruptly de-platformed Parler last week, terminating its web services hosting account with a speed and lack of notice clearly designed to ruin the company.

Amazon covered up this action by a fig leaf of allegations that Parler did not adequately control incitements to violence, or that someone might sometime use Parler to suggest that someone think about using violence, ignoring the extent to which Facebook, Twitter, and other social media freely allow all sorts of Progressive groups to glorify, incite, and condone violence.

By doing this, Amazon has exposed itself to an impressive spectrum of risks, both legal and business.  Parler has already filed suit.

Most obvious are contract liabilities. Amazon clearly violated its terms of service, which require adequate notice.  In addition, a fundamental of contract law is that every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, an obligation violated by destroying a company at the behest of a competitor or political opponent.

Parler also alleges violation of the antitrust laws in that Amazon's action was designed to help another of its hosting customers, Twitter, a clear transgression if there was any communication between the two.

Moving on, some serious civil rights claims exist.  If Amazon and Twitter talked about this action with government officials, then those officials are liable for violating Parler's constitutional rights in several ways, which makes Amazon and Twitter a part of a conspiracy to this end.  Violation of First Amendment free speech rights is the most obvious.  Also, though, Amazon and Twitter seem to be interfering with Parler's efforts to find alternative hosting and legal representation, which would, I submit, transgress the Privileges & Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

Given the incestuous current relationship between Big Tech and the Democrats, it is almost a certainty that such conversations took place.

The media, naturally, pooh-poohed the claims and trotted out various experts to minimize them.  In fact, though, Amazon's defenses look thin and would, I would bet, crumble in actual litigation, given an honest court.

The dubious legality of Amazon's action raises two possibilities about the role of Amazon's lawyers in this affair, both of which are disturbing.

The first is that the censors did not ask the lawyers, but simply did it or overrode legal cautions.  This would mean that the company's employees are out of control and indifferent to the welfare of the company itself, answerable only to the demands of their woke religion.  Note, in particular, that cutting off Parler was of no benefit to Amazon, which bore no responsibility for Parler's supposed failure to police its users.

The second is that the lawyers gave them the go-ahead on the grounds that the legal profession is now so corrupted that no court would dare to find for Parler, however meritorious its case.  (The courts' refusal to hear about election fraud supports this theory.)  Also, just as lawyers who tried to represent Trump were bullied and intimidated, Amazon might feel certain of its ability to prevent Parler from obtaining adequate representation.

Take your pick of these possibilities, but either creates big business risks for Amazon.

Assume that you are chief information officer of a large company.  How can you justify using Amazon as your host server, knowing that you are now naked to the whims of its censors or to the machinations of a competitor with better connections at Amazon than you have?  And that Amazon is contemptuous of your ability to get legal relief?  Today's action seems to be a combination of ideology and avarice, but pure financial corruption will not be far behind.

Furthermore, if the CIO queries Amazon about it, what can the company do to reassure him?  Nothing.  One of the most important assets of any organization is the ability to make a credible promise, and Amazon has, in one stroke, destroyed this asset in a way that is impossible to fix.

When I sometimes get gloomy about the long-term economic prospects in the U.S., a friend in the investment community likes to remind me that America has a big competitive advantage in the form of the rule of law, or "the insiders aren't allowed to rob you blind!"  Amazon has decided to prove him wrong.

As a matter of business prudence, it will be hard for a CIO to justify staying with Amazon.  This will be especially true for global companies, which rightly fear the incestuous relations between Big Tech and the new administration.  Moving operations offshore looks sensible, if you can find a nation less subject to this toxic stew of woke madness and crony greed.

If you think corporations all over the world are not thinking about this, recognize that directors' liabilities have expanded greatly over the past few years, largely at the behest of the left.  Consult a handbook published by the Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie on the duties of corporate directors, and judge how well a director meets these if he does not weigh seriously the risks of placing the corporation's existence at the whims of anonymous Amazon bureaucrats.

The hosting service is the most important part of Amazon's business, and the deplatforming of Parler will ramify on the consumer side.  Asking conservatives to boycott Amazon is not a good idea, because it is an important outlet for small businesses and independent authors.  But action is still possible.  One can seek out alternatives, or use Amazon to search for products and then order elsewhere.  One can return things more readily, or switch from Prime TV to Roku.  For Amazon to motivate 75 million conservatives to find ways to annoy it is a dubious business strategy.  (Amazon's directors had better read that handbook, too.)

None of these consequences will play out quickly, but forces have been set in motion that will, in the long run, be detrimental to Amazon.

So, in addition to Euripides, consider an observation of Robert Conquest: "the behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies."  Or, perhaps, re-read "Ozymandias."

Image: ajay_suresh via Flickr (cropped), CC BY 2.0.

James V. DeLong  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

As America reels from political trauma, Jewish continuity points way to national unity - Melanie Phillips


​ by Melanie Phillips

A covenant is a commitment going beyond mutual advantage, requiring instead joint obligations in a permanent, unconditional and unbreakable union.

As ever, Judaism has the best line. “Put not your trust in princes,” said the psalmist. Amen to that.

Both the United States and Israel are about to have new governments. Next week sees the inauguration of America’s 46th president, while Israel will be going back to the polls in March to elect a prime minister.

In both countries, the populace is divided between those who regard their current leader as a prince who would rescue them from monsters and those who regard the prince himself as a monster.

President Donald Trump has just been impeached for the second time, on this occasion over his role in last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, which was stormed by his supporters. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is fighting for his fourth term in office despite facing corruption charges.

In both America and Israel, however, political divisions go far deeper than the passions aroused by Trump or Netanyahu. The political structure of each country makes it prone to fissure.

That’s because these structures did not grow organically from historic tradition. Each country created its political settlement as new—in America, through the revolution in the 18th century that sundered it from British rule, and in Israel, through its rebirth as a nation as part of the new international order after two world wars.

Coincidentally, both became independent after freeing themselves from Britain. Both, however, failed to incorporate the driving force for unity and tranquility that Britain possesses—and for which it happened to draw upon a model established by the Jews.

This was a constitutional monarchy. As explained by Daniel Elazar in a paper for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, the power of the monarchy in ancient Israel was limited by the principle of a covenant between the king, the people and God. Other centers of power were established that also constrained the king.

A covenant is a commitment going beyond mutual advantage, requiring instead joint obligations in a permanent, unconditional and unbreakable union. Although different in certain respects from today’s democratic set-up, this model of monarchical power limited by temporal parliaments has governed Britain ever since antiquity.

True, in the 17th-century Britain had a revolution led by Oliver Cromwell and other parliamentarians in which they executed the king. But after this developed in turn into a dictatorship that eclipsed parliament, Britain returned to a constitutional monarchy and has renounced political extremism ever since.

The key point is that the unity of the country was restored through reviving continuity with ancient tradition.

By contrast, the American Revolution, like its 18th-century French counterpart, sought to wipe the historical slate clean. America’s Founding Fathers inscribed on this empty slate a set of abstract principles such as liberty and equality from which the liberated nation would construct its new, idealized society.

Instead of loyalty to the British crown, Americans institutionalized allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. But this was merely a body of laws severed from their roots in religion, history and tradition.

True, the Founding Fathers made many references to God and the Hebrew Bible, and like Britain were inspired by the Davidic monarchy that had brought the Israelite tribes together in a unified kingdom. But they ignored the key insight of the Jewish tradition—the absolutely central role of cultural memory, continuity and inheritance, and the corresponding duty to hand down history, tradition and observance to every succeeding generation.

America ruptured that continuity when it broke with the crown. It thought it could unite instead around abstract principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Instead of an inclusive and flexible balance of interests, its constitution established a rigid separation between religion and state, separated the powers of law and politics, and turned abstract and detached principles into a secular faith.

But without anchorage in their ultimate authority, principles are fragile and vulnerable.

The British philosopher and conservative thinker Sir Roger Scruton, who died a year ago, wrote that America was “a nation created by politics,” identifying itself explicitly as “the land of the free.”

As such, it has earned the gratitude of millions by magnificently upholding freedom at home and abroad. But liberty does not attach people to each other.

Scruton, who fought for the freedom of people oppressed under communism, also valued community and solidarity, order and decency, honor and faith. He understood that these aren’t abstract and universal principles, but are particular to distinct communities and grow organically over time.

In Britain, such principles have been guaranteed by a covenant between the monarch and the people that stands above politics as a sacred bond of trust. The people owe their allegiance not to a set of ideological abstractions but to the monarch in parliament, who therefore serves as the fulcrum of unity.

Ironically, Israel ignores its own ancient model for creating a stable and united society. In its fractured and dysfunctional political system, interests are not balanced. Instead, power is concentrated in the hands of those who win the endless struggle between competing groups.

Accordingly, it is unable to address the fundamental division between those who see the state as the fulfillment of Jewish religious belief and those who view it as a way of breaking with Judaism in favor of universal values.

All of this is why conservatism finds its most authentic expression in Britain, but is scarcely even understood as a political doctrine in either America or Israel.

Conservatism is, as the name implies, all about conserving. In Britain, despite the erosion of national unity through the culture wars, this means conserving continuity with the past and the history that binds the society together.

In Israel, these things are conserved by religiously observant people but take the form of community enterprises, not a national political structure.

While the power afforded to ultra-religious parties by Israel’s political system is disproportionate and damaging to national unity, Israel will not survive unless it defines itself specifically as a Jewish state bound by Jewish principles and tradition.

Nations that instead pin their identity on universal principles ultimately have no defense against those who wish to refashion that identity.

American conservatism, meanwhile, is narrowly defined around limiting state power. The ultimate guarantor of American freedom is the citizen bearing arms, so conservatives have found themselves conserving the national value of individualism. This has rendered them powerless to fend off the onslaught against the historic principles of Western culture.

Now unity will be even harder to establish—not just because of angry Trump supporters who will continue to believe the election was stolen from them, but because of the Democrats’ agenda.

We are already seeing their vindictive vendetta against all conservatives. They will also promote full-on identity politics, which is based on stirring up poisonous resentments, institutionalizing injustices and setting group against group in an endless struggle for power.

The point about presidents and prime ministers is that they are not princes but politicians. This baggage makes their place as leaders of the nation conditional and fragile. If they behave badly, this provokes not only political fracture but enduring national trauma.

Of course, the monarchical genie cannot be put back into the bottle where it has escaped. But rather than putting our faith in princes, we should place it instead in covenantal politics and continuity.

And the template for this, the best way of ensuring a united and tranquil society, is contained in a book that the secular West disdains at its peril.


Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for “The Times of London,” her personal and political memoir, “Guardian Angel,” has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, “The Legacy.” Go to to access her work.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Capitol Hill Riot Was Pelosi’s Fault, Not Trump’s - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

Why couldn’t Congress’ private police force of 2,000 protect it from a mob of hundreds?


The Capitol Police have over 2,000 sworn officers. A police force dedicated to protecting Capitol Hill has more personnel in its service than the police forces of most of the country.

Congress' private cops are the 19th largest police force in the country. It’s a larger force than the police forces of Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, or Milwaukee with a massive $460 million budget.

It’s the only legislative federal force in the country that is answerable exclusively to Congress.

While Democrats advocated defunding the police, their private police force budget shot up from $375 million in 2016 to $460 million in 2020. After the Capitol Hill riot, expect it to go higher.

Much higher.

The media claimed that the Capitol Police were overwhelmed by a massive riot. Except that the number of violent rioters was, at most, in the hundreds, while the Capitol Police could deploy a force the size that protects entire cities to protect a few buildings from hundreds of people.

Media narratives have blamed President Trump for not calling out the National Guard, but the military should not have been needed to supplement a police force as big as those of Atlanta or Denver, but was not tied down with an entire city to police, and really only had one simple job.

And it catastrophically failed at that one job.

When Black Lives Matter rioters, incited by Democrats and the media, besieged the White House, 60 members of the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division were injured holding the line while President Trump and his family were taken to a bunker. 11 members of the Service were hospitalized due to the violence of the BLM riot that Democrats falsely claimed was peaceful.

Much of the heavy lifting was done by the Park Police, another one of the innumerable mini police forces swarming the city, which has only 641 sworn officers spread across three cities.

65 Park Police officers were wounded in the BLM riots and 11 had to be hospitalized.

This roughly matches the 60 Capitol Police and 58 D.C. cops injured in the Capitol riot.

Attorney General Barr listed a figure of 150 officers injured in total in the BLM riots in D.C.

That puts the lie to the false Democrat claim that those riots were peaceful and these weren’t.

The only objective metric for measuring what is and isn’t a riot is the amount of violence involved. Both sets of riots targeted a center of government, the White House for BLM and Capitol Hill for the alt-right, and the BLM riot was objectively more destructive.

In the Capitol riot, Brian Sicknick, a pro-Trump veteran, was struck on the head, suffered a brain clot and died. During the BLM riots, law enforcement officers suffered concussions. None died, but that’s a matter of luck, not restraint on the part of BLM thugs using clubs and bricks.

Despite the heavy toll on the injured officers from the Secret Service and the Park Police, Democrats and the media falsely accused both forces of violently assaulting “peaceful protesters”. Instead of condemning the violence which included bricks, bottles, fireworks, and bodily fluids being thrown at law enforcement officers, Democrats formed a lynch mob.

Rep. Grijalva demanded that White House fencing come down and that the head of the Park Police come down to testify. The Park Police were attacked for using tear gas. The Washington Post assailed a Secret Service officer for using mace against a BLM rioter attacking him.

Unlike the Capitol Police, the Park Police and the Secret Service did not kill a single BLM rioter despite provocations and bodily injuries. The same can’t be said of Congress’ keystone cops who managed to kill an unarmed woman who was not physically assaulting them at the time.

During the BLM riots, Democrats and their media considered mace against a violent assailant an overreaction, but think that shooting an unarmed woman who was not attacking anyone to be an underreaction proving that it’s not about policing, but that leftist lives matters, others don’t.

But the tactical question is why the Capitol rioters got into Congress and the BLM rioters never made it inside the White House. Intruders have gotten into the White House before, but the Secret Service and the Park Police kept the violent racist mob from getting through.

The White House has better security, but the question is why is Congress’ security so bad?

It’s not for a lack of money or manpower. The Capitol Police force is ridiculously huge. It has a massive budget. But it also has virtually no oversight except from a corrupt congressional system. The last time anyone paid attention to the Capitol Police, they were bungling the Awan investigation under pressure from Congressional Democrats. But that’s what the ‘Caps’ are for.

The Capitol Police are a patronage force. Things have improved since the days when joining meant knowing the right people. But not by that much. The level of professionalism of the various D.C. forces is fairly low, and the Capitol Police are notorious as the worst of them.

There’s very little oversight of the Capitol Police whose leadership is notorious for ignoring information requests and complaints. The massive force answers to Congress and it acts less like a police force than as bodyguards for a fairly corrupt organization with no accountability.

But that’s what it is.

When the FBI raided Rep. William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson’s office, there was outrage and Rep. Nancy Pelosi signed on to a statement demanding that the feds return the papers that they had “unconstitutionally” seized from the corrupt Dem’s office. The issue at stake was the FBI, which answers to the executive, was not supposed to operate on Capitol Hill and on Pelosi’s turf.

"Not anyone here is above the law," Pelosi argued. But that was exactly the point. Congress had its own private police and the FBI was not supposed to set foot in her domain.

Now, Pelosi is complaining that the executive didn’t dispatch a force quickly enough to her aid.

President Trump, despite false claims by Democrats and the media, did not tell anyone to attack Congress. Like Pelosi and other Democrats, he supported political protests. The violence began while President Trump was giving his speech and had nothing to do with his words.

It was up to Congress and its private police force to secure the premises and stop the violence.

The Capitol Police failed badly where the Secret Service and the Park Police had prevailed against BLM’s attack on the White House. They failed in ways that are baffling and inexcusable.

The most obvious problem is that some Capitol Police appeared to allow many of the protesters inside. Why this happened is a subject of heated debate, but the range of possibilities include an environment where leftist protesters storming and occupying Capitol Hill had been normalized, sympathy by the police, provocation by some higher authority, or miscommunication. All of this reflects badly on Congress and on its private police force.

The Capitol Police had the manpower and the budget to secure Congress. And there’s no excuse why Congress could not and should not have been secured. There was no brilliant strategy here. And the Capitol Police, despite being praised as heroes, behaved ineptly and showed no coherent plan, some trying to deescalate, while others lashed out violently.

These mixed messages may have been due to the Black Lives Matter effect, a successor to the Ferguson Effect, which left many police officers afraid to resist criminals for fear of losing their jobs and even going to jail. When the White House came under attack, Attorney General Barr and national security officials rallied law enforcement personnel to make a strong stand.

When Capitol Hill came under siege, there was no congressional leadership to respond to it. Instead of taking command of the situation, House members panicked, squabbled, and let their private police flail with the situation while they hid away. The sharp contrast between President Trump and Attorney General Barr in Lafayette Square, and members of Congress waiting for their police force to protect them isn’t just ideological. It’s a basic question of crisis leadership.

Democrats and the media falsely claimed that what happened in Lafayette Square was a photo op for which peaceful protesters were gassed, but it’s how you show leadership in a riot.

Congress waited for their private police force to protect them whose members knew that whatever happened, they would be blamed for overreacting or underreacting to the protest by a leadership that doesn’t understand what they do and is sacrificing them to cover its asses.

President Trump, AG Barr, and administration officials gave clear orders to federal law enforcement to stand their ground. Administration officials then protected officers from the fallout as the same Democrats howling for the heads of Capitol rioters were howling for the heads of Secret Service and Park Police leaders who were holding back the hordes of racist BLM rioters.

Capitol Police members had no sense that Pelosi or that members of Congress were behind them. They were operating in a BLMized law enforcement environment in which violent attacks against police and timid responses to them by the authorities had been normalized. They had no clear orders, they were divided by their own political sympathies and by internal politics.

The Capitol riot should have been just another stressful encounter that would have been contained at the expense of injuring some officers and rioters without breaching Congress.

The media has constructed a false narrative in which the White House overreacted to BLM and underreacted to the Capitol riot. But it wasn’t the White House’s job to protect Congress. That’s why Congress has a force of 2,300 people and a $460 million budget with just one job to do.

The question of why it failed at that job ought to be directed to Pelosi and congressional leaders.

The Capitol riot is Pelosi’s disaster and she’s making the most of it by blaming it on everyone else. Her private police force had the resources and the people to keep out the Visigoths, never mind a few hundred people, and instead turned what should have been a riot into a disaster.

Whether that was intentional or not is a question that pits Hanlon’s Razor “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” against Washington D.C. cynicism.

But there is little question that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have massively profited from their mismanagement, initiating proposals to impeach President Trump, expel legislators, purge Republicans from social media platforms, and to cut off corporate donations to them.

While the media propaganda blares non-stop, heads are quietly rolling at the Capitol Police, but don’t expect that to do anything except lower morale and water down the force even further.

Meanwhile the party of police defunding will see to it that the Capitol Police budget tops those of most major cities, that its ranks continue to swell, and that it remains as incompetent as ever.

And then the next disaster in Congress will also be blamed on someone who isn’t in Congress.

Why couldn’t Congress’ private police force of 2,000 protect it from a mob of hundreds? Don’t ask Congress. Just pay the $460 million, cry over the headlines, and keep your mouth shut.


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

Swalwell demonstrates, yet again, why he doesn't belong anywhere near his national security committees - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

Somewhere, Fang Fang must be smiling....

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif), who not too long ago was entangled with a Chinese alleged honeytrap spy, somehow got to retain his congressional committee seats, on intelligence and homeland security, despite Republican outcry.

Now, he's demonstrating for us why he doesn't belong on them.

According to the Daily Caller:

Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell announced Friday he was rejoining the House Committee on Homeland Security just weeks after he was allegedly linked to a Chinese spy.

“I’m honored and excited to rejoin active service on @HomelandDems, where I plan to focus on highlighting and finding solutions to the scourge of white nationalist extremism,” Swalwell tweeted.

“My committee memberships – along with my experience as a prosecutor and as the son and brother of law enforcement officers – will give me a unique opportunity to delve into one of America’s most serious national security threats.”

Where do we start to unpack this?

First, Swalwell was the big dumb lunk, the mark, led around by his privates by a Chinese alleged honeytrap spy, going from California district attorney to Congress, and with that, an amazing string of sensitive congressional committee positions, notably on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, but also on the House homeland security committee.

After revelations of his involvement with the comely Fang Fang, who specialized in bedding U.S. politicians, Swalwell somehow retained his committee chairmanships, claiming that after the FBI sat him down in 2015 and gave him a 'defensive briefing' he cut all ties to her, which is kind of a stretch, given that Swalwell's family members reportedly still have (or maybe now had) Fang Fang as a friend on their Facebook pages. For Swalwell, Fang Fang had been very important: She raised money for him in 2014, and was trusted enough by Swalwell to place an intern in his office. Swalwell won't say if she was his easy nookie, but his refusal to answer that question suggests she was.

So with that China stench all over him, who does Swalwell say the big threat to America is? Not China. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Not Cuba. Swalwell advises us it's white nationalist supremacists. Those are the ones we have to watch out for. He'll get 'em, he says, and with that, presumably save America, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth. White nationalist supremacists are a tiny miserable bunch, easily scooped up and put away if authorities wanted to, but for Swalwell, they're politically useful for advancing a narrative that suggests that all of America's ills are the work of white nationalist supremacists. 

It's ridiculous. Anyone with a brain would know that China is far more dangerous as a threat, But Swalwell sees to divert attention from China by trying to convince us that white supremacists are what's really worthy of focus.

And strangely, he cites his experience as a cop's brother-in-law as proof that he brings something to the table. Is he trying to tell us that all cops are white supremacists based on his experience with his father a brother in law? Or what does he mean by that? 

Swalwell means to say he aims to protect us from a phantom enemy when the reality is, places like China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, plus the terrorists of the Middle East, really make the top threats. to homeland security. Going after this phantom threat takes heat off from China. 

It's hard not to image that as Swalwell waxes about this big national security threat that somehow, Fang Fang is smiling.


Monica Showalter  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US Media: 'Telling China's Story Well' - Judith Bergman


​ by Judith Bergman

Fortunately for the CCP, China could rely on large segments of mainstream US media to help it....

  • "If foreign audiences know that a piece of information comes from an official Chinese media source, they are likely to interpret it as 'propaganda' rather than 'news,'" wrote China expert Anne-Marie Brady in 2015...

  • Fortunately for the CCP, China could rely on large segments of mainstream US media to help it....

  • The CCP evidently knew the West well enough to calculate that framing the debate [on the coronavirus] in terms of racism would be a highly successful strategy that would play into the divisive issue of identity politics in the US and Europe.

  • The CCP could not have done it, however, without the media's lack of critical judgment of China's behavior, as well as the media's utter lack of interest in the CCP's quest for global domination and, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, its willingness to achieve it "by any means necessary."

(Photo by Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)

One of the foremost tasks of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Xi Jinping is, at his directive, to "tell stories about China well and spread China's voice well; enable the world to see a multidimensional and colorful China; present China as a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and an upholder of international order".

When the coronavirus pandemic broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan and the Chinese authorities allowed it to spread to the rest of the world, "telling China's story well" suddenly became an acute concern. It was necessary to save the regime's face, deflect blame and seek to portray China as heroically battling the pandemic, instead of the reality of having caused it. China went into an even more energetic propaganda mode than usual, seeking to control the narrative about the virus at every turn.

One efficient way to deflect blame is to change the topic, blame someone else, or preferably both. That is what China set out to do in multiple ways with a large-scale disinformation and propaganda effort. The CCP, however, could not rely on Chinese state media alone to do the job. It needed international cooperation. "If foreign audiences know that a piece of information comes from an official Chinese media source, they are likely to interpret it as 'propaganda' rather than 'news,'" wrote China expert Anne-Marie Brady in 2015.

Chairman Mao Zedong's strategy of "making the foreign serve China" remains an important tool in the CCP's propaganda toolbox. Fortunately for the CCP, China could rely on large segments of mainstream US media to help it with at least one central element of its multifaceted propaganda effort that has not received much attention thus far: Changing public discourse about China's role in the spread of the virus to one of Westerners "fueling racism" against Asians because of the virus.

Starting in early February, Chinese state media published a barrage of articles seeking to deflect public discourse from focusing on what China had done to make sure that the virus would not spread inside China but would be exported to the rest of the world. China's state media began by pushing a narrative of Westerners exploiting the coronavirus to fuel racism. It helped, of course, that this was the kind of narrative that many naïve Westerners were only too willing to help disseminate, perhaps unaware that they were doing Communist China's bidding.

Global Times, a mouthpiece for the CCP, started the propaganda campaign on January 31, 2020 with an article, "Racism shows ugly side as China fights coronavirus" -- nearly two months before U.S. President Donald J. Trump, in a March 17 tweet, called the disease the "Chinese virus". The piece accused the West of engaging in "'yellow peril' mythology" and went on to portray China as heroically battling the disease, while the Western media was supposedly caught up in racist "hysteria" and "racialization" of the pandemic.

Global Times followed up on February 2 with "Virus unleashes racism in Western societies", which accused Western media's coverage of the virus being made in China as racist:

"Amid a crucial period of fighting the novel coronavirus, some Western media outlets -- with a deep-rooted racist mind-set -- have lost their objectivity and rationality, issuing biased reports that would create panic among people and that may thus trigger more serious social problems".

The Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of China, followed up with a piece on February 7, "Racism worse enemy than epidemic" and another on February 11, "Racism a disease more difficult to eradicate" and yet another the next day, "Western media should quit racist reporting as China fights epidemic".

China could rely on two factors in distributing this narrative of the "virus fueling racism" in the US. First, there is the assured traction that the mere mention of racism immediately gets in the US for multiple reasons, chief among them the primacy of identity politics in public discourse. Second, the media conglomerates that own the major television networks in the US are deeply involved in business dealings with China and are therefore loathe to upset Beijing in any way that might jeopardize their access to the Chinese market of 1.4 billion potential customers.

The willingness of the media conglomerates to kowtow to the CCP has been abundantly demonstrated in the past decades by the Hollywood studios that these media conglomerates also own. The kowtowing of the studios comes in various forms of submission to CCP censorship and includes co-productions and partnerships with Chinese state-operated enterprises, such as that of Walt Disney Studios and Shanghai Disneyland Resort, which is majority-owned by Shanghai Shendi Group, a conglomerate of three companies owned by Shanghai's government.

According to an August 2020 report, Made in Hollywood, Censored by Beijing, by American PEN:

"The Chinese Communist Party... holds major sway over whether a Hollywood movie will be profitable or not—and studio executives know it. The result is a system in which Beijing bureaucrats can demand changes to Hollywood movies—or expect Hollywood insiders to anticipate and make these changes, unprompted—without any significant hue or cry over such censorship,"

Here is an extremely brief overview of some of the television networks owned by the media conglomerates:

  • Warner Media, which owns the Warner Bros film studios, owns CNN worldwide in addition to a host of entertainment and sports networks.
  • NBC Universal, which owns Universal Studios, owns a host of TV channels, among them NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC.
  • ViacomCBS, which owns Paramount pictures, owns the CBS TV network, including CBS News, CBS Sports, Comedy Central and MTV.
  • The Walt Disney Company, which owns Walt Disney Pictures, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures, Marvel and Lucas Film, owns the ABC news channel in addition to a host of entertainment channels.

Several of those television networks distributed China's propaganda message about Westerners fueling racism so well that Global Times put together a video highlighting just how well they had done.

In a tweet on March 23, just six days after Trump called the virus "the Chinese virus" for the first time, Global Times played a video with clips from American television networks accusing Donald Trump of racism.

The first clip was of ABC White House reporter Cecilia Vega, who asked Trump on March 18, "Why do you keep calling this the Chinese virus? Why do you keep doing this, a lot of people say it is racist?"

"Because," Trump replied, "it comes from China. It is not racist at all".

Next up on the Global Times video was a clip of Richard Engel, chief foreign correspondent of NBC news, who said in a similar vein:

"It is easy to scapegoat people and this is what has always happened when there have been pandemics... This is a virus that came from the territory of China, but came from bats. This is a bat virus, not a China virus".

NBC news also ran a lengthy article about the exchange between Vega and Trump, in which NBC never once addressed China's responsibility for the spread of the virus, and instead quoted multiple sources saying that Trump was fueling racism.

The Global Times video also contained a clip with CNN anchor Chris Cuomo saying:

"The word coronavirus crossed out and changed to Chinese -- who does that help? We don't need an enemy. We have one: The virus... This isn't about China. It is about us".

The clips played by the Global Times provided textbook examples of American media hard at work, wittingly or not, helping the CCP to shape public opinion in the US. The Global Times video amplified the CCP message even further with quotes from Hillary Clinton, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and celebrities, all parroting the CCP narrative.

The CCP's use of the racism argument as an early element of its coronavirus propaganda campaign came to fashion public discourse about the virus significantly in the US, Europe and beyond. The CCP evidently knew the West well enough to calculate that framing the debate in terms of racism would be a highly successful strategy that would play into the divisive issue of identity politics in the US and Europe.

The CCP could not have done it, however, without the media's lack of critical judgment of China's behavior, as well as the media's utter lack of interest in the CCP's quest for global domination and, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, its willingness to achieve it "by any means necessary."


Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute. 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter