Saturday, February 20, 2021

One Week in Progressive America - Caroline Glick


​ by Caroline Glick

[F]or the first time in five years, the Democrats find themselves, and their actions, the focus of public attention.

The Democrats had a lousy week. It began with former President Donald Trump’s acquittal in the Senate.

Trump’s acquittal was a major blow to the Democrats. It isn’t that anyone believed Trump would be convicted. Whether Republicans love or hate the former president, the fact is that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former officeholder. And for that reason alone, there was no chance that more than a smattering of Republicans would support the move.

But once their farcical trial ended, public focus moved to the Democrats – who now control both houses of Congress and the White House. True, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already planning to drag Trump back to center stage with her “January 6 Truth Commission.” But that won’t happen for several months. And in the meantime, for the first time in five years, the Democrats find themselves, and their actions, the focus of public attention.

The first casualties of the scrutiny have been the Democrat governors of the most populous Democrat-run states in the Union – Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California.

After a nearly a year in which Cuomo was lavished with adulation for his leadership of the coronavirus pandemic in New York; upheld as the future of the Democratic Party; touted as a possible candidate for Attorney General; and even won an Emmy for his press conferences, the truth has caught up with “America’s governor.”

Last March, as the number of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in New York hospitals mounted and fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed rose, Trump ordered the Army to set up a field hospital at the Javits Center and sent the Navy’s USS Comfort floating hospital to New York harbor. Not wanting to give any credit to Trump, Cuomo ordered nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients from hospitals. The result was disastrous. COVID-19 spread like wildfire among the most vulnerable population and thousands of elderly New Yorkers died.

Republicans and conservative journalists long pointed out that Cuomo’s move was lethally misguided. But protected by the media, Cuomo indignantly denied the allegations.

Recently, though, his ability to deny the charges was dealt a fatal blow. New York’s Democrat Attorney General Letitia Jones released a report that showed Cuomo’s data on nursing home deaths from COVID-19 were false. Whereas Cuomo claimed that 8,500 nursing home residents died of COVID-19, the real number is more than 15,000.

This week, Associated Press reported that Cuomo also understated the number of COVID-19 patients that were transferred to nursing homes from hospitals by nearly 40%. In the face of the actual data, many Democrats have joined Republicans in calling for federal and state authorities to open criminal investigations against Cuomo.

Last December, the chorus of California business owners and parents making impassioned pleas to Governor Gavin Newsom to lift his draconian COVID-19 lockdowns that barred California children from school and shuttered most businesses, including restaurants for both indoor and outdoor dining was becoming a groundswell. As he imperiously rejected the calls, Newsom and his wife were photographed dining with friends at a swanky French restaurant in Napa Valley. Newsom’s mind-blowing hypocrisy reinvigorated a Republican campaign to recall him from office in special elections. This week, activists garnered the requisite one and a half million signatures – a month before the deadline – and so guaranteed that California will hold a gubernatorial election later this year. Facing an enraged public, Democrats fear that they may lose their total control over their deep blue state for the first time in 15 years.

This then brings us to President Joe Biden. Less than a month into his presidency, Biden has managed to turn off US allies and anger his own voters.

Both during the campaign and since taking office, Biden pledged to rebuild America’s standing in the world after Trump allegedly destroyed respect for America with his “America First” foreign policy. Yet, as Walter Russell Mead laid out in the Wall Street Journal this week, US allies are not at all pleased with how Biden’s “return to normalcy” is shaping up.

India and Japan are ignoring Biden’s sanctions against Myanmar following its military coup. Whereas identity-politics sopped Democrats were sure Vice President Kamala Harris’s Indian heritage would make Indians love the new administration, it works out that progressive politics spewed by Indian Americans are not a recipe for warm relations. Mead reported that India’s Hindu media is on the warpath against the administration after Harris’s niece participated in protests against the policies of India’s Hindu nationalist BJP ruling party.

Mead added that Canada is up in arms over Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone pipeline. Brazil is angry about the administration’s deforestation policies. And Mexico is scaling back is cooperation with the US regarding cross-border drug smuggling.

Israel and the US’s Arab allies completely oppose Biden’s efforts to restore the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and otherwise appease Tehran’s ayatollahs. Netanyahu is rightly using his record of withstanding US pressure under the Obama administration as an electoral asset ahead of the March 23 general elections.

As for Biden’s domestic programs, rather than capitalize on the good will a new president generally receives, to pass a bipartisan legislative agenda, Biden and his fellow Democrats are pushing ahead with a radical legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, and so helping Republicans still smarting and divided after their electoral defeats to unify their ranks.

This week, Biden broke his campaign promise to reopen schools in his first hundred days after teachers unions’ torpedoed his efforts. Instead, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced that the new “ambitious” goal is to open schools one day a week. Republicans are rightly capitalizing on parents’ anger at the prolonged school closures.

But the Democrats’ bad week portends a much worse future for Americans in general.

It isn’t just that the teachers’ unions want to keep the schools shut. The schools they don’t want to open are now becoming bastions for progressive indoctrination. Parents may be better off not sending their children to school, at least not in Democrat-controlled school districts.

This week, Fox News reported that in Oregon, teachers are being urged to use a new math curriculum designed for middle school teachers whose purpose is to “dismantle racism in mathematics.”

To achieve this dubious goal, teachers are supposed to stop requiring students to show their work. They are also supposed to stop demanding that they get to the right answer. Instead, teachers are encouraged to have students “come up with at least two answers that might solve this problem.”

The great culprit for woke math is objectivity, as in objective truth. Objectivity, or objective reality, Oregon teachers are being told, is racist.

The new math is called “ethnomathematics,” and ethnomath teachers are instructed to “identity and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Whites are the boogeymen in the progressive America. Indeed, New York City is now pushing a scale of whiteness that moves from white supremacists (bad), to white abolitionists (good)/ White abolitionists, New York’s Education Department claims, are whites who work to overthrow the entire social and political system that produced the evil America that must now atone for its sins.

But while whites in general are the targets, the most immediate victims of the new (re-) education system are American Jews. In the new progressive America, Jews are specific targets in two ways. First, the progressive revolutionaries seek to eliminate merit as a basis for advancement on the argument that like objective truth, merit is inherently racist.

American Jewry’s rise in American society over the past century has been based almost entirely on American meritocracy. If you eliminate merit as a basis for advancement, you doom American Jewry to second-class citizen status.

Progressive America also targets American Jews through its Israel-anchored anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism does not simply reject the moral basis for Israel’s existence and support systemically discriminating against and eventually eliminating it. It also supports ostracizing American Jews who support Israel and barring them from expressing their views in public. That is the actual purpose of the BDS campaigns that at least two senior Biden administration officials – Maher Bitar and Reema Dodin – led in their student days.

Today, anti-Semitism is not a bar for advancement in progressive circles. To the contrary, it is an asset. Consider the big promotion that Cong. Ilhan “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” Omar just received.

When Nancy Pelosi gave Omar a seat on the prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2019, the move provoked both anger and fear among many American Jews. They were angry because Omar, with her long record of anti-Jewish pronouncements would certainly use her position to advance her anti-Semitic positions. And they were scared because the fact that Pelosi appointed Omar over a loud chorus of objections was a sign of the power of progressive anti-Semites in the Democrat party.

When this week Pelosi appointed Omar chair of the subcommittee for Africa, global health and human rights. Outside a few conservative Jewish groups, the move met with no opposition. And there is a reason for that. Two years on, anti-Semitism is so ingrained in progressive circles that objecting to it is enough to get you tagged as a racist.

To drive this point home, last week the Jewish Democratic Council of America – the Jewish arm of the Democrat Party – hosted an online discussion of Biden’s appointment of outspoken Israel haters and Palestinian terror supporters. Barack Obama’s ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro was one of the participants. Shapiro insisted angrily that Jewish criticism of these officials is “racist.” He added, “There is unfortunately this bias, this prejudice against Arab and Muslim Americans, particularly if they’re working on issues related to the Middle East.”

In other words, like objectivity and merit, in Work America, substantive criticism of others based on their actions and statements is now “racist.” Fighting anti-Semitism is racist. Fighting hatred is racist. Fighting ignorance is racist.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And scrutiny of the Democrats will likely make it difficult for them to maintain their Senate and House majorities in 2022. But the damage progressives are already causing to public health, to America’s standing in the world, to American schoolchildren, and to American Jews will take more than one election to repair.

Originally published in Israel Hayom.


Caroline Glick  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Christian leaders remain silent as the church recycles its oldest hatred - Melanie Phillips


​ by Melanie Phillips

Hat tip: Dr. Carolyn Tal 

South African Rev. Frank Chikane, the moderator of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, openly suggested that Israeli Jews were demonic.

(JNS) The World Council of Churches has gone full theological incitement against the State of Israel.

In a recent Zoom webinar with more than 300 Christian activists to promote a film about the pro-Palestinian activism of Michel Sabbah—the former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem—Rev. Frank Chikane, the moderator of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, went much further than the usual falsehoods about Israel’s “brutality” towards the Palestinians. “We need to begin to say to those who support Israel to brutalize Palestinians that the blood of the people of Palestine will be sought from them because they collaborate by allowing this system to continue,” he said.

Chikane’s apparent incitement to violence clearly channeled Matthew’s infamous curse in the New Testament: “His blood be upon us and on our children!”

This curse, calling for retribution in perpetuity against the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Jesus, resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews through the centuries.

Since Jesus was held to be the son of God, the charge of deicide justified the slaughter of the Jews on theological grounds and turned them into devils.

Indeed, Chikane, a South African priest, openly suggested that Israeli Jews were demonic. He said the Palestinians were “dealing with the same demons we dealt with in South Africa, except that in their case, the demons have invited many other demons to make their struggle much more difficult.”

So Chikane’s choice of words targeted Israel’s Jews with the same genocidal incitement.

This shocking conflation of inflammatory falsehoods about Israeli crimes against humanity with the infinitely more incendiary charge of deicide is by no means new in the Christian church. It is part of what’s called “supersessionism,” also known as “replacement theology.”

This is an ancient Christian calumny against the Jews which, over the past few decades, has been revived and adapted to the Palestinian cause.

The doctrine holds that the Jews were stripped of God’s favor because they denied the divinity of Jesus. Christians, therefore, inherited God’s promises and became the “new Israel” while the Jews were damned.

This murderous doctrine was driven underground for a time by the Holocaust, but was given new life by the emergence of Palestinian Christian liberation theology. This fused the falsehood that the Palestinian Arabs were the original possessors of the land of Israel with theological, anti-Jewish supersessionism.

Such fusion gave the Palestinian Arab claim to the land of Israel the status of supposedly holy writ, turning the State of Israel into an ungodly interloper and its defenders into the enemies of God.

Giving rise to the patently ludicrous claim that “Jesus was a Palestinian”—whereas he was, of course, a Jew from ancient Judea—it has fueled grotesque Palestinian propaganda that presents the Palestinians as being “crucified” by the Israelis. This image provokes a visceral revulsion against Israel among some Western Christians, whose ignorance of Judaism and Middle East history turns them into the useful idiots of murderous incitement against Israel and the Jews.

The hybrid of Christian theological and Palestinian political demonization of Israel and the Jews has been pumped out for years by the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. The Zoom webinar was organized by Sabeel and other venomously anti-Israel Christian groups and activists.

This Palestinian “liberation theology” has been adopted wholesale by the World Council of Churches.

For decades, the WCC has promoted anti-Israel and anti-Zionist rhetoric and activism. Through its “liberation theology” propaganda, it has infused liberal churches with neo-Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-West attitudes—thus placing a virtual halo over the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism of the left.

As the Christian historian Paul Merkley has chronicled, the WCC played a key role in bringing about the anti-Zionist hate-fest in Durban, South Africa, a few days before 9/11, when representatives attending the U.N. Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance demanded that the United Nations denounce Israel for “systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has noted that, while the WCC has doubled down on Israel, it has made little or no criticism of the brutal regimes in places such as Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, China and Iran.

When Islamic extremists kept blowing up Coptic churches in Egypt, traumatized Copts said that the WCC was apparently too preoccupied with Israel to give them support.

Indeed, its flagship project, the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), has sent at least 1,800 volunteers to serve as observers in Jerusalem and the “West Bank” over the past couple of decades.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance states that “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is an example of anti-Semitism. The WCC says it “does not countenance equating Israel to Nazi Germany, neither in the training of participants in the EAPPI nor otherwise.”

Yet in 2019, the pro-Israel watchdog NGO Monitor reported that WCC leadership and EAPPI volunteers had repeatedly made comparisons of Israeli actions to those of Nazi Germany in their advocacy sessions.

In 2012, Vivian Wineman, president of the U.K.’s Board of Deputies, said members of Jewish communities across the country had “suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings,” and that the EAPPI “helped to create a climate of hostility towards Israel within the Church of England.”

The WCC’s Zoom event was reported last week in the Algemeiner by Dexter van Zile, the specialist in Christian affairs for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) and who has long charted the conflation of Christian anti-Semitism with anti-Israel incitement.

In a subsequent article this week, Van Zile reports that the WCC has now tried to distance itself from Chikane’s remarks by claiming that he was from the African National Congress and therefore wasn’t speaking on behalf of the WCC when he made his comments.

He wrote that one participant, theologian Gerald McDermott, expressed strong disagreement with Chikane’s statements and declared that he was “out of touch with the situation on the ground.”

In such circumstances, that would seem to be a considerable understatement. The situation on the church’s ground is that influential Christian organizations continue to pump out inflammatory falsehoods about Israel and Zionism which don’t just demonize and delegitimize Israel but draw upon the church’s own theology to demonize the Jewish people.

The most shocking aspect of this is that with just a handful of exceptions, the churches remain mute about it.

Church leaders usually flatly deny that Christian supersessionism has any contemporary resonance. Yet you don’t have to scratch very hard below the surface of the anti-Israel utterances by Western church leaders to pick up the supersessionist allusions.

It’s true that some of the most passionately pro-Israel people in the world today are Christians, in America and elsewhere. But these tend to be the biblically faithful. The obsessive animus against Israel and Zionism, along with its supersessionist underpinning, is mainly to be found among liberal Christians.

And their influence—through Christian NGOs and a wide range of other public and cultural institutions—is immense.

It’s not just that they influence other Christians. Even in relatively godless places like today’s Britain, the assumption that Christians stand for truth, justice and compassion means that even secular people tend to believe what they say. The pernicious falsehoods that such Christians pump out about Israel are therefore regarded as unchallengeably true.

Extreme as it was, Chikane’s diatribe on Zoom illustrated an even more unpalatable state of affairs—the silent acquiescence of church leaders in the contemporary mutation of Christianity’s own murderous history, and its virulent spread into the cultural arteries of the West.


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

Palestinians: EU Facilitating Hamas Victory - Bassam Tawil


​ by Bassam Tawil

It seems that Hamas's goal -- finishing what Hitler started, annihilating the Jews -- is precisely what the EU and the international community secretly, or unconsciously, want.

  • It is important to note that Israel did not stop the Palestinians in the past from holding presidential and parliamentary elections in 1996, 2005 and 2006.

  • Israel did not even stop Arab residents of Jerusalem from running in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council election as candidates for Hamas, the Islamist movement that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and seeks to replace it with an Islamic state.

  • Hamas ran under the slogan "Islam is the solution" and promised to end corruption and bring good governance to the Palestinians... [and] also promised voters that it would resort to an "armed struggle" against Israel.

  • [W]hen Hamas participated in the 2006 election, which was also encouraged by the EU, the Islamist movement was still on the EU's list of terrorist organizations. The EU, however, did not try to stop the terrorist organization from running in that election.

  • The Quartet members should have set the conditions before, not after the election. They had every right to do so: the Hamas-led government was expecting the international community to continue providing financial aid to the Palestinians.

  • The Hamas-led government that was formed after the 2006 election was boycotted by the EU and most of the international community. Why? Because Hamas, in their eyes, is a terrorist organization. If so, why did the EU and other Western countries not object to Hamas's participation in the elections before the vote? Did Hamas become a terrorist organization only after it won the election?

  • The EU and other international parties perfectly well see that Hamas will run in upcoming election and again promise Palestinians to continue the "armed struggle' against Israel. They can perfectly well hear Hamas saying that its goal is to "liberate Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." It seems that Hamas's goal -- finishing what Hitler started, annihilating the Jews -- is precisely what the EU and the international community secretly, or unconsciously, want.

  • Those who are allowing Hamas to run unconditionally in the election are facilitating the terrorist group's next victory and certain rise to power.

Those who are now pushing the Palestinians to hold another "free and fair" election should check their blind spots. The EU and other international parties who are allowing Hamas to run unconditionally in the election are facilitating the terrorist group's next victory and certain rise to power. Pictured: A woman in Abu Dis, near Jerusalem, looks over sealed boxes containing documents as a European Union observer watches, in preparation for the last Palestinian Legislative Council elections, on January 24, 2006. (Photo by Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

Facing pressure from the European Union, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last month set dates for holding general elections for the first time in 15 years.

The EU was quick to welcome Abbas's decision to hold elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, the presidency and the PLO National Council.

"This is a welcome development as participative, representative and accountable democratic institutions are key for Palestinian self-determination and state-building," said a spokesman for the EU in Brussels. "The EU has in the past years consistently supported and funded the work of the Central Elections Commission in order to prepare for holding free, fair and inclusive elections for all Palestinians."

The EU also called on Israeli authorities "to facilitate the holding of elections across all the Palestinian territory."

The EU, in its statement, did not make a similar appeal to Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.

It is important to note that Israel did not stop the Palestinians in the past from holding presidential and parliamentary elections in 1996, 2005 and 2006.

Israel allowed Arab residents of Jerusalem (who hold Israeli ID cards) to vote and run in previous Palestinian elections.

Israel did not even stop Arab residents of Jerusalem from running in the 2006 parliamentary election as candidates for Hamas, the Islamist movement that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and seeks to replace it with an Islamic state.

It is also worth noting that the EU and the rest of the international community did not set any conditions for Hamas prior to the 2006 election, which resulted in an overwhelming victory for Hamas.

In 1996, Hamas boycotted the first parliamentary election, arguing that the vote was being held as part of the Oslo Accords, signed between the PLO and Israel. Hamas does not recognize the Oslo Accords and is vehemently opposed to any peace process with Israel.

In 2006, however, Hamas change its mind and decided to participate in the parliamentary election, although it continued to reject the Oslo Accords and Israel's right to exist.

As far as Hamas was concerned, why not seize the opportunity and participate in the election if no one is calling you out for your hypocrisy or setting conditions for your participation?

As the 1996 election, the 2006 election was also held under the umbrella of the Oslo Accords -- the same agreements that Hamas continues to reject, dubbing them "a political catastrophe" and a "national crime."

Hamas mainly changed its mind about boycotting the election because it was confident that it would win the vote. Hamas ran under the slogan "Islam is the solution" and promised to end corruption and bring good governance to the Palestinians. The Hamas-affiliated list that ran in that election, the Change and Reform Bloc, also promised voters that it would resort to an "armed struggle" against Israel.

Hamas is now saying that it intends to participate in the upcoming Palestinian Legislative Council election, scheduled to take place on May 22. The Hamas political program will be similar to the one it used in 2006 to attract Palestinian voters.

The EU outlawed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and, under US pressure, included Hamas on its list of terrorist organizations in 2003. This means that when Hamas participated in the 2006 election, which was also encouraged by the EU, the Islamist movement was still on the EU's list of terrorist organizations. The EU, however, did not try to stop the terrorist organization from running in that election.

The same EU that is now calling on Israel to "facilitate" the upcoming election, does not seem to object to Hamas's participation. Instead of urging Israel to "facilitate" the electoral process, it would have been more helpful had the EU called out Hamas for its hypocrisy.

After Hamas won the election in 2006, the EU responded by cutting off contact with, and halting assistance, to the Hamas-led government. The EU, together with the other members of the Middle East Quartet (US, Russia and United Nations) set conditions for recognizing the Palestinian government only after Hamas won the election. The Quartet members should have set the conditions before, not after the election. They had every right to do so: the Hamas-led government was expecting the international community to continue providing financial aid to the Palestinians. It is like asking a bank for a loan. The bank has the right to set conditions for granting the loan. If you accept the conditions, you get the loan. If you tell the bank you do not accept the conditions, you can forget about the loan.

The EU needs to tell Hamas: If you want to participate in the election, you need to accept the three conditions laid out in 2010 by the Quartet for the recognition of a Palestinian government: the renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel's right to exist and a commitment to all agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

The EU and other international parties, including the UN, are making a fatal mistake by failing to set conditions for Hamas's participation in the election. How will the international community react if Hamas again wins the parliamentary election and becomes the new Palestinian government?

The Hamas-led government that was formed after the 2006 election was boycotted by the EU and most of the international community. Why? Because Hamas, in their eyes, is a terrorist organization. If so, why did the EU and other Western countries not object to Hamas's participation in the elections before the vote?

Did Hamas become a terrorist organization only after it won the election? The EU and other international parties pushed the Palestinians to have a free and fair election -- one in which Hamas was allowed to participate -- and they awakened in the morning to discover that a terrorist organization (Hamas) had won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Those who are now pushing the Palestinians to hold another "free and fair" election should check their blind spots. They are blinded to the fact that there is a strong possibility that Hamas will triumph in the parliamentary election. They are actually helping Hamas to achieve its goal of winning the election.

The EU and other international parties perfectly well see that Hamas will run in upcoming election and again promise Palestinians to continue the "armed struggle' against Israel. They can perfectly well hear Hamas saying that its goal is to "liberate Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." It seems that Hamas's goal -- finishing what Hitler started, annihilating the Jews -- is precisely what the EU and the international community secretly, or unconsciously, want.

Those who are allowing Hamas to run unconditionally in the election are facilitating the terrorist group's next victory and certain rise to power. They are also sending a message to Palestinians that the international community has no problem with the participation of a terrorist organization in an electoral process, even if that organization is openly calling for the annihilation of Israel. This message can only further embolden the extremist camp among the Palestinians and sabotage the future of any peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Bassam Tawil, a Muslim Arab, is based in the Middle East.


Bassam Tawil  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The China class and its damage to America - Peter Skurkiss


​ by Peter Skurkiss

Athens was fortunate. It had only thirty tyrants while we have countless sellouts to China in positions of authority.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote: "If there are rats in the cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly... The rats are always there in the cellar, but if you go in shouting and noisily they will have taken cover before you switch on the light.” In this regard, Donald Trump was the surprise light that exposed the rats gnawing away at America's foundations since at least the 1980s.

Writing in the Tablet, Lee Smith explains what coalesced the disparate parts of the establishment into a unified force against Donald Trump and his MAGA policies. It was globalization, or more specifically the China trade.

Why did they [the corporate and political class] trade with an authoritarian regime and send millions of American manufacturing jobs off the China, impoverishing working Americans? Because it made them rich. They salved their consciences by telling themselves they had no choice but to deal with China: It was big, productive, and efficient, and its rise was inevitable. And besides, the American workers hurt by the deal deserved to be punished -- who could defend a class of reactionary and racist ideological naysayers standing in the way of what was best for progress?

President Trump was elected to stand up for America's long-abused middle class. He attacked the self-serving establishment, naming names. Not used to such criticism and fearing their rice bowls would be smashed by the MAGA hammer, the elite gained a powerful motive for solidarity against President Trump. They formed what Smith calls the China class. And with this class consciousness, the elites joined to resist Trump's MAGA policies by means fair and foul. This further cemented their relationship with their Chinese patrons.

This bespeaks as to just how successful Chinese money has been in penetrating and corrupting America. And the height of irony is that this money came from the deindustrialization and impoverishment of the U.S. itself. Smith quotes General (Ret.) Robert Spalding, a former Trump administration official, as saying of Chinese influence: "It's so pervasive, it's better to ask who is not tied to China." Chinese influence is like a cancer that has metastasized throughout America.

At the same time, the American establishment came to admire and then emulate Chinese techno-autocracy. The elite had long decided that the two-party systems was retarding progress and their path to further wealth. Democracy was messy. The Republicans with their base emphasizing moral values and patriotism were regarded as particularly reactionary. Hence, the China class found its center in the Democrat Party. To be sure, many Republicans are in the China class. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is one. His shipbuilding billionaire father-in-law James Chau has benefited greatly from a cozy relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. This could go a long way in explaining McConnell's hatred for Donald Trump. But even so, Republicans like McConnell are still only the junior partners to the Democrats in the China class.

Smith says the installment of Joe Biden in the Oval Office "marks the hegemony of an American oligarchy that sees its relationship with China as a shield and sword against their own countrymen." He notes that these people "are not simply contemptuous of a political system that recognizes the natural rights of all its citizens that are endowed by our creator; they despise in particular the notion that those they rule have the same rights they do."

Smith sees what is happening today is an eerie repeat of what happened after Athens lost the Peloponnesian War in 404 B.C. Citing Machiavelli's The Prince, Smith says Sparta installed a government friendly to itself in Athens.  

The pro-Sparta oligarchy used their patrons' victory to undo the rights of citizens and settle scores with their domestic rivals, exiling and executing them and confiscating their wealth. The reign of the Thirty Tyrants lasted less than one year but in that time it is estimated they murdered about five percent of Athens' population while exiling many more notable Athenians and taking their property.

Athens was fortunate. It had only thirty tyrants while we have countless sellouts to China in positions of authority. The good news is that the China class has been outed. This class may have the power now, but they can't withstand the disinfectant of exposure. After all, when you scrape away the rhetoric, what the China class is engaged in is actually treason. In time, the awareness of this will grow and take its toll. 

Image:  Wangdora92


Peter Skurkiss 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Verizon Cut Off Donations to Republicans, Partnered With Marxist Thought Author - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

Verizon won’t work with conservatives, but will work with antisemitic socialist Cornel West.


Verizon is a $200 billion corporation and Cornel West is the author of “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”. Verizon is one of the biggest companies in America, while West claims to hate corporations so much that he taunted Obama as a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface”.

But Verizon’s Yahoo subsidiary is working together with the infamous socialist who had praised Venezulean butcher Hugo Chavez as part of its #YahooAllyshipPledge which vows to connect “diverse creators” with “thought leaders, nonprofits and activists, including Dr. Cornel West.”

West got a doctorate in philosophy for his aforementioned dissertation on the ethical dimensions of an ideology that killed millions of people in which he mentioned “the profound tragedy of the epochal change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” and argued that, “Marxist thought becomes even more relevant after the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union.”

Verizon has not publicly stated its position on the relevance of Marxist thought except perhaps through its relationship with the extremist author of multiple works dealing with Marxism.

When West wrote that his academic career had been partly concerned with, "defending sophisticated Marxist theory as an indispensable, though by itself inadequate, weapon in the struggle for individuality and democracy", who knew it would be brought to you by Verizon.

As John Perazzo at Discover the Networks documented, West has a very ugly radical history.

Verizon, a massive multinational gobbling up countries and companies until it ended up owning Yahoo, should be everything that West hates. And Cornel West’s Marxist thought, should worry Verizon. But ‘woke’ multinationals can unite with socialists around power and identity politics.

It would be hard to call it fighting racism when West has been one of Farrakhan’s biggest allies, appearing with him at events and defending him against charges of antisemitism.

That's the deranged bigot who had declared at Madison Square Garden that, "The germ of murder is already sewed into the hearts of the Jews in this country" and warned, "If you rise up to try to kill me, then Allah promises you that he will bring on this generation the blood of the righteous. All of you will be killed outright."

"You cannot say, 'Never Again' to god because when he puts you in the oven, 'Never Again' don't mean a thing,” the Nation of Islam leader had ranted.

Cornel West has veered between denouncing antisemitism and blaming Jews for antisemitism.

In Black Anti-Semitism and the Rhetoric of Resentment, an article that West wrote for Michael Lerner's Tikkun, he blamed black antisemitism on, among other things, "the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza... and the visible conservative Jewish opposition to... affirmative action." 

It’s doubtful that black antisemitism has anything to do with Israel’s fight against Islamic terrorism. Even the Nation of Islam’s antisemitism predated the rebirth of the Jewish State.

But West has a particular obsession with hating Israel that is all his own.

Cornel West repeatedly falsely accused Israel of killing “Palestinian babies”. In one broadcast, he spoke of, "500 Palestinian babies killed in 50 days" and in another interview blasted, "a right wing government that allows for the killing of 427 precious Palestinian babies."

To paraphrase The Manchurian Candidate, it might have been helpful if West had decided  exactly how many “Palestinian babies” the Jews had killed while opposing affirmative action.

These numbers, like “ethical Marxism”, were of course garbage. But that didn’t stop West from pushing them anyway. Or describing Israel’s defense against Hamas as “Jewish racism”.

“The rockets of Hamas indeed are morally wrong and politically ineffective – but these crimes pale in the face of the U.S. supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians,” West argued.

Hamas has actually slaughtered innocent civilians, not just with rockets, but with suicide bombers in buses and pizzerias, and with the kidnapping and murder of Jewish teenagers.

But West has never cared about such details when there’s a terrorist regime to support.

West had joined a solidarity tour to Venezuela. "We need this in inner-city America," he had gushed. "Look at all the needs being satisfied." A decade later, the socialist utopia had reduced Venezueleans to eating household pets and running out of gas with which to burn the bodies of the dead. Much of the country fled as the industries were nationalized and the people starved.

Did America’s inner cities really need people waiting half the day for their milk ration?

West had tweeted, "I love that Hugo Chavez has made poverty a major priority", he had met with the brutal tyrant, and had co-signed a letter of support for the socialist tyranny which had urged President Bush to "put an end to U.S. funding of opposition political groups".

As mobs rioted in the street demanding food, Cornel West blamed America’s “ugly” policies toward the socialist dictatorship, rather than conceding that he had been wrong.

Cornel West’s radicalism has never stopped him from being embraced by Democrat presidential campaigns, like those of Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, both of which he eventually dumped for being insufficiently radical, by leading academic institutions and the media, and by major corporations which claim to be opposed to extremism, but not from their own side.

Verizon’s Swedish CEO Hans Vestberg had declared, “we support the right for peaceful protests, we condemn the violence and rioting occurring in the nation's capital”.

Vestberg didn’t mean race riots by Black Lives Matter: a Marxist black supremacist hate group, but the protests over the stolen election. In response to the Black Lives Matter race riots, the Verizon boss had announced that the company was donating $10 million to leftist groups, including Sharpton’s National Action Network, which had played a role in racist violence.

However, after the Capitol protest, Verizon announced that it would be stopping donations to Republicans who had voted to challenge the results of the stolen 2020 presidential election.

Vestberg’s politics are not news. The Verizon boss is a member of the board of governors of the United Nations Foundation alongside Soros figurehead Mark Malloch-Brown, Ted Turner, the Queen of Jordan, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway and former Vice President of the Socialist International, who began an article by quoting Karl Marx.

But Verizon hooking up with Cornel West still marks another ugly moment in the ‘wokening’ of the Fortune 500. And if Corporate America has become more receptive to Socialists and Marxists, the radicals have also become more willing to accept corporate sponsorship.

The Yahoo Allyship Pledge claims that it will use its alliance with the likes of Cornel West to help people "better understand the complex topic of race". West has already laid out his understandings of race in pamphlets like "Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism" which began with "conceptions of racism in the Marxist tradition" and claimed that industrial capitalism was built on slavery and imperialism, while multinational corporate capitalism was somewhat better.

As part of its ‘allyship’, Yahoo’s lifestyle section quotes West on “white privilege”.

Cornel West, whose father was a defense contractor and who has a school named after his mother, whose older brother taught at MIT and worked for IBM, who was accepted to Harvard and then Princeton and Yale, knows something about privilege. Cornel West knew Elizabeth Warren when they were both at Harvard, and knew both Kamala and Buttigieg's fathers.

The elites, whatever race they claim (and in both Warren and Kamala’s case, race has been a fluctuating variable) are part of the same privileged circle. Verizon’s sponsorship is just another link in the iron chains that bind ordinary Americans under an oligarchy of elites whose members act out roles like the oppressor and the oppressed to hide their mutual power in the system.

Cornel West was happy to lend his name to bolster Hugo Chavez’s regime. Now Verizon and its Yahoo subsidiary can benefit from the same branding as Venezuela's brutal socialist tyranny.

Strip away the Marxist didacticism and all that’s left is the power of an oppressive machine that disguises its rule as revolution. Whatever logo is etched on the bottom of the boot on your neck, the owner of the boot will be sure to enlist Cornel West to explain to you why you deserve it.

Preferably, while quoting Karl Marx on behalf of Verizon.

Verizon won’t donate to Republicans who legally challenge elections. But it will work with the author of, “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”.

The real business of ‘woke’ corporations and of socialists is a monopoly on power.


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

White People Aren’t Human - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

How anti-racism adopted the Nation of Islam’s racist theology.



The Nation of Islam may be the largest racist religion in America. It is certainly the most influential with Louis Farrakhan’s original Million Man March drawing some 400,000 racists and allies of the hate group, including a young Barack Obama, who would later be photographed as a senator with the black supremacist leader at a Congressional Black Caucus event.

House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, the third highest ranking Democrat, and the kingmaker who got Biden the Democrat nomination and the White House, had thanked Farrakhan for, "offering up a number of precepts that we ought to adhere to.”

Clyburn is one of a number of congressional Democrats who have Nation of Islam links.

Despite a history of violent terrorism by the Nation of Islam and its spinoff groups, its racist theology which believes that white people are subhuman devils who will be killed off, and its antisemitism and conspiracy theories, the hate group is also incredibly culturally influential.

Black Nationalist theology, politics and culture are built on the ideas of the Nation of Islam.

Raphael Warnock, the Senate Democrat from Georgia, said, “its voice has been important for the development of black theology.” He neglected to mention that he meant black nationalist theology of the kind trafficked in by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, a Farrakhan supporter, and another ally of Warnock’s whose bigotry the Democrat politician had defended.

Culturally, a long list of musicians and other entertainers are fans of the Nation of Islam. The violent racism of Amiri Baraka (“dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews”), (“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured”), and (“Rape the white girls. Rape / their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats”), distilled Nation of Islam theology into poetry.

“Jews double crossers stole our secrets crossed the white desert to spill them,” the former Poet Laureate of New Jersey wrote in The Black Man is Making New Gods. "The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

This is a brief summary of the narcissistic black supremacist theology of the Nation of Islam which believes that an evil Jewish mad scientist named Yakub (Jacob) used eugenics to create Europeans, Indians, and Asians from the original black master race after leaving Mecca.

That Baraka is remembered as a respected poet, that his hatefilled rants that would have made Goebbels blanch are taught in academic settings, is a tribute to how black nationalism mainstreamed hatred and the racist theology of the Nation of Islam into academia.

One of the most fundamental beliefs of the Nation of Islam is that white people aren’t human.

Some may remember Malcolm X ranting about white devils, at least until he dropped the NOI, in part over its alliance with the KKK, converted to normative Sunni Islam and was murdered by the Nation of Islam, but treated it as a commentary on segregation and racism in America.

That’s a dangerous mistake.

The Nation of Islam literarily believes that white people are an illegitimate race of devils created by a mad scientist who are “made by nature a liar and a murderer”. That belief is no longer confined to the racist hate group. It spilled into what Warnock misleadingly calls, “black theology” and into the foundational texts of what is even more misleadingly called “antiracism”.

As antiracism has taken off on college campuses and at major corporations, the old NOI belief that white people are not human has become the heart of a new breed of diversity training.

A Middlebury College lecture titled, Facilitate the Demilitarization of White Bodies, argues that, "Whiteness must be demilitarized so that bodies designated as ‘White’ might become human."

Antiracist rhetoric that defines white people as non-human is commonplace in academic settings. For example, a University of St. Thomas course titled, “Becoming Human”, insists that “The only way to “become human” is to confront the legacy of white supremacy”. Its implicitly oppressive message is that people of all races and creeds who don’t define their sense of self through the warped funhouse Marxist mirror of critical race theory are not truly human.

Online antiracist seminars offer white people the ability to “Re-Become Human” by “healing from internalized whiteness”. While antiracism buries its dehumanization of white people and minorities opposed to the toxic racism of critical race theory under a slew of academic jargon and intersectional buzzwords, its underlying worldview is cultish and derived from a racist cult.

The Nation of Islam adopted and inverted racist white supremacist ideas. Its theology is a grabag of random elements looted from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, along with a Science Fiction racialism assembled in an era when pseudoscientic mythologies had begun to pervade popular culture and breeding a master race through eugenics appeared to be on the horizon.

Antiracism not only doesn’t teach you how not to be racist, but is a bad copy of a bad copy of the KKK, which the Nation of Islam had allied with, and Hitler, whom black nationalists from Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan had admired, run through an academic jargon filter.

Critical race theory is built around black nationalism. That’s why it explicitly rejects Martin Luther King Jr’s call for brotherhood and instead champions racial separatism and original sin. And black nationalism is just a copy of white nationalism complete with a master race and inferior races. The difference between racism and antiracism is that racists don’t deny they’re racist.

The much more fundamental difference between liberal tolerance and leftist antiracism is that the former believed that the core issue was hatred while the latter formulated it as power. That Marxist reading of race was destined to defeat the religious inflection of the old liberalism.

At stake are irreconcilable questions about hate, equality, and the nature of the society we want.

The old civil rights movement argued that we could achieve equality by letting go of hate. Black nationalist movements and their leftist allies found hate uplifting and didn’t want equality. The fusion of tribal racial hatred on one side of the partnership and Marxist reductionism on the other birthed a racist movement dedicated to perpetuating racism while calling itself antiracist.

Antiracism offers both black nationalists and white leftists what they want. Black nationalists receive uncritical affirmations of racial superiority and a license to hate, while white leftists are encouraged to dismantle their civilizations from buildings and statues to language and mores, in the name of combating a concept of whiteness that encompasses thousands of years of history.

The pivot for both sides is an idea copied from white supremacists by black supremacists.

The racist origins of antiracism are why its ideas inescapably manifest as racism. A movement whose guiding lights are racial supremacy and racial inferiority is not going to stop being racist, even if you pack it with academic jargon and then make sure to put “anti” in front of the “racism”.

The only way to pass off antiracism as anything other than racist is by redefining racism.

Antiracism, like every form of racism, distinguishes between justified and unjustified hatreds based on the moral superiority of one group and the moral inferiority of other groups.

Declaring white people to be less than human because they’re racist isn’t antiracism.

It’s still racism.

Nor is it some sophisticated idea processed through academia. It’s an argument put forward a century ago by the Nation of Islam, along with its fantasies about mad scientists creating the moon and white people, while its Shabazz leaders used Africa to breed a superior master race.

Racism is not, as white supremacists and their black supremacist imitators argue, our destiny. Hating other people is a choice that we make. Stopping it doesn’t require training, consultants, or a curriculum. Like any bad behavior, we can choose to stop it any time we want to.

Antiracism doesn’t stop racism. It enables the bad behavior while pretending to be fighting it. It’s the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey while labeling it “anti-whiskey”.

Confusing the issue with jargon, or by treating whiteness and blackness as not just races, but social concepts that permeate everything, doesn’t change the racist outcome. And the best evidence of whether an idea is racist is whether spreading it leads to more or less hatred.

Antiracism has made America a lot more racist and racially divided than it was in a long time.


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

Lying About Obama - Bruce Bawer


​ by Bruce Bawer

A new biography uncovers the facts behind the fake news.


Jack Cashill has written over a dozen books, including two about the mysterious 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800, one about the Trayvon Martin case, and two – now three – about Barack Obama. His new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is a definitive account not only of Obama’s eight years in office but also of the transformation of most mainstream American political journalists, largely during the Obama era, from relatively objective reporters of the facts – emphasis on “relatively” – to dedicated partisans of the left, ready and eager at every turn to cover up unpleasant truths (however important) about Democrats and to promote outrageous lies (however destructive) about Republicans.

Fortunately, in the age of the Internet, the mainstream media have competition. Yes, there are scads of people who purvey nonsense online. But there are also serious writers who are devoted not to the Democratic Party narrative but to the facts. Some of them have worked in the mainstream media only to lose their jobs because of their excessive curiosity about matters that their bosses considered off-limits. Ken Timmerman, a Clinton voter in 1992, was fired by Time when, in 1994, he “followed the facts on the China trade to the doors of the Oval Office.” Sharyl Attkisson’s interest in the Benghazi story forced her out of CBS News. Both kept writing, but for less prestigious – and less lucrative – outlets. Cashill calls these non-mainstream writers “Lilliputians” (for the teeny-weeny people, of course, in Gulliver’s Travels) and describes them as members of the new American samizdat, borrowing the Russian word used in Soviet times to denote, as he puts it, “the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state.”


It seems to me that applying the term samizdat to the media picture in the U.S. today is wonderfully clarifying. No, Cashill admits, members of the American samizdat don’t face the threat of the gulag – not yet, anyway. But they – we – are untouchables on the media landscape. We have a far tougher time making a living than the lockstep hacks of the MSM, and are effectively barred from, say, employment in higher education. The websites we write for are deemed “unreliable sources” by Wikipedia, which at the same time treats everything in the New York Times and Washington Post as holy scripture. Those who seek to dismiss, distort, or demonize us are aided in that effort by colossally deceitful left-wing operations such as Media Matters for America and the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose smears against us – “racist,” “Islamophobe” – the MSM routinely cite as authoritative.

While borrowing the word “Lilliputians” from Jonathan Swift, Cashill lifts the word “firemen” from Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, in which the job of firemen isn’t to put out fires but to burn books. In today’s American media, the firemen, as defined by Cashill, are those members of the MSM who avoid reporting on news that counters the mainstream narrative. Take those editors and reporters who covered up Obama’s ties to the corrupt left-wing organization known as ACORN, which was supposedly devoted to helping the black community. Ultimately it was a young freelancer, James O’Keefe, whose covert videotapes made ACORN criminality public. In response, major media such as CNN and the Post attacked him as a racist; but O’Keefe’s exposé was so powerful that ACORN ended up dissolving in 2010. Even now, however, the ACORN page at Wikipedia – a solidly left-wing site – asserts that O’Keefe’s videos “inaccurately portray[ed] the [ACORN] personnel as encouraging criminal behavior.”

The fall of ACORN was only one episode. Throughout Obama’s presidency, the MSM presented him as a remarkably virtuous, scandal-free leader. Only thanks to the samizdat do we know better. And Cashill brings it all together. His book is a remarkable trove – a damning litany of crimes, falsehoods, catastrophic missteps, indefensible decisions, and suspicious autobiographical omissions and distortions, ranging from the big lie of Obamacare (“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”) to the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups, from Fast and Furious to Sylindra. There are also innumerable smaller stories of the sort that the MSM ignored, but would’ve plugged tirelessly if they’d been about Trump and not Obama – including the mystery about Obama’s social-security number (which places him in Connecticut, a state he never lived in); his baffling refusal to discuss with the Times his student years at Columbia University; and the rewriting by reverential Obama biographers of his parents’ very brief marriage, apparently to lend credibility to his fanciful reference, in speeches, to the “improbable love” between the Kenyan man and the Kansan woman who “shared an abiding faith in the possibilities” of America.

Then there are the exceedingly shady Obama friendships that the MSM strove to ignore, downplay, or whitewash. Take Obama’s mentorship in Hawaii by Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist pedophile whose identity was first obscured in the memoir Dreams from My Father (in which he was referred to only as “Frank”) and who was omitted entirely from the audiobook. Or Obama’s coziness, during his Chicago days, with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn of the radical Weather Underground, the former of whom is believed by many to have ghostwritten Obama’s memoir Dreams from My Father. Journalists who have shown curiosity about either of these relationships have been shot down as racists, right-wing extremists, conspiracy theorists, or all of the above.

Granted, Obama’s two-decades-long relationship with his anti-Semitic, America-hating Chicago minister, Jeremiah Wright, did make MSM headlines. The story was simply too big to bury. Still, the MSM was quick to help Obama out. First, it put a positive spin on the 2008 Philadelphia speech in which he stated that, despite Wright’s imperfections, he could “no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” Briefly put, Obama, by way of exonerating Wright, Obama threw grandma under the bus, saying that she’d “once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street.” This was a lie. In fact, Madelyn Dunham, who was seriously ailing at the time of the speech, had never “confessed” any such thing; Obama had invented the story, smearing the woman who’d raised him for years while his mother was off in Indonesia. The Philadelphia speech was hailed by the MSM as a heartfelt statement on race relations. A few weeks later, Obama kicked Wright to the curb. Then, two days before her grandson was elected president, Dunham died, having refused, after the Philadelphia speech, to say how she felt about him. The MSM spun (or deep-sixed) every bit of this disgusting episode to Obama’s benefit.

Race dominated the Obama years. After a campaign during which he speechified eloquently about racial unity, he spent his presidency whipping up racial division, all with the help of the MSM. Remember the policeman, James Crowley, who was smeared as a racist for arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates? Did you know he’d voted for Obama? Remember George Zimmerman, also labeled a racist after he killed Trayvon Martin? Did you know that Zimmerman, too, was an Obama voter? The Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown; the founding of BLM; the knee-taking by Colin Kaepernick and others: at any point, Obama could have made a passionate speech about race and defused the situation. Instead he whipped up racial animosity, and the MSM applauded. In 2009, whites and black alike held very positive views of race relations in the U.S.; four years later, they had far grimmer views of the situation.

That wasn’t all. In 2012, when the Obama administration dishonestly blamed the deadly attacks in Benghazi on an anti-Muslim film, the MSM parroted the lie. Cashill documents the way in which mainstream reporters who knew nothing about foreign affairs were dependent on mendacious “messaging” by wily Obama staffer Ben Rhodes. Cashill reminds us that Obama was collaborating closely with Russia in 2015 – recall the hot-mic moment when he asked Russian president Dmitry Medvedev to inform Vladimir Putin that after his re-election he’d “have more flexibility” to pursue Russia-friendly policies. Did the MSM care? No. But a year later Obama’s need to frame Trump meant that “the White House had to frame Russia too.” And so, too, did the MSM, which unquestioningly parroted the inane Russia-collaboration narrative for years.

There’s much more in Unmasking Obama, but suffice it to say that this is a book that needed to be written, and that needs to be read by every American who cares to know the truth about that most incompetent and malevolent of presidential administrations. Even if you feel that you followed the samizdat closely during the Obama years, there will be remarkable material here that you’ve either forgotten or never heard about. But Cashill’s more important accomplishment here is the way in which he maps the media, distinguishing the fake-news giants from the fact-driven Lilliputians. This service is more important than ever in the age of Biden, when the Democrats’ recapture of Washington has given the MSM – and their Silicon Valley allies – a new sense of empowerment, which they’ve exploited in the most nefarious of ways. Even as I write this, it’s being reported that Twitter has “restricted” James O’Keefe and his organization Project Veritas for daring to expose censorship by Facebook. More than ever, samizdat heroes like O’Keefe are necessary to the survival of our democracy. And Unmasking Obama – whose author is also in the first rank of those heroes – is vital reading for all Americans who don’t yet grasp the degree to which their picture of reality has been distorted by guileful operators who, claiming to be brave voices of truth, have instead been the willing tools of power. 


Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Thousand Little Lies Replace the ‘Big Lie’ - William L. Gensert


​ by William L. Gensert

In this age of instant information, expediency necessitates a thousand little lies echoed by the progressive oligarchy.

Most people believe there is only one “truth” and it is supported by facts. Biden said Democrats, “Choose truth over facts.” But he is neither the sharpest tool on the tree nor the brightest bulb in the shed.

Or was it a Freudian slip? The left believes they can prescribe the “truth,” by proscribing facts. In controlling what is the “truth,” they seek to define the present and establish the nation’s “true” history in order to use this history to dictate our future.

It used to be the “big lie,” emphatically told often enough to become “truth.” In this age of instant information, expediency necessitates a thousand little lies echoed by the progressive oligarchy through its components, the Democrats, media, academia, entertainment, big tech, and big finance.

They lie to preclude admitting the GOP came within tens of thousands of votes from controlling both houses of the legislature and the presidency, while Republicans still control a majority of governorships and statehouses. Joe Biden does not have a “mandate” because Americans do not want the country transformed into a progressive globalist paradise. It is inevitable our frotteur president will rub people the wrong way (pun intended) with his economy-killing policies and depart the presidency with historic unpopularity.

A Multitudinous but Noncomprehensive List of their Lies

  • Trump is a white supremacist; he admitted so with Charlottesville. Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th in an attempted coup.
  • Impeachment was not solely intended to preclude something Trump might do in 2024, by convicting him of something he did not do in 2021.
  • Climate change is an existential crisis that requires the elite to have total control. People desire and demand oligarchic rule because rule by correct-thinking “experts” is “democracy in action.”
  • Riots by Antifa/BLM were “mostly peaceful” demonstrations while the mostly peaceful protest on January 6th was not only a riot but also a coup.
  • Ashli Babbitt was not assassinated by an officer shooting from a hidden position when she was not a threat. Her mere presence was violence warranting her death.
  • Censorship protects “free speech,” and CNN is a news organization.
  • Lockdowns and masks work with such efficaciousness the nation needs more of both in this “dark winter” of Biden’s discontent.
  • Silence is violence; inaction is racism.
  • The election was not stolen. Eighty million people voted for Joe Biden who is not in the grips of senescent senility hiding in the basement of the White House surrounded by his new Praetorian (nee National) Guard.
  • Executive Orders are a legitimate way to change the Constitution and the nation.
  • America needs a 9/11-style investigation and a Truth Commission where conservatives can confess their sins.

Where We Stand

If intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder, our elite has murdered truth.

Biden is the front man for an oligarchy trying to eliminate the constitution and destroy the republic. Oligarchists are deliberately pushing the nation to the brink of true insurrection and violence. They act with impunity because they believe Americans who oppose them are an impotent, flaccid majority.

Why shouldn’t they believe this? They stole a presidential election, and then Molly Ball bragged about it in Time magazine. Biden has issued scores of economy-destroying diktats and thrown open our borders to millions of un-COVID tested illegal aliens without any repercussions.

Progressives, however, have not displayed the level of competence necessary for them to succeed.

The Fight Begins

Americans must begin to “fight like hell, or we are not going to have a country.” This is not a call to sedition. Americans must take a pledge to forgo violence.

Use Our Voices

Phone calls, letters, emails, essays, and verbal confrontations will be an integral part of this fight. In confrontations, however, keeping our distance is paramount -- we are not Democrats. If we see these usurpers “in a restaurant, in a department store, or in a gasoline station,” we do not “get in their faces” and “push back.” We make our voices heard from a nonthreatening distance (10 feet or more); we do not approach them. We call out their lies and treachery, stay no more than a minute or two and leave. We never threaten them, never approach their families, never go to their homes.

Use Our Bodies

We must organize into a new “Trump” Tea Party because he is either our 47th president or a kingmaker.

Trump must declare for 2024 to keep raising money for rallies and to organize his tens of millions of supporters.

Trump is our shadow president. He will purchase or start his own network. As a businessman with 75 million followers and no lack of conservatives to host shows, he could make another billion dollars. He should utilize new media: Parler, MeWe, and Gab. Millions will follow.

We must peacefully protest every action of Joe Biden. Issue-specific rallies supporting the 2nd Amendment, and jobs and growth over the Green New Deal will be great fundraising weapons and organizing tools.

The oligarchy, of course, will unleash their Antifa/BLM paramilitary upon us so all rallies should be held where paid security and a police presence are feasible.

Use Our Checkbooks

We should donate money to “Trump 2024” and absolutely only to those politicians who have not sold out, like Cruz, Hawley, Gaetz, Cotton, Jordan, et al.

The Final Lie

Expect one final lie. They will say impelling Americans to fight back against their perfidy is inciting violence.

We must fight to prevent them from succeeding with that.

The author can be found on Twitter @williamlgensert if the FBI has not yet come for him.

Image: Pixabay


William L. Gensert  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter