Friday, February 19, 2021

Iran: The Mullah's Pursuit of Obtaining Nuclear Weapons - Majid Rafizadeh


​ by Majid Rafizadeh

[T]he IAEA has a long history of misreporting the Iranian regime's compliance with the deal and declining to follow up on credible reports about Iran's illicit nuclear activities.

  • The IAEA at first did not take these reports of a secret Iranian atomic warehouse seriously. This should not be surprising: the IAEA has a long history of misreporting the Iranian regime's compliance with the deal and declining to follow up on credible reports about Iran's illicit nuclear activities.

  • Iran's nuclear deal has dangerous fundamental flaws, specifically the ability to enrich uranium in the first place -- as the preeminent US nuclear negotiator Ambassador John R. Bolton wrote a few years ago, without it, no bomb -- and the deal's notorious sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after the deal soon expires.

  • After a significant amount of pressure was imposed on the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, inspecting the suspected site that the Israeli Prime Minister referred to was implemented two years later, in the fall 2020. Even then, although Iran's leaders certainly had enough time to clean up the facility, the IAEA's inspectors nevertheless reported that traces of radioactive uranium had been detected by examining remaining samples.

  • It should also not come as surprise that the ruling mullahs of Iran are declining to answer the IAEA's questions.

  • It is also important to point out that one of the most basic requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a party, as well as one of the terms of the 2015 "nuclear deal," was that the Iranian regime is required to reveal its nuclear activities to the IAEA -- a condition with which it also failed to comply.

  • The detection of radioactive particles in Turquz Abad not only points to the high probability that Tehran has been undertaking work on nuclear weapons in secret; it also points to the high probability that Iran's ruling mullahs have most likely been violating the nuclear deal since it was reached in 2015.

In spite of the Iranian leaders' claim that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, evidence reveals that the Iranian regime has long sought to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime's ballistic missile program to deliver nuclear warheads, a core pillar of its foreign policy, is closely linked to the nuclear program. Pictured: A Shahab-3 ballistic missile on display in Tehran, Iran on September 26, 2019. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

In spite of the Iranian leaders' claim that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, evidence reveals that the Iranian regime has long sought to acquire nuclear weapons.

A recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that "Samples taken from two sites during inspections in the fall by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) contained traces of radioactive material".

This case was first brought to the world's attention in 2018 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano to inspect an "atomic warehouse" in Iran. Netanyahu pointed out in his speech to the UN General Assembly that the Iranian government had a "secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material from Iran's secret nuclear weapons program." In addition, in 2018, two non-partisan organizations based in Washington, DC -- the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) -- released detailed reports about Iran's undeclared clandestine nuclear facilities, as well. Iran's leaders claimed that the warehouse, in a village, Turquz Abad, in the suburbs of Tehran, was simply a place where carpets were cleaned.

The IAEA at first did not take these reports of a secret Iranian atomic warehouse seriously. This should not be surprising: the IAEA has a long history of misreporting the Iranian regime's compliance with the deal and declining to follow up on credible reports about Iran's illicit nuclear activities. Generally, other state or non-state actors -- not the IAEA or the UN -- have been the first to reveal Iran's clandestine nuclear sites. Iran's secret nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak, for instance, were first disclosed by an opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran in 2001.

After a significant amount of pressure was imposed on the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, inspecting the suspected site that the Israeli Prime Minister referred to was implemented two years later, in the fall 2020. Even then, although Iran's leaders certainly had enough time to clean up the facility, the IAEA's inspectors nevertheless reported that traces of radioactive uranium had been detected by examining remaining samples.

It should also not come as surprise that the ruling mullahs of Iran are declining to answer the IAEA's questions.

It is also important to point out that one of the most basic requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a party, as well as one of the terms of the 2015 "nuclear deal," was that the Iranian regime is required to reveal its nuclear activities to the IAEA -- a condition with which it also failed to comply.

The detection of radioactive particles in Turquz Abad points to the high probability that Tehran has been undertaking work on nuclear weapons in secret. It also points to the high probability that Iran's ruling mullahs were most likely violating the nuclear deal since it was reached in 2015.

Despite this critical revelation, however, the Biden administration -- with the seeming prescient objections of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Biden's nominee for Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines -- still seems to be pushing for the return of the US to the nuclear deal.

Iran's nuclear deal has dangerous fundamental flaws, specifically the ability to enrich uranium in the first place -- as the preeminent US nuclear negotiator Ambassador John R. Bolton wrote a few years ago, without it, no bomb -- and the deal's notorious sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after the deal soon expires. The deal, rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, in fact paves the way for Tehran to become a legitimized nuclear state. The deal, furthermore, exempted Iran's military sites, such as Parchin which is reportedly where nuclear development and research is conducted, from the reach of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors. The deal, which the Iranian regime understandably loves, also fails to refer to the ability of Iran's ballistic missile program to deliver nuclear warheads, a core pillar of its foreign policy and closely linked to the nuclear program. The nuclear deal also gives Iran's regime a global legitimacy that makes it even more difficult to hold its leaders accountable for any malign behavior, predatory aggression or terror activity.

The nuclear deal also allows the flow of billions of dollars into the treasury of Iran's leaders, thereby providing the revenues for their militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that they needed to escalate their military adventurism in the region. This includes financing, arming and supporting their terror and militia groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip, as well as South America. Finally, the nuclear deal increases Iran's meddling, interventions in the region and its funding of militia groups.

The Biden administration would do well for both American and international security to take the recent revelations about Iran's clandestine work on nuclear weapons more seriously -- especially to halt the regime from obtaining nuclear weapons before it is too late.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Oregon Promotes 'Dismantling Racism' in Math Instruction - Sara Dogan


​ by Sara Dogan

Is expecting the “right” answer a characteristic of “white supremacy”?

In a February 2021 bulletin sent out by the Oregon Department of Education, just below a feature on Black History Month, is a notice announcing a “micro-course” for educators titled “A Pathway to Math Equity.” The course promises to provide educators with “key tools for engagement [and] strategies to improve equitable outcomes for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students” and knowledge on how to “dismantle racism in mathematics instruction.”

One might well ask, how can math—which more than any other subject deals in the realm of pure logic—possibly be racist? The “toolkit” provided as a resource for the first course session is happy to answer this question.

“We see white supremacy culture show up in the mathematics classroom even as we carry out our professional responsibilities” explains the guide. Educators must therefore take on the responsibility for “visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture with respect to math.”

These “toxic characteristics” include basic academic principles such as:

The focus is on getting the “right” answer.
Teachers are teachers and students are learners.
Independent practice is valued over teamwork or collaboration.
Students are required to “show their work.”
Grading practices are focused on lack of knowledge.
“Real-world math” is valued over math in the real world.
Students are tracked (into courses/pathways and within the classroom).
Participation structures reinforce dominant ways of being.

The toolkit goes on to state that “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.”

The course also contains numerous suggestions for educators who want to fight racism in their math classrooms. These include:

Adapt homework policies to fit the needs of students of color.

Expose students to examples of people who have used math as resistance. Provide learning opportunities that use math as resistance.

Identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.

The course materials repeatedly echo the tropes of critical race theory, insisting that “only white people can be racist in our society, because only white people as a group have that power.” Another section of the workbook asserts that “In some cases, the prejudices of oppressed people (‘you can’t trust the police’) are necessary for survival.”

If Oregon’s educational bureaucrats truly want to improve the education of African-American students, this racist exercise in lowering expectations and subverting classroom norms is a dismal place to start. 


Sara Dogan  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Public School District Sued by High School Coach for First Amendment Violation - Joseph Klein


​ by Joseph Klein

Is objecting to BLM/Critical Race Theory Curriculum forbidden?


Today’s cancellation virus is quickly spreading. It is seriously infecting the protections and rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Highlighting yet another example of this disturbing trend, Judicial Watch announced Tuesday that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of David Flynn, a high school coach and father of two Dedham Public School students. Flynn was removed from his position as Dedham High School’s head football coach for having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment right to free expression. 

David Flynn and his wife expressed their concerns about biased race-based coursework being added to his Dedham Middle School daughter’s seventh-grade Ancient History and World Geography class curriculum. The Flynns believed that the added coursework on politics, race, gender equality, and diversity was biased in favor of a particular point of view on these sensitive subjects and was not suitable for twelve-and thirteen-year olds.

The Flynns raised their concerns about the course curriculum changes to the school superintendent and School Committee members. They did so after getting nowhere with the school principal, who said that the admittedly “controversial content” was critical to teaching students about their “own identity” and “the identity of others.” The principal claimed that the coursework content was being “presented objectively to our students.” That claim was outright false.

For example, the coursework included a black versus white stereotyping cartoon exercise. The Flynns were concerned, according to the Judicial Watch complaint, that the “seventh-grade history teacher was using class materials that labeled all police officers as risks to all black people and all black males as risks to white people.”

As part of her remote learning instruction, the seventh-grade history teacher used a cartoon character of herself wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff and his wife “reasonably interpreted” this t-shirt as “the teacher expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement during class time.”

Black Lives Matter (BLM) was co-founded by a self-admitted “trained Marxist.” BLM wants to abolish the police. The teacher’s promotion of the Black Lives Matter image was anything but objective.

The Flynns’ escalation of their concerns to the school superintendent and School Committee members, as well as communicating with other parents who shared the concerns, not only was an exercise in futility. It backfired.  

The Flynns withdrew their kids from the public school system after it became apparent that the school district was not willing to listen to their concerns and try to reach a compromise. The school district’s answer was to remove David Flynn from his head football coaching position, which he had held since 2011, by not renewing Flynn’s contract. The superintendent, high school principal, and high school athletic director released a public statement confirming that Flynn was removed because he had “expressed significant philosophical differences with the direction, goals, and values of the school district.”  

The Dedham Public Schools District demonstrated its “values” and the direction it was taking with its selection of Dr. Oneida Fox Roye as its first Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer, which was announced last fall. Roye tweeted the following last December, which reflects the "values" that she is bringing with her to the Dedham schools: “When people say that they don't have a racist bone in their body, they’re usually saying that they’re not racist. Yet, there is no way that you inherit privilege from birth, learn history in our schools, work in our country, watch television & films, and not be racist.#BIPOC #DEI.”

The Flynns’ “philosophical differences” with the Dedham Public Schools boiled down to not accepting the school district’s equating one’s identity with skin color. They did not want their seventh-grade daughter being indoctrinated that all whites are racists simply because they were born white. They did not want their daughter being taught to value Black Lives Matter as a positive role model when BLM leaders espouse anti-America views, including critical race theory, and BLM members engage in violence.

However, David Flynn’s “philosophical differences” did not affect his work as the high school head football coach. His job did not involve any class material that he refused to teach. David Flynn and his wife simply objected to having the new coursework on politics, race, gender equality, and diversity force-fed to their daughter. The school district could have tried to accommodate the Flynns by excusing their daughter from participating in this portion of the curriculum that was being presented remotely. Alternatively, an elective course could have been created around such coursework. But the school district decided instead that Flynn was too much of a troublemaker in their eyes to keep around. So, they removed Flynn from his coaching job because he dared to express his differences with the school district in the one area that directly affected what his daughter was being taught.  

The Dedham Public Schools District crossed over the line in trying to cancel David Flynn. Flynn has a First Amendment right to freely express his “philosophical differences,” particularly on controversial issues of public policy importance such as racial or gender bias that impact what his daughter was being taught. The Supreme Court has ruled in one case that public school teachers do not forfeit their “constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Another Supreme Court case involved an African-American teacher who claimed her contract was not renewed because she had complained directly to the school principal about employment policies and practices at the school that she believed were racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court concluded in essence that the First Amendment protects the right of a public employee to bring her complaint to her employer without facing termination for that reason alone. It is ironic that this Supreme Court precedent, which supports David Flynn’s First Amendment complaint against the woke, race-obsessed Dedham Public School District, arose from an African-American’s genuine grievance about racial discrimination.

The Dedham Public School District admitted that David Flynn’s contract was not renewed because he had “expressed significant philosophical differences with the direction, goals, and values of the school district.”  No other reason was given. Therefore, as the Judicial Watch complaint alleges, it is clear that Flynn was terminated “in retaliation for his protected speech.” He is entitled to relief for the harm that the school district caused him. But the issues raised by David Flynn's case go far beyond Flynn himself and his mistreatment by the Dedham Public School District.

We don't know exactly how many people are being cancelled like Flynn because of what they have said or written. But we do know that the cancellation pandemic is spinning out of control and that the First Amendment's protections are increasingly vulnerable.


Joseph Klein  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Malignant Tradition of UC Irvine’s Hate-Israel Activists - Richard L. Cravatts


​ by Richard L. Cravatts

Still crazy after all these years.


If any area of the United States can be identified as the epicenter of anti-Israelism on campus, California, the nation’s most populous state, can certainly be said to have earned that dubious distinction. In fact, observers of out of control anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic activity on campuses consider California’s universities to be the veritable ground zero of such vitriol, with particularly troubling and persistent problems of radical student groups, venom-spewing guest speakers, annual hate-fests targeting Israel and Jewish students, and a pervasive mood on campus in which Jewish students and other pro-Israel faculty and students experienced visceral and real “harassment, intimidation and discrimination,” as a Zionist Organization of America’s (ZOA) complaint to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights described the situation on one campus, the University of California at Irvine.

In fact, UC-Irvine has for two decades been the epicenter of anti-Israel activism in California—and as a result, in the entire country—and this month, the university’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) continued that noxious tradition by successfully pushing a BDS resolution through the student government, a bill entitled “UC Divestment from Apartheid 2021,” which, in addition to once again leveling the mendacious charge of apartheid against Israel, suggested that “Israel has terrorized, displaced, and killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from its founding,” and that “Israel continues to follow the methods of terror from its founding until the present day.” 

As anti-Israel activists are fond of doing, the resolution was replete with references to the apartheid alleged to exist in Israel, and, in fact, the resolution asserted without hesitation that “Israel is an apartheid state based on this definition [‘a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race’] and its similarities to the South African apartheid . . . .”

To punish Israel for perpetrating and maintaining the alleged racism inherent in apartheid, the resolution targeted specific companies that, it was claimed, benefit from doing business with Israel and should, in the name of social justice, be divested from the UC-Irvine portfolio. What is the rationale for such actions? Normally, it is to punish companies that continue to do business with Israel after they have been singled out for opprobrium, and, additionally in this case, these specific companies are involved in supplying Israel with material and equipment necessary for the Jewish state’s defense. But either because they do not understand how divestment even works, or they have created a new narrative in which the university’s funds are to be reallocated for socially-responsible purposes, the authors of the resolution claimed that “The UC investments in corporations that enable apartheid are a misuse of student tuition funds,” and “the millions spent on apartheid should be redirected to students who do not have their basic needs addressed.”

First of all, student funds are not invested as part of a university’s portfolio since these cover a school’s operating expenses; it is generally endowments whose funds are used to reap returns and growth of a school’s investments, and universities invest in companies that are expected to reap profits and experience appreciation. This trend of BDS supporters to target defense-related firms for divestment is also particularly troubling since it seeks to deprive Israel of acquiring the material and supplies with which to arm its defense forces and protect its citizenry. So, while BDS proponents disingenuously claim that they seek to punish Israel until it ends the occupation, recognizes the so-called Palestine “right of return,” and permits the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, by attempting to deny Israel the ability to defend itself, BDS reveals its actual, though often obscured, intention: the weakening and eventual destruction of Israel through whatever means necessary.

When a divestment resolution is passed by a student government, as it was in the UC-Irvine instance, there is momentary jubilation by the anti-Israel groups on the respective campuses, but almost without exception the resolutions are meaningless, since university administrations are quick to disavow such BDS resolutions and university officers refuse to actually divest funds from any companies alleged to be complicit in Israel’s unjust treatment of the ever-aggrieved Palestinians. University officials rightly recognize that singling out one country for boycott and divestment—Israel—is both hypocritical and unjust and for this reason student-sponsored divestment resolutions are routinely ignored.

But if actual divestment and economic harm to Israel is never realized as a result of these BDS campaigns, what is their purpose? Why do activists even bother with them? The answer is that actually effecting divestment, or a boycott, or sanctions against the Jewish state are not necessary as part of the relentless agitation against Israel. It is enough for Israel-haters to persistently trumpet the many perceived ills of Israel, its long list of predations, and the catalog of human rights offenses it supposedly perpetrates against the innocent Arab Palestinians as part of its campaign of apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

The obsessive, unrelenting, and fractious cognitive campus war waged against Israel at UC-Irvine and elsewhere attempts to subsume any factual accounting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, choosing instead to create a mendacious narrative in which Israel is a brutal, militaristic, murderous occupier of stolen Muslim land and the Palestinian Arabs are an innocent indigenous people tirelessly asserting their irredentist claims to the entirety of a factitious country called Palestine. Since these constructions are largely lies and counter-factual—as was the recent apartheid charge in the UC-Irvine resolution—they must be repeated promiscuously until they are accepted as truth, while opposing views that support history and fact about Israel and its neighbors are derided, ignored, or suppressed so as not to threaten the narrative.

The BDS resolution passed at UC-Irvine is the latest salvo in the caustic demonization and delegitimization of Israel happening there, but that campaign has been going on for almost two decades now and has made Irvine the epicenter of universities with a tradition of anti-Israel activism. According to these Israel-hating activists, “white” Israelis are not only fundamentally racist and maintain a system of apartheid against “brown” Arabs, but Israel even exports this racism by training American police officers how to brutalize black suspects, a program that anti-Israel activists have coined as “The Deadly Exchange.”

In June of 2020, for example, UC-Irvine’s Students for Justice in Palestine, in conjunction with dozens of other social justice groups and individuals, distributed a petition, “Justice for Black Lives: End All University of California Police and Imperial Contracts,” which slandered Israel by tying it into the movement to abolish domestic police forces and absurdly blaming Israel for perpetrating police violence in the United States. “This complicity goes beyond domestic policing,” the statement read. “We also call on the UC to divest from companies that profit off of Israel’s illegal military occupation of Palestine, investments that uphold a system of anti-Black racism in the US. We know the Minneapolis police were also trained by Israeli counter-terrorism officers. The knee-to-neck choke-hold that Chauvin used to murder George Floyd has been used and perfected to torture Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces through 72 years of ethnic cleansing and dispossession.” 

A UC-Irvine event titled “The Oppression of Zionism,” part of “Anti-Oppression Week 2019” sponsored by The Muslim Student Union (MSU), included a sermon by Sheikh Osman Umarji, in which he repeated the classic anti-Semitic trope that Jews who support Israel have a dual loyalty. “We are here as anti-Zionists,” he ranted. “We are against a foreign body, a foreign entity, coming into our land occupied by existing people . . . So, first, we are anti-Zionist . . . Are we living in an alternate universe, where allegiance to a foreign entity is more important than allegiance to the country you live in?”

In fact, Israel-haters have learned to parse their words very carefully when articulating their loathing of Israel. Since working definitions of anti-Semitism such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) link denying Jews their right of self-determination and equating Zionism with racism as being two contemporary characteristics of anti-Semitism, anti-Israel activists have been trying to sidestep their apparent bigotry toward Jews by claiming that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism and that it is the inherent racism of Zionism which warrants the condemnation of Israel, not its essential Jewishness.

Even the text of the “UC Divestment from Apartheid 2021” resolution opens with an admission by the SJP authors that, just in case anyone should suspect that the group harbors some enmity toward Jews and Zionists, they wanted to state unequivocally that “we'd like to note that this [resolution] is in no way related to Judaism, we acknowledge the rising anti-Semitism and stand in full solidarity with Jewish communities across campus, the nation, and the world . . . .” How thoughtful. And with the same contorted morality that anti-Israel activists employ when they state categorically that anti-Zionism is never, never equivalent to anti-Semitism, the resolution echoed that same weasel language by attempting to separate the Jewishness and traditions of Judaism of the Jewish state from the racist political misbehavior they allege is inherent in Israel’s very existence. “We would also like to note the distinction between the Israeli apartheid and Judaism,” the experts on Judaism and anti-Semitism explained, “while Jewish history is intertwined with Israeli history, the current political and physical violence committed against Palestinians is not related to Judaism.” How comforting that Jews in the Jewish state can divorce themselves from any responsibility for the country’s racism, oppression, and brutal militarism.

Having clarified that they harbor absolutely no ill-will toward Jews in general or to Judaism, these toxic activists immediately move on to the gist of their condemnation, asserting in a now-familiar trope that “Israel has terrorized, displaced, and killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from its founding in the 1947-1949 Palestine War until the modern day.” Their evidence that “Israel continues to follow the methods of terror from its founding until the present day”? Rather embarrassingly, they have to go back in time before the state of Israel was even created, pointing to “terror groups such as the Haganah and Irgun [which] have committed atrocities on the Palestinians including the Deir Yassin massacre which killed between 100-250 Palestinian civilians in 1948 . . . and the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 that killed 91 people . . . .”

Missing from this resolution, of course, just as it is missing from all rhetoric from the anti-Israel crowd, is any context for the terrorism that exists as part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and, more significantly, who exactly the terrorists actually are. For example, the resolution glibly stated that “the nearly two million people living in Gaza have not been able to leave the Gaza strip since 2007, which has led to the creation of the world’s largest open-air prison, where civilians consistently lose access to resources and are bombed repeatedly by the Israeli military,” creating the impression that Israel, without motivation and acting immorally and illegally, created a blockade to close down Gaza and capriciously and senselessly bombs the civilian population whenever it feels the need.

Missing from the resolution is any mention of the terrorist thugocracy of Hamas, which has imposed a brutal, authoritarian rule over Gazans since 2006 and which, for more than a decade, has used Gaza as a launching pad for some 15,000 rockets and mortars they have lobbed into Southern Israeli towns with the express purpose of randomly murdering Jews. So, while the activist students had to go back over 70 years to find examples of Israeli terrorism, they had only to look back to the current years, if they had cared, to see active, actual terrorists doing their best to inflict casualties and death on Israeli Jews.

There is no mention in the resolution, of course, of Palestinian terrorism, the Arab’s intractability in refusing many offers of Palestinian statehood, or the genocidal impulses from a sea of jihadist foes that have threatened the Jewish state from its birth, which have necessitated the much-maligned security wall, checkpoints, and even the dreaded occupation. Only Israel’s sins are discussed, and all of the blame for the region’s various social dysfunctions is laid at its feet. That is clearly the SJP’s intention and purpose in sponsoring this type of BDS resolution—vilifying Israel and Jews—not to support the Palestinians; and all the disingenuous talk from university administrators and faculty about “academic freedom,” an “open exchange of ideas,” or an opportunity for learning about difficult issue either ignores or evades what is actually going on with respect to these votes by student governments.

“The whole problem with the world,” observed philosopher Bertrand Russell, “is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” On the UC-Irvine campus, fools and fanatics may have prevailed in the current vote, but, in doing so, seem to have revealed the true nature of their genocidal, anti-Semitic hatred.

And its lethal nature and intent should frighten us all.


Richard L. Cravatts, a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews. 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cuomo administration's nursing home coronavirus crisis handling investigated by FBI, US Attorney: report - Thomas Barrabi


​ by Thomas Barrabi

The investigation is not yet far along and is focused on top members of Cuomo’s coronavirus task force

CNN offering 'convenient' excuse for Chris Cuomo conflict of interest: Kurtz

The FBI and US attorney’s office in Brooklyn have begun an investigation into how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration handled the state’s nursing home crisis during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a report Wednesday.

The investigation is not yet far along and is focused on top members of Cuomo’s coronavirus task force, the Albany Times-Union reported, citing a source with direct knowledge of the matter. Neither Cuomo nor any administration official has at this point been accused of any wrongdoing.

Members of Cuomo’s task force include New York State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker and Secretary to the Governor Melissa DeRosa. The latter drew scrutiny this month after she seemingly admitted the governor’s team withheld information related to COVID-19-related deaths at nursing homes.


"As we publicly said, DOJ has been looking into this for months. We have been cooperating with them and we will continue to," Cuomo senior advisor Rich Azzopardi said in a statement.

It is not clear whether Azzopardi’s statement refers to the Brooklyn U.S. attorney's probe, which the Times-Union describes as "in its early stages." Azzopardi’s statement did not specify whether Cuomo’s office was in touch with FBI or US Attorney officials regarding a fresh investigation.

A spokesman for the US Attorney's Office in Brooklyn told the Times-Union he could neither confirm nor deny that an investigation was underway.

Cuomo has faced bipartisan scrutiny over his handling of the nursing home crisis. Critics have focused on Cuomo’s March 25 memo directing nursing homes to accept recovering COVID-19 patients at their facilities. The order was later rescinded.


Last August, the Justice Department sent out a request for data on nursing home deaths during the pandemic to several state governors, including Cuomo.

Earlier Wednesday, Cuomo’s office released a full transcript of a Feb. 10 call between senior aides, including DeRosa and state Democratic lawmakers who pressed the governor’s team to explain why it hadn’t fulfilled a request from the New York State legislature for more data on nursing home deaths.

The New York Post was first to report that DeRosa said the administration withheld data out of concern it could be "used against us" in a federal probe.

"Basically, we froze, because then we were in a position where we weren't sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice or what we give to you guys, what we start saying was going to be used against us while we weren't sure if there was going to be an investigation," DeRosa said on the call. 

DeRosa, and later Cuomo himself, clarified that the request from state lawmakers for more data was put on hold while the administration fulfilled the federal request.

Speaking at a press conference last Monday, the governor said his team told staffers at the New York State Assembly and Senate at the time that their request for data was "paused."

Cuomo said his team cooperated "fully" with the DOJ’s initial request for data last August. He said that his team learned of a second DOJ request for data last October after reading about it in the New York Post.

"We didn't even get the letter," Cuomo said. "The Post called and told us about the letter and that requested information on private nursing homes and we have been voluntarily producing information on that on a rolling basis."

Presently, it isn’t clear whether the latest US Attorney probe into the Cuomo administration is connected to the DOJ’s past data requests.

Cuomo also pushed back on criticism related to his March 25 memo, telling reporters that it was based on federal guidance at the time. The governor said patients were only discharged to facilities that acknowledged they were equipped to safely receive them.

Of the 365 nursing homes that received a recovering COVID-19 patient from a hospital, 98% of the facilities had already reported COVID-19 exposure prior to the patient’s return, according to Cuomo.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical of Cuomo’s handling of the situation. Criticism intensified after the Associated Press reported New York significantly underreported the number of COVID-19 deaths at nursing homes.

A group of state Democrats has called for Cuomo to be stripped of his emergency powers following the nursing home scandal. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Ted Cruz and other GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for a congressional probe into the situation.

Cuomo and his team maintain that data were always reported accurately.

"I want everyone to know, everything was done," Cuomo said. "Everything was done by the best minds in the best interest and the last thing we wanted to do- the last thing that I wanted to do was to aggravate a terrible situation."


Thomas Barrabi  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

NGO Monitor's International Advisory Board Statement on ICC's Jurisdiction Claim - NGO Monitor


​ by NGO Monitor

We -- call on the funders and enablers of these NGO campaigns, particularly among European governments, to end these irresponsible policies.

As members of the NGO Monitor International Advisory Board, we strongly condemn the exploitation of the principles of international law seen in the International Criminal Court’s claim to have jurisdiction over issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a prelude to investigations targeting individual Israelis, this is a form of legal warfare, (“lawfare”) that uniquely targets the Jewish state.

Beyond the blatant substantive errors in the recent ICC decision, we note the central role of influential but unaccountable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in lobbying the Court. This highlights what the late Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, denounced as the moral failure of his own organization for leading efforts “to turn Israel into a pariah state.”

As NGO Monitor reports demonstrate in detail, for 20 years, the network of radical NGOs continuously promoted accusations of Israeli “war crimes,” cynically erasing the context of Palestinian terror and the obligation of the IDF to defend Israeli citizens against attack. We also reject their blatant and politicized denigration of the highly regarded Israeli legal system. The false accusations and myths prompted by unaccountable NGOs were copied directly into the Prosecutor’s jurisdiction brief and from there, into the decisions of the two judges that endorsed her claims.

We also call on the funders and enablers of these NGO campaigns, particularly among European governments, to end these irresponsible policies. The massive funding amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually (as documented by NGO Monitor), including for terror-linked NGOs, to craft bogus indictments against Israeli officials. In some instances, the European funding to Palestinian NGOs was explicitly earmarked for their activities vis-à-vis the ICC. These organizations are not credible sources of information for the Court. A number of the European-funded NGOs met repeatedly with the Prosecutor, encouraging them to flout the ICC’s own procedures in manufacturing the case against Israel. NGO Monitor, together with three other groups, jointly filed an amicus brief with the ICC that lays out the legal and factual flaws behind the argument that the ICC has jurisdiction.

The damage resulting from this NGO campaign goes beyond adding to the invidious campaigns based on the “Israeli war crimes” canard. This cynical exploitation of the ICC severely undermines the legitimate and necessary efforts to bring real war criminals and mass murderers to justice.

Signed by:

Elliot Abrams

Amb. Vivian Bercovici

Hon. Michael Danby

Hon. Alexander Downer

Sen. Linda Frum

Bonnie Glick

Tom Gross

Colonel Richard Kemp

Douglas Murray

Hon. Fiamma Nirenstein

Prof. Judea Pearl

Judge Abraham Sofaer

Prof. Ruth Wisse


NGO Monitor  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Transformation, Biden, And The Left - Reese Daniels


​ by Reese Daniels

When Biden promised to transform America, the media carefully refrained from asking what he meant. The past three weeks have illuminated his meaning.

During Joe Biden’s campaign for president, he said he was going to transform the country. Was it clear what he meant by that? The mainstream media presented Biden as a moderate. However, moderates are not usually in the business of transforming. So, it would have been wise to ask the candidate what he meant.

Was Biden’s promised transformation merely a reprise of Obama’s change slogan? Was he just planning to roll back Trumpism and return to the Democrat priorities of the Obama years – healthcare, education, immigration, and the environment? Or…was he going to pack the court, pursue a Green New Deal, enact reparations for slavery, and abolish fracking, as conservative pundits warned?

Was Biden more sincere while assuring national audiences he was a kind and decent grandfatherly type who wants what’s best for everyone? Or were his true intentions on display when he was talking to supporters of Sanders and Sharpton, environmental lobbyists, gun control activists, and other leftist special interest groups?

We never got answers to these questions, largely because they weren’t asked. On the rare occasion that he was asked hard questions, he didn’t really answer them.

Now that Joe Biden is president, though, he has unveiled the hidden things of his transformational intentions. It has become clear that the Far Left is steering the president and the country away from anything resembling its founding, away from any moorings to common sense and basic decency.

For example, although Americans do not list transgender issues among their top ten concerns and it seems unlikely that it was ever a priority for Joe Biden before he began to show signs of cognitive deterioration, within the first hours of his administration he took an unpopular executive action allowing men to use the ladies’ room and to compete in women’s sports. Both things surely make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world. One wonders what the IOC would say if the USOC came to them with a plan to let American men compete in women’s events at the Olympics if they identify as women.

In other early actions, the Biden Administration clearly indicated its intention to open the border and to treat illegal immigrants like super-citizens, unaccountable to the law. It must leave international heads of state perplexed. America had clearly grown stronger under Trump’s immigration and border policies.

The nations of the world know that they need a free United States to bolster their economies, protect weaker countries, and provide a competitive alternative to the stagnancy and futility of socialism. Many international leaders have noted with grave concern the blatant, bewildering censorship of all that represents the considered and historically-informed opinions held by half of America. On top of that, there is a soviet-style movement to punish and degrade anyone who supports Trump. The rest of the world is not rejoicing at this.

For their part, Washington Republicans pose as Trump defenders, but in this virulent post-election political atmosphere, way too many of them have failed to take up the Trump voters’ cause. Worse yet, many seem to have formally joined the anti-Trump movement. Who would have guessed that seven Republican senators would join every Democrat in voting for Trump’s conviction on the weakest article of impeachment imaginable?

Perhaps career politicians on the right were secretly just as concerned as Democrats were when Trump took on the establishment, which he did on behalf of patriots who recognize that they are essentially being ruled by an oligarchy. In his inaugural address, President Trump made this remarkable pronouncement:

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

For decades, Joe Biden has been the avatar of this dynamic. Trump went on to remind us that America belongs to its citizens and to proclaim that he was returning its governance back to them. He had no idea the measures the oligarchy would be willing to take to maintain their power.

When the oligarchs yelled, “You are not above the law,” at Donald Trump, well-informed people knew what they meant: “We are the ones who are above the law, not you. We will never be held accountable for our lawlessness and corruption, but no evidence will be needed to investigate and prosecute you for things that we do. And we will make sure you are not reelected, no matter how Machiavellian we must show ourselves to be.”

The press was in on the cover-up of Biden’s low character and leftist intentions while they sold us a decent centrist. There were many who warned that Biden and Harris would make a hasty charge toward leftist goals that have been in the “wacky column” for generations.

While the mainstream poured out visceral hatred for Trump at the expense of factual reportage, investigative journalists on the right used verifiable information to make their case. Now, there are many with buyer’s remorse with New Mexico serving as just one example. Will they begin to pursue information outside the mainstream?

Conservative journalists warned that Biden and the Democrats would pursue statehood for Washington, D.C. The mainstream either ignored or derided the claim, but now there are a record 38 sponsors in the Senate for the measure, which passed the House last year under the radar. Abolishing the filibuster can’t be far behind.

With regards to packing the Supreme Court, Biden dodged questions and said that voters don’t deserve to know his position. Only conservative journalists sounded the alarm. Now we know they were right: Biden has announced a commission to look into expanding the high court.

Biden assured Rust Belt states that he was not an enemy of their energy-driven economies. But he immediately canceled the Keystone Pipeline and Kamala Harris told coal miners they would be able to get a better job deactivating abandoned land mines once their jobs were gone.

Contrary to promises of centrism, we already have measures in congress for a federal takeover of elections (H.R.1) and for more gun control (H.R. 127).

We know now what kind of transformation Biden meant during the campaign: A radical, authoritarian transformation, one that provides a more meaningful division between rulers and subjects, as poetically symbolized by the hideous wall that Democrats erected around the capital.

Sometimes storm waters change the course of a river. This is a tempest. It will be a major undertaking to hold the banks of our constitutional republic.


Reese Daniels is a pseudonym.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cuomo gaslights nursing home deaths as public relations management problem - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

The FBI and the New York U.S. attorney don't seem to think it's a communications problem.

For New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo, all those 15,000 nursing home deaths brought on by COVID patients coming back from hospitals and into nursing homes instead of President Trump's offshore hospital ships and the cover-up in numbers was a communications problem.

Here's his Feb. 16 press conference where he refused to apologize for his March 25 memo forcing nursing homes to take in COVID patients returning from hospitals, and then covered up the death toll by splitting death toll numbers between hospitals and nursing homes, to make the numbers look smaller:


From, the transcript:

Apologize? Look, I have said repeatedly, we made a mistake in creating the void. We made a mistake in creating the void. When we didn’t provide information, it allowed press, people, cynics, politicians to fill the void. When you don’t correct disinformation, you allow it to continue. And we created the void, not because people weren’t working hard, Mike, because you know how hard people were working and well, you should have prioritized providing more information. Yes, yes. In retrospect, we should have prioritized providing more information. I get the operational demand. I don’t like to second guess my team. They were all working 24 hours a day. Remember where this was? You’re in the middle of hell during this time, but no excuses, no excuses.

Andrew Cuomo: (01:34:35)
We should not have created the void. We should have done a better job in providing information. We should have done a better job of knocking down the disinformation. You’d never knock down all these conspiracy theories, the political conspiracy theories, because they generate 10 a day, but we should have done a better job of providing as much information as we could as quickly as we could and we should have done a better job on that, yes, and no excuses. I accept responsibility for that. I am in charge. I take responsibility. We should have provided more information faster. We were too focused on doing the job and addressing the crisis of the moment and we did not do a good enough job in providing information. I take total responsibility for that. The pain in it is it created confusion and cynicism and pain for the families of the loved ones.

You see, it's all a problem of communications, and all his bureaucrats were working "so hard" and supposedly under duress.  Sorry 'bout that, pudknockers — Cuomo (or rather, now it's his staff) had bigger things to do than explain to you why your grandmother was dying alone in a nursing home even though you were barred from visiting her in order to keep the place "safe."  But rest assured: he's taking full responsibility and is in charge.

This loathsome garbage, because the problem wasn't communications, a public relations management problem as he'd like you to think; it was the policy itself, the March 25 memo commanding nursing homes to take in COVID patients returning from hospital and forbidding them, under penalty of law non-discrimination clauses, from so much as testing them.  Splitting the numbers to make them both look smaller was a cover-up move for a very, very, very bad policy, one that's so bad that it's now being investigated by the FBI and the Brooklyn district's U.S. attorney.  According to the Times-Union, which makes every effort to make Cuomo look good:

Nearly three weeks after the governor's task force was announced last year, the state health department issued an order directing nursing homes and other long-term care facilities that they must accept residents who were being discharged from hospitals even if they were still testing positive for the infectious disease, as long as they were able to care for them properly.

That directive, which was rescinded less than two months later, has been the focus of a firestorm of criticism directed at Cuomo's administration, including allegations that the order — which the governor said was based on federal guidance — had contributed to the high number of fatalities of nursing home residents in New York. That assertion was largely dismissed in a report by the Department of Health that was released in July.

Last month, the office of Attorney General Letitia James issued a scathing report that concluded the practice may have increased the risk of COVID-19 infections at the congregate facilities and that Cuomo's administration had delayed reporting that thousands of additional nursing home residents died at hospitals after being infected in their residential facilities.

The "as long as they were able to care for" claim is nonsense — nursing homes were threatened with license yankings if they weren't "able to care for" the patients, and the Times-Union left off that unpleasant little detail about nursing homes being prohibited under penalty of law from testing anyone returning from a hospital COVID unit into a nursing home on discrimination grounds.  That effectively forced nursing homes, under protest, to take in the coughing and sneezing COVID patients from hospitals, and every time they tried to call Cuomo's bureaucrats about it to alert them to the catastrophe, the latter refused to pick up the phone.  All of that was reported by the New York Post last spring.

All this, while President Trump's record-time dispatched military hospital ships, intended for COVID overflow patients in New York, sat empty.  Maybe that was to avoid giving President Trump any credit for saving the thousands of people who would have been saved.  For Cuomo, they were more politically useful dead, serving as fodder to Blame Trump instead.

Yes, an FBI and U.S. attorney's investigation is warranted in this case, because far from this being a communications or transparency problem, it might just be a money and greed problem.  According to the Times-Union:

Republicans at all levels of New York's government spectrum, and many Democrats as well, have repeatedly called for independent investigations of the state's nursing home policies and directives during the ongoing pandemic. Some of those critics also have raised questions about whether there were any ties between policy decisions and hospitals or other special interests that either have business before the state or are subject to its regulating agencies.

So instead of being more transparent now, as Cuomo is apparently claiming to be, he needs to be way more transparent, with the lawmen.  Yet the public has a right to know what went into this bad policy. 

Was it to Get Trump?

Was it to "cull" the nursing home population, the better to save on Medicaid expenses the state would have to pay?  According to ProPublica, about 13% of the New York nursing home population was picked off.

Or was it greed and graft among Cuomo's staff, which wouldn't be the first time among that bunch, with special interests offering "incentives" to get the patients into the nursing homes in return for some kind of emolument?  Maybe the release of some emails and memos as to their thinking in the crafting of this bad decision might be in order, and hopefully, the FBI will be able to get their hands on it.

For Cuomo, it doesn't look good.  After a big media buildup claiming he was such a competent, extraordinary guy, complete with an Emmy award, he may just be going down, shamelessness and all.  He's certainly acting like it.  Over the weekend, he reportedly threatened to "destroy" one Democratic legislator, Assembly member Ron Kim, whose questioning of this Cuomo policy arose after his father died in one of these nursing homes as a result of this policy.  According to CNN, Cuomo last week was screaming at Kim over the phone to demand that he stop.  

He's constantly fighting with the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is why he's billed as Mr. Moderate in much of the press.  A lot of them want his job, reportedly including state attorney general, Letitia James, who wrote the report about the cover-up.  What's more, a massive amount of stimulus money, if Joe Biden gets his way, is going to be rolling into New York for either Cuomo or whoever can knock him out — much more money than New York even requested.  Cuomo himself has plenty of enemies likely to want that and to want him gone.  Cuomo's mean and Mafia-like to his associates, "born for social distancing," as the New Yorker quoted a former aide as saying.  Without Trump in the picture, the vipers are going after each other and expecting a jackpot.

And with Cuomo acting as menacing as a Mafia don, it looks as though the minions around him are plotting a political rubout.

Image: Screen shot from shareable Today show video via YouTube.


Monica Showalter  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rush Limbaugh, RIP - David Horowitz


​ by David Horowitz

A great American is no longer with us.


[Photo above: David Horowitz presents Annie Taylor Award to Rush Limbaugh].

A great American is gone. Rush Limbaugh devoted his life and his great talents to defending the country he loved against its enemies without and within. Therefore, we have also lost a great warrior in the struggle for human freedom. For America remains – as Lincoln said, “the last best hope of earth.” In the same breath, Lincoln also warned that “we shall nobly save, or meanly lose” this hope. Rush was a shining model for all those patriots who are fighting to nobly save this great human experiment, which is under siege today.

Rush Limbaugh was as generous a human being as he was a stalwart fighter for the cause all of us who loved him and this country share. It was our pleasure and great honor to know him and call him a friend. He was a speaker at several Restoration Weekends hosted by the Center and on his radio show helped us to spread our message. I am forever grateful for the attention he drew to my own books, beginning with Radical Son, which were all written in the service of our common cause.

Because he was so talented and so dedicated a warrior, we cannot hope to replace him. What we can do is be inspired by his example and step up our efforts to “nobly save” our beleaguered country – the cause he lived and fought for until his last breath.


David Horowitz 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, February 18, 2021

World leaders wonder who is running America's foreign policy - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

Doddery Joe is sending mixed signals, while Kamala is taking calls and keeping busy.

With Kamala Harris taking calls from foreign leaders now, less than one month into the Joe Biden presidency, and Joe's spokesweasel Jen Psaki saying Joe won't be taking foreign visitors, it's pretty obvious foreign leaders are wondering: Who the heck is running America? Why can't Joe come to the phone? Is the Biden "transitional" presidency really a "regency"?

The signs of it are all over. Here's a list of how bad it is, starting with America's allies:

Israel: After Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave Biden an early congratulatory call over the phone for his "victory," the locals are now wondering if the Biden administration is "ghosting" them. Three weeks into his term, he's called practically everyone but Israel. No calls to Bibi. Israel's foreign policy establishment is ready to call it a "full blown snub." And with open anti-Semites like Rep. Ilhan "all about the benjamins" Omar now promoted by Joe's Democrats to a top spot at the House committee on foreign affairs, there's reason to think there's something nasty going on. They are indeed wondering who's running the show.  

Taiwan: Taiwan's leader, too, gave Biden an early congratulatory call, and within days got a Chinese communist incursion into their airspace. Biden threw out some tough words, but apparently nothing else, and obviously, the Taiwanese are concerned, even as they cross their fingers. According to Wang Hao, a Taiwanese local commentator quoted by NPR: "

WANG: I think that public opinion in Taiwan obviously is willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

RUWITCH: The benefit of the doubt for now at least. John Ruwitch, NPR News.

Which isn't exactly a resounding vote of confidence, such as President Trump got, cited earlier in the report.

Saudi Arabia: No normal diplomacy, just diplomacy by digs and undercutting action is all the Saudis are seeing and they're noticing. Biden cut off aid to Yemen, which allows the Houthi rebels supported by Iran a field day, and undercuts Saudi Arabia. As for Saudi Arabia, Biden had called for making them "the pariah that they are" and vows to deal only with the kingdom's elderly retired King Salman, instead of the desert kingdom's actual man on the job, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is not without missteps, but certainly has made the country generally better, allowing women to drive and releasing prisoners, as well as taking significant steps to befriend Israel and check Iran. No phone calls, of course, Don't be surprised if he's puzzled at best.

Ukraine: Biden doesn't want to touch this one, and Ukraine's leaders are antsy: According to The National Interest:

For weeks now, Zelenskyy has sent numerous private and public messages; call me! He desperately wants a phone call with the new president.

Of course, he isn't getting one, given young Hunter's ties with Burisma and the criminal probe presumably still happening around it. Zekenskyy tried to get Biden's attention with a long interview with Axios, which as a coincidence, is run by Evan Ryan, a Clinton Foundation deputy chair for "governance" and Axios co-founder. She just happens to be Secretary of State Tony Blinken's wife. See how these things work?

Colombia: Lucky Colombia. After expending decades of blood and treasure on eradicating Marxist narcoterrorist cocaine kingpins and all their drug profits, Colombia learns that Joe Biden wants to end the "war on drugs." Colombians tried the globalist approach with the election of its last president, Juan Manuel Santos, and reverted back to its conservative norm with the election of Ivan Duque, who's moved heaven and earth to wipe out the cocaine crop. Colombia, of course, can't get its phone calls returned, and that's weird stuff given that Joe used to call the Colombian president all the time back when he was President Obama's vice president. Colombia's cordial and conservative ambassador, Francisco Santos, is a former vice president, so all the more reason for Joe to talk to the Colombians. But he won't. And the signals that Colombia's getting are pretty nasty -- Joe is ordering them around. According to Colombia Reports:

A press release by Blinken’s spokesperson Ned Price made it clear that US President Joe Biden’s priorities would require major policy changes from his far-right Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque.

The secretary of state said the US government will help Bogota “as it extends the benefits of peace throughout the country” and ensures “the protection of human rights.”

Good luck with that one, we know what these endless demands lead to. Worse still, Biden will yank their drug-fighting aid and cut them off at the knees on the matter of Colombia's being flooded with Venezuelan refugees. You bet they're wondering.

Now let's look at opponents and rivals in assorted hellholes:

China: China's leaders have been officious, quick to tell us what is best for us, sounding as though Biden's their dog and they're cracking the whip. Stuff like this (emphasis mine) is what's coming out, according to the Associated Press:  

“I think after this very difficult and extraordinary time, both the Chinese and American people deserve a better future,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told reporters at a daily briefing. 

She said China and the U.S. need to relaunch cooperation in a number of areas. She particularly welcomed the new administration’s decision to remain in the World Health Organization and return to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

“Many people of insight in the international community are looking forward to the early return of Sino-U.S. relations to the correct track in making due contributions to jointly address the major and urgent challenges facing the world today,” Hua said.

The oppressors of Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and beyond, are telling us what's best for us, being all concerned for the welfare of the American people, you see. Compassionate bunch. Anybody believe that one? With Biden's son on their string as the Chinese professor said, and yet to "unwind" his big Chinese investment which has brought him party-favor diamonds, it sounds pretty fishy.

The Chicom officiousness continues with their idea of what "the correct track" is for U.S.-China relations, with just one country making that determination. you see. It's not the one represented by Old Joe. Meanwhile, their praise of America's entry to the WHO and the Paris climate agreement reek of self-interest. WHO is completely controlled and corrupted by China, while Paris requires America to destroy its economy while China, the world's biggest polluter, sits on its hands. Sounds like just the foreign policy that China wants. Walking dog Biden seems awfully convenient.

Cuba: The military dictatorship in Havana is holding its cards tight to its vest, and a search for "Biden" in its most prominent state-controlled media turns up zero. It made a tight statement about how it "continues to believe in the possibility of a constructive bilateral relationship where our differences are respected" (pay no attention to those torture chamber) and continues to rave about the flimsy U.S. embargo, as well as extricating itself from charges that it engaged in sonic attacks on the U.S. embassy in Havana, something that suggests it wants Biden to re-open it. Granma spews amazing and grotesque lies about Cuba's dissidents (I read them so you don't have to, they are disgusting and can't be unread). They also rave a lot about NGOs and the king of them, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, coming for them, something that's a new one, but hopefully keeping them busy. Otherwise, a lot of radio silence, nothing about sucking up to Biden, several statement about support for China. Biden has sent signals about not going back to the Obama hog wallow that made Cuba's brutal regime so rich and happy, but there is said to be interest in returning the bucks to Cuba's military, which is what his lift of remittance restrictions will do. Lucky Cuba. Cuba, however, does have allies and proxies. One that appears to be in this category is a leftist NGO called "Cuba Study Group," which called on assessing the "effectiveness" of sanctions on Cuba's brutal military rulers, which appears to be an overture to lifting them, complete with helpful talking points. Another Cuba apologist is Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass). He's calling for prisoner swaps and is undoubtedly pleased, as are Cuba's rulers, at Biden's vow to shut down Guantanamo and bring the terrorists to U.S. soil, where leftist judges and prosecutors will find a way to let them out. It sounds like Cuba's letting its useful fools in the states take the lead.

Venezuela: For Venezuela's Marxist tyrants, they're hearing tough words and shouting their own insults back, but in reality, it's gravy time for them with Biden. Latest news is that with Biden shutting down U.S. energy pipeline construction, he's planning to make America dependent on foreign oil, and sure enough, that includes Venezuela. Surprise, surprise, the energy trade press is reporting that Biden is planning to lift the embargo on Venezuelan oil, put in there by President Trump. Millions of dollars to the Maduro dictatorship will flow. Sound fine for us? It's fine for them.

Iran: Like many of his foreign policy statements, Biden is all bluster and bee ess. Iran's mullahs, though, are looking for better times, with a pro-Iran writer writing in a column at Business Times that Biden's choice of personnel are more important, and his early decisions to move a U.S. aircraft carrier out of the Persian Gulf as well as cut off arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, made Biden's Iran policy "better than Biden makes it sound." Better for whom? You decide.

And there are plenty more of these mixed signals, all of which make world leaders, friendly and unfriendly, wonder who the heck is running things - Omar, Kamala, Biden, or the swamp?

All in all, this isn't the 'America's back' approach that Biden promised.


Monica Showalter  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter