Friday, March 26, 2021

Biden's HHS Pick Becerra Collaborated With Dems’ Mystery IT Man Imran Awan - Lloyd Billingsley

 

​ by Lloyd Billingsley

If Awan seeks a post at HHS, Becerra would surely hold the door open.

 


The Senate has voted to confirm Xavier Becerra, Joe Biden’s pick to head the federal Department of Health and Human Services. As Deion Kathawa notes at American Greatness, the California attorney general is a rather odd choice for the job.

After a video by pro-life activist David Daleiden exposed Planned Parenthood’s sale of body parts from aborted babies, Becerra charged Daleiden with 15 felonies. The California attorney general also sued the Little Sisters of the Poor, as Kathawa explains, “because their Catholic faith compelled them not to be complicit in the sale of contraceptives under Obamacare.” With other groups, attorney general Becerra proved more lenient.

In Mendota, near Fresno, the MS-13 gang imposed a reign of terror, committing at least 14 murders, with some victims hacked to death before they could testify. Federal authorities spearheaded the case against the gang, and Becerra only showed up after the feds arrested 25 MS-13 members. The attorney general made it clear he was not concerned about the gang’s “status.” In similar style, the murder of police officers Ronil Singh and Brian Ishmael, both by illegal aliens, prompted little concern for the slain officers and no campaign against criminal illegals, who enjoy sanctuary in California.

These issues did not surface in Becerra’s HHS hearing. Neither did the curious case that led to his surprising departure from Washington in 2016.

Rep. Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, headed the House Democratic Caucus and was in charge of its server. The Democrat’s IT man Imran Awan had access to that computer, and that was a problem. DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz not only brought Awan aboard but hired his wife and other family members, though none had degrees in information technology.

The unvetted Awan could not possibly have qualified for a security clearance but he enjoyed access to the computers of 45 members of Congress, including members the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. When investigators from the Capitol Police requested the server under Becerra’s control, they got only false information. Becerra, reportedly in line for a key post on the House Ways and Means Committee, bolted for California, where Gov. Jerry Brown tapped him for attorney general. In that role, Becerra upheld sanctuary policies and filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, at a cost of $41 million.

For his part, Imran Awan became a subject for Frank Miniter, author of Spies in Congress, and Luke Rosiak, author of Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect Democrats. That book, along with the Daily Caller, became the target of lawsuit by Imran Awan. Democrats rushed to the barricades in his defense.

“Congress Pays $850,000 to Muslim Aides Targeted in Inquiry Stoked by Trump,” read the November 25, 2020 New York Times headline. According to the story, the previously unreported settlement is one of the largest to resolve discrimination or harassment claims, in this case by people who “lost their jobs and endured harassment in part because of their Muslim faith and South Asian origins.” In this narrative, Awan’s computer capers had little if anything to do with it, and the award doubtless sinks any prospect for a full investigation.

In these conditions, Democrats believe it’s safe to bring Becerra back to Washington. He’s unqualified to head HHS but for Democrats, Trump Derangement Syndrome and disregard for national security count as qualifications. The problem did not start with Becerra.

In 1976, John Brennan voted for the Stalinist Gus Hall presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, a party funded by the Soviet Union. That disqualified Brennan for any federal intelligence job, but from 2013 to 2017, the Gus Hall voter headed the CIA. In that powerful post, and afterward, Brennan aided and abetted the covert operations against candidate and President Trump.

Brennan was the choice of the composite character president David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. His Dreams from My Father, Garrow wrote, was a novel and the character “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, an African American Communist who spent much of his life defending all-white Soviet dictatorships.

As Paul Kengor documented in The Communist, Davis’ FBI file runs some 600 pages and Frank was on the bureau’s security index. So no surprise that the composite character removed Frank from the audio version of Dreams, and Frank makes no appearance in anything under the Obama brand, including Promised Land.

The composite character president looked the other way at militant Islam, so Becerra’s experience with Imran Awan was a perfect fit. Becerra is back in Washington now, as Deion Kawatha observes, with help from Republican Susan Collins, whose “yea” carried the day for the California Democrat. His HHS post is doubtless a rest stop en route to a place on some Democrat’s ticket, or maybe his own. 

For his part, Imran Awan has been rather quiet since he bagged $850,000. If the Democrats’ favorite IT man sought a post at HHS, Xavier Becerra would surely hold the door open.

 

Lloyd Billingsley  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/bidens-hhs-pick-becerra-collaborated-dems-mystery-lloyd-billingsley/ 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arabs: A Warning to Biden about Iran's Mullahs - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

Iran will continue with its tricks and deception to avoid sanctions and attempts to stop it from possessing a nuclear bomb that would pose a danger to countries in the region." — Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek, Saudi newspaper editor and writer, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.

  • President Biden's decision to pursue the sanctions against Iran, however, has failed to reduce the fears of many Arabs. They say they remain skeptical about Washington's policy toward the threats posed by the mullahs in Tehran.

  • "He [Biden] should not make any concessions [to Iran] that do not serve stability in the region. Iran will continue with its tricks and deception to avoid sanctions and attempts to stop it from possessing a nuclear bomb that would pose a danger to countries in the region." — Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek, Saudi newspaper editor and writer, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.

  • "Iran is an evil, terrorist, and rogue state, and it does not abide by what is agreed upon with it." — Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.

  • "The current Iranian ploy aims to delude the American side into believing that Tehran wants to return to the agreement, but it cannot make concessions due to street pressure, so it needs Washington to drop the sanctions before starting any negotiations.... With regards to Iran, it wants to pursue its goal of achieving nuclear weapons that threaten the region and the world." — Dr. Salem Hameed, Emirati political analyst and academic, Al-Ittihad, March 6, 2021.

  • "Iran's mullahs are like dangerous poisonous snakes. The mullahs cannot be tamed unless their fangs are completely pulled out. President Biden does not seem to be aware of how dangerous they are." — Mohamed al-Sheikh, prominent Saudi writer, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.

  • The Biden administration, "especially the left-wing of the Democratic Party, still hope to win the mullahs into their camp and pull them out of the Chinese-Russian camp," he remarked.

  • "The mullahs of Iran are still dreaming of establishing the Great Persian Empire, and for the sake of this goal they are not averse to harnessing all efforts and funds to reach this goal, even if they are forced to be patient." — Mohamed al-Sheikh, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.

  • Former Egyptian diplomat Amr Helmy lashed out at the Biden administration for "dropping" most of the 12 conditions... set for returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran. The conditions ... require Iran... to stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with unqualified access to all its sites, end its proliferation of ballistic missiles, halt support to Middle East terrorist groups and end its threatening behavior against its neighbors.

  • "US begging for negotiations [with Iran] will lead to more Iranian intransigence and promote its extremism," [Egyptian political analyst Dr. Tarek] Fahmi said. He warned that the US would be the "biggest loser" if Iran is allowed to continue with its maneuvers and threats against the security of the region. — Al-Ain, March 4, 2021.

  • Significantly, such voices seem to be shared by a large number of Arabs in different Arab countries – not only the Gulf states.

The Biden administration has decided to extend for another year Executive Order 12957, issued in 1995, which imposed a series of sanctions against Iran in response to the threat Iran posed to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the US. This decision, however, has failed to reduce the fears of many Arabs. They say that they remain skeptical about Washington's policy toward the threats posed by the mullahs in Tehran. Pictured: US President Joe Biden at the White House on March 5, 2021, the day he extended Executive Order 12957. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

The Biden administration has decided to extend for another year the "national emergency" (Executive Order 12957), issued in 1995 in response to the threat Iran posed to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the US.

The Executive Order imposed a series of sanctions against Iran in response to its support for international terrorism, its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Last week, the White House announced that the "national emergency" must continue beyond March 15, 2021. It quoted President Joe Biden as saying that Iran's actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the US. Iran, he added, continues to develop missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities. He also accused Iran of continuing to support terrorist groups throughout the world.

The U.S. president pointed out that Iran is continuing the "proliferation and development of missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, its network and campaign of regional aggression, its support for terrorist groups, and the malign activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its surrogates."

President Biden's decision to pursue the sanctions against Iran, however, has failed to reduce the fears of many Arabs. They say that they remain skeptical about Washington's policy toward the threats posed by the mullahs in Tehran.

"President Biden should not tolerate Iran," warned Saudi newspaper editor and writer Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek.

"He [Biden] should not make any concessions [to Iran] that do not serve stability in the region. Iran will continue with its tricks and deception to avoid sanctions and attempts to stop it from possessing a nuclear bomb that would pose a danger to countries in the region."

Addressing the Biden administration, al-Malek wrote:

"Iran is an evil, terrorist, and rogue state, and it does not abide by what is agreed upon with it. Iran plants its proxies in most countries of the region to create chaos and consolidate its agenda and expansionist goals. There is no better option than using force with this terrorist state to force it to respect international conventions and obligating it not to harm its neighbors, which is what we expect from the Biden administration in order to maintain the security and stability of the region."

Emirati political analyst and academic Dr. Salem Hameed warned the Biden administration against allowing itself to be deceived by the mullahs in Tehran.

Hameed expressed fear that the Biden administration would return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed in 2015 only by the five permanent members of the United nations Security Council – China, Russia, Britain, France, the US – plus Germany and the European Union. The Iranians never signed the JCPOA deal.

"The current Iranian ploy aims to delude the American side into believing that Tehran wants to return to the agreement, but it cannot make concessions due to street pressure, so it needs Washington to drop the sanctions before starting any negotiations," according to Hameed. Referring to the countries that signed the deal, Hameed added:

"Perhaps these countries, in order not to plunge the region into chaos, should develop continuous, unchanging strategies, because countries such as Iran take advantage of the pre- and post-election transitional state to rearrange their plans. With regards to Iran, it wants to pursue its goal of achieving nuclear weapons that threaten the region and the world."

Prominent Saudi writer Mohamed al-Sheikh said he was doubtful whether Iran would change its policies now that Biden is in the White House.

"Iran's mullahs are like dangerous poisonous snakes," al-Sheikh cautioned. "The mullahs cannot be tamed unless their fangs are completely pulled out. President Biden does not seem to be aware of how dangerous they are."

Al-Sheikh said that the Biden administration was hoping that by turning a blind eye to the crimes and human rights violations of the mullahs, Washington would "win the mullahs into the US camp."

The Biden administration, "especially the left-wing of the Democratic Party, still hope to win the mullahs into their camp and pull them out of the Chinese-Russian camp," he remarked.

"The mullahs of Iran are still dreaming of establishing the Great Persian Empire, and for the sake of this goal they are not averse to harnessing all efforts and funds to reach this goal, even if they are forced to be patient."

Al-Sheikh added that he still could not understand why the Democrats were rushing to appease Iran while sacrificing Washington's historic allies such as Israel and the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia.

Former Egyptian diplomat Amr Helmy lashed out at the Biden administration for "dropping" most of the 12 conditions that the Trump administration had set for returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran.

The conditions, announced in May 2020 by then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, require Iran, among other things, to stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with unqualified access to all its sites, end its proliferation of ballistic missiles, halt support to Middle East terrorist groups and end its threatening behavior against its neighbors.

Helmy argued that by abandoning these conditions the Biden administration was sending the wrong message to Iran:

"Iran has stepped up its pressure to exploit the US eagerness to resume negotiations with it over its nuclear program... The message Iran has received: the Biden administration is focused on reviving the policy applied by [former US President Barack] Obama and is backing down from the [policies] of the Trump administration."

Iran, Helmy added, "will not stop the escalation in the region now that it understands that the new US administration will not hesitate to continue weakening Washington's allies and prioritize the most dangerous adversaries who may not return to the negotiating table unless the US sanctions [on Iran] are lifted."

Egyptian political analyst Dr. Tarek Fahmi said that Iran continues to pose a threat to the entire region, and not only Israel. Fahmi urged the Biden administration to review its policies and not rush into entering negotiations with Iran.

"Iran continues to threaten the security of the entire region, and not a specific country; this requires the US administration to re-examine its positions and not rush to enter into negotiations with Iran," Fahmi wrote in an article headlined, "The wrong path of Biden's policy toward Iran."

He said that Iran will continue its maneuvers to obtain concessions from the Biden administration.

"US begging for negotiations [with Iran] will lead to more Iranian intransigence and promote its extremism," Fahmi said. He warned that the US would be the "biggest loser" if Iran is allowed to continue with its maneuvers and threats against the security of the region.

"Despite all the negative positions of Iran, the US administration is still ready to re-engage in serious diplomacy to achieve a mutual return to compliance with the commitments of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," he added.

These voices from the Arab world are unmistakably articulating a growing fear over the Biden administration's perceived weakness in dealing with the Iranian threat. Significantly, such voices seem to be shared by a large number of Arabs in different Arab countries -- not only the Gulf states. Tellingly, the voices are speaking in unison to the Biden administration: pacify the mullahs in Tehran today, pay for the appeasement in blood tomorrow.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh  

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17162/arabs-warning-biden-iran 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US: The Urgency of Keeping a Credible Deterrence - Peter Huessy

 

​ by Peter Huessy

Various elements in the US Congress are saying that they want US nuclear policy to go in a decidedly new and different direction.

  • The current consensus position is pretty straightforward. Modernize the three aging elements of the land, sea, and air Triad -- strategic bombers and related cruise missiles, land-based missiles, and submarines and related sea-launched ballistic missiles -- and build a new nuclear command-and-control system to protect the US from cyber threats, while also refurbishing the nuclear warhead laboratories and facilities.

  • Some critics, however, want to take down nuclear systems across the board, including: (1) low-yield nuclear weapons on US submarines; (2) the Navy cruise missile, just starting research; (3) the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and (4) the bomber cruise missile or long-range strike option (LRSO). Critics even want to stop the US from being able to build from 20-80 nuclear warheads annually.

  • There are also those who want the US to adopt a "no first use" policy. The US deterrent, however, extended over NATO and America's Western Pacific allies, has historically included the threat of responding to a major conventional attack from Russia, North Korea or China, for example, with the first use of nuclear weapons. Many US allies might legitimately be worried if that option were "undone" by explicit US policy.

  • Given then the survivability of the current US nuclear forces, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR, p.67) determined that, should the US get rid of its ICBM force, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the US nuclear forces would only be increased. But with the entire Triad of US forces modernized, any chance of an attack on the American ICBM force would be "vanishingly small" -- a conclusion reached recently by a number of analysts at the Federation of American Scientists.

  • As the current commander of US Strategic Command Admiral Charles Richard explained, if the US chooses not to modernize, it is choosing to go out of the nuclear business. The old legacy forces simply cannot be sustained much beyond this decade, when the replacements need to be delivered.

Given the survivability of the current US nuclear forces, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review determined that, should the US get rid of its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the US nuclear forces would only be increased. But with the entire Triad of US forces modernized, any chance of an attack on the American ICBM force would be "vanishingly small" Pictured: An unarmed Minuteman III ICBM launches during an operational test on August 2, 2017, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

Various elements in the US Congress are saying that they want US nuclear policy to go in a decidedly new and different direction. This conflict between views on nuclear deterrence may place in jeopardy the hard-fought bi-partisan consensus created over the past ten years, in which the country agreed to fully modernize the aging US deterrent while also implementing arms control with its adversaries.

The current consensus position is pretty straightforward. Modernize the three aging elements of the land, sea, and air Triad -- strategic bombers and related cruise missiles, land-based missiles, and submarines and related sea-launched ballistic missiles -- and build a new nuclear command-and-control system to protect the US from cyber threats, while also refurbishing the nuclear warhead laboratories and facilities.

Some critics, however, want to take down nuclear systems across the board, including: (1) low-yield nuclear weapons on US submarines; (2) the Navy cruise missile, just starting research; (3) the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and (4) the bomber cruise missile or long-range strike option (LRSO). Critics even want to stop the US from being able to build from 20-80 nuclear warheads annually.

On nuclear deterrent policy, the divide between the current consensus and the critics is also stark.

There are those who want the US to adopt a " no first use" policy. The US deterrent, however, extended over NATO and America's Western Pacific allies, has historically included the threat of responding to a major conventional attack from Russia, North Korea or China, for example, with the first use of nuclear weapons. Many US allies might legitimately be worried if that option were "undone" by explicit US policy.

Equally problematic is the notion that the US deterrent force is considerably larger than required. The House Armed Services Committee Chair, Adam Smith (D-WA), has complained that the US does not need "5,000 warheads" to deter foreign aggression. However, in its long-range strategic deterrent force, the US had nowhere near that number. In fact, the 2010 New START arms agreement between the US and Russia limits the US to roughly 2,000 warheads. The official number is 1,550 warheads but under special rules, 60 strategic bombers can carry as many warheads and cruise missiles as possible, but count as only 60 bombs, thus pushing up the potential force for the US as high as 2,150 according to a Congressional Research Service February 2021 report (p. 23, table 2) based on normal bomber force loadings.

On a day-to-day basis, given that the US does not keep its bombers on alert or loaded with nuclear weapons, the country has roughly 1,700 warheads deployed in its strategic nuclear forces -- and fewer than 1,000 are deployed "on-alert," or readily available, including land-based and submarine-based missiles. These numbers are lower than any nuclear force level the US has maintained over the past half-century and at least 78% below the highest Cold War levels.

Even with such reductions, nuclear critics want unilaterally to reduce US nuclear forces by another one-third, based on an unverified assumption that some Pentagon officials at one time were supportive of just such a US reduction -- but without the key caveat that such reductions be done "safely" and in concert with similar Russian reductions.

Some differences on nuclear issues may be the result of an outdated assumption of what exactly US nuclear deterrent policy entails. For many years, US nuclear policy was often referred to with the acronym MAD or mutual assured destruction. This referenced a US policy during the 1960s, when US policy held that deterrence was deemed sufficient if the US could, in a retaliatory strike, destroy from 50-75% of the Soviet industry and its population, presumably making a retaliatory strike too costly for an adversary even to contemplate.

Starting as early as the Kennedy administration, the US began looking at options known as "flexible response" to get away from what many experts thought of as a not very credible unitary policy of "massive retaliation" to Soviet aggression. Later, under the Nixon and Ford administrations, and with the leadership of Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, the US policy changed to hold at risk key Soviet military and defense assets -- particularly missiles, bombers, submarines, and other nuclear forces -- which a US President would not want to see able to be freed to continue attacking the United States and its allies. In short, a US retaliatory strike would destroy the Soviets reserve of remaining nuclear assets, preventing these weapons from being launched at the US.

Over many decades, the US has refined such a "counterforce doctrine" to limit the first strike, preemptive and disarming types of weapons that America's nuclear-armed adversaries possess. The total Russian long-range or strategic warhead deployments have, in part, through arms control, been reduced by more than 80%.

Thus, the threat of Russia using thousands of highly accurate, powerful warheads to try to eliminate the US nuclear forces in a pre-emptive first strike has been markedly reduced. If the US were -- foolishly, in our opinion -- to eliminate its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, Russia would not have to worry about more than 500 US nuclear assets -- bombers, land, and sea-based ballistic long-range missiles -- available for the US to maintain its deterrence. In fact, the Russians could concentrate on eliminating just 12 targets -- two submarine bases and three bomber bases in the United States, and about half of America's submarines at sea.

To avoid simplifying Russian attack plans, the US keeps a multiplicity of forces available with which to retaliate, including ICBMs that would not necessarily be attacked early in a conflict, some submarines always at sea and some number of strategic bombers capable of being airborne should a crisis materialize that called for such US action.

Given then the survivability of the current US nuclear forces, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR, p.67) determined that, should the US get rid of its ICBM force, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the US nuclear forces would only be increased. But with the entire Triad of US forces modernized, any chance of an attack on the American ICBM force would be "vanishingly small" -- a conclusion reached recently by a number of analysts at the Federation of American Scientists.

Keeping the US nuclear deterrent credible and avoiding such strikes therefore requires that the US not only maintain the structure of the current deterrent, but that it is done in a credible and effective manner -- which means that the force must be fully modernized.

As the current commander of US Strategic Command Admiral Charles Richard explained, if the US chooses not to modernize, it is choosing to go out of the nuclear business. The old legacy forces simply cannot be sustained much beyond this decade, when the replacements need to be delivered. That is the stark reality of the three-decade long nuclear holiday on which the US embarked at the end of the Cold War. There is no more time to delay.

 

Peter Huessy, Senior Consulting Analyst at Ravenna Associates, is President of GeoStrategic Analysis. 

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17205/credible-nuclear-deterrence 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden's Border Catastrophe - Joseph Klein

 

​ by Joseph Klein

A disaster getting worse by the day.

 


The hordes of migrants trying to enter the United States by hook or crook regard Joe Biden as their president. Weeks after Biden’s inauguration, for example, migrants were spotted flying a Biden presidential campaign flag at a migrant camp of would-be asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border. The migrants waiting to be admitted to the United States to begin their asylum application process know that their stay in Mexico is coming to an end after Biden recklessly eliminated the Trump administration’s successful “Remain in Mexico” policy. Migrant families and unaccompanied minors who have crossed the border illegally also have much to thank Biden for. So do the smugglers making millions of dollars in human trafficking.

No wonder Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in early March called Biden “the migrant president,” which he did not intend as a compliment. During a March 23rd press conference, Mexico’s president elaborated. "Expectations were created that with the Government of President Biden there would be a better treatment of migrants,” he said. “And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so."

After the Biden administration re-instituted the catch and release policy that had been ended by the Trump administration, migrant families apprehended after illegally entering the United States have been quickly released. They are free to remain in this country without even being issued a court appearance date.

“This is insane, it is another pull factor that will overwhelm us,” a senior-level law enforcement source with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Rio Grande Valley told Breitbart. “We are creating another entirely different class of aliens we will have to deal with years from now. We will never find most of these aliens once they are released.”

Some of those claiming to be families consist of children with smugglers posing as their parents. In any case, whether real or not, all families apprehended after illegally entering the United States should have been immediately turned away because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Biden administration has the emergency legal authority to do so. However, according to Axios, there is data showing that “an average of just 13% of nearly 13,000 family members attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were returned to Mexico between March 14 and March 21 using the public health order, which essentially says the U.S. can close the border to nonessential travel because of the coronavirus.”

To make matters worse, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has confirmed that there have been “instances” when aliens who crossed our border illegally were released without testing them for the coronavirus. There were cases in which illegal aliens who had tested positive were nevertheless released into U.S. communities.

Mayorkas’s claim that the Biden administration has “closed” the border with Mexico to migrant families is a preposterous lie. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki repeated this lie at her March 22nd press briefing.

All of this is happening as thousands of unaccompanied minors who cross the border illegally are being welcomed with open arms by the Biden administration. The administration was completely unprepared for the chaos that has followed. As of mid-March, more than 13,000 unaccompanied minors were reportedly in U.S. custody, overwhelming CBP resources. There is not enough space to house them temporarily in Border Patrol facilities until they can be safely transferred to facilities operated by the better equipped Department of Health and Human Services. The situation is so bad that the minors are being crammed together in ramshackle quarters, in numbers way beyond their stated capacity limits, with no regard to the risk of coronavirus spread. The minors lie on floor mats with a foil sheet for covers.  

According ABC News, internal CBP documents it obtained show there are now 3,889 migrants in a holding facility in Donna, Texas that is meant to hold just 250. “That means it is currently at 1,556% capacity.” 

The Biden administration has prohibited journalists from visiting or photographing where these minors, who shouldn’t be in the U.S. in the first place, are being held. The administration is covering up the shocking extent of the humanitarian and health crisis it has created. A prominent photojournalist, John Moore, tweeted: “I respectfully ask US Customs and Border Protection to stop blocking media access to their border operations. I have photographed CBP under Bush, Obama and Trump but now - zero access is granted to media.”

In response to repeated media requests for such access, all that the White House would say is that it is “working to finalize details” of a plan to allow some press access.

Biden administration officials continue to refuse to even acknowledge that there is a crisis. The administration remains in full spin mode. Psaki, for example, claimed that “children presenting at our border who are fleeing violence … who are fleeing terrible situations, is not a crisis.”

Yes, there are horrible economic conditions and violence in Central America, which parents want their children to escape. But it is a crisis when such desperate Central American parents are encouraged enough by Biden’s undoing of the Trump administration’s strict immigration policies to put their children in the hands of dangerous smugglers. It is a crisis when such children may never get to the border safely because of disease, violent attacks, or sex trafficking.

“We’re dealing with a different culture who’s not afraid to send all their kids under the age of five, knowing they’re going to get raped, knowing they’re going to get killed,” a border agent told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity. “You talk to the adults or the teenagers and they’ll tell you, ‘They raped three or four girls, and they kicked them off the trains.’ They’re going to die.”

Those minors lucky enough to make it safely to the U.S-Mexico border are vastly overwhelming the resources available to take care of them after they have crossed illegally into this country. Hence, the inhumane conditions facing the children, just as they thought the worst was behind them.  A picture is a worth a thousand words, as photos made available by Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar's office of the horrible living conditions demonstrate.

Despite its denials, the Biden administration has sent strong signals through its actions that encourage migrants to come to our country illegally, especially unaccompanied minors. The pull is too great to resist.

Who has Biden just tasked with trying to stem the flow of migrants from Central America? It’s Vice President Kamala Harris, of course. Biden claimed that Harris was the most qualified person to take on this job. Based on what? Harris has no experience either in diplomacy or immigration matters. It was just the other day when Harris laughed in response to a question whether she had plans to visit the border.

Harris  is supposed to oversee the infusion of billions of dollars into the economies of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in an attempt to reduce the poverty and violence that are fueling the migration surge. She will fail just as then-Vice President Biden did during the Obama administration. American taxpayers’ money will go down the money pits of these corrupt regimes.

President Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras, for example, was linked to alleged involvement with Honduras’s drug-trafficking industry during a federal trial in New York. The trial was of a Honduran citizen who was convicted on March 22nd on various counts, including conspiracy to traffic cocaine. The New York Times reported that “evidence presented in court over two weeks provided a searing assessment of the president, whose government’s failure to build a lawful state and a robust economy has helped drive hundreds of thousands of despairing citizens to emigrate in recent years, with most trying to reach the United States.” Yet Biden’s solution is to send Harris down to Honduras and other corrupt Central American countries with bucketsful of cash. This would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

It is a dereliction of duty for the president of the United States to potentially endanger the health and security of the American people he is sworn to protect by stimulating an uncontrollable surge of illegal immigrants into this country. And it is cruel for the Biden administration to lure unaccompanied minors to take a very treacherous journey north with no idea of what awaits them. The right thing to do for all concerned is for the Biden administration to send an unambiguous message that those crossing into the United States illegally, including children, will be promptly sent home in a safe and humane manner.

Photo: Associated Press

 

Joseph Klein  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/illegal-aliens-love-joe-biden-joseph-klein/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Support Taiwan to Deter China - Dean Chang

 

​ by Dean Chang

U.S. strategic ambiguity toward China's expansionist ambitions threatens Taiwan's future and the stability of the world economy.

How is it the U.S. does not claim Taiwan as a strategic ally nor consider Taiwan an adversary?  Taiwan is what we want in a trustworthy ally: a rule-based, thriving democracy that upholds human rights.  Unfortunately, we do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation though it has its own government and its own defense and monetary systems.  In fact, Taiwan, the keystone island strategically positioned between U.S. allies Japan and the Philippines, has the world’s 20th largest economy, is America’s 10th largest trade partner and produces 60% of the world’s semiconductor chips.

If defending Taiwan is one of our most vital strategic interests, the U.S. should immediately stop worrying about offending the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), act as the global leader that we are, shed the outdated strategic ambiguity on Taiwan, and acknowledge the reality that Taiwan is a nation.    

History shows strategic ambiguity has led to conflicts 

Strategic ambiguity, peppered with opaqueness in the mistaken and forlorn hope that it can deter adversaries, has invited miscalculations and unintended armed conflicts. In 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s speech to the National Press Club on January 12, 1950  made no mention of the Korean peninsula being part of the U.S. defensive perimeter.  Six months later North Korea, encouraged by China, invaded South Korea.  The resultant Korean War yielded three million deaths, including 35,000 U.S. servicemen

On July 25, 1990, U.S. ambassador April Glaspie told Iraq’s Saddam Hussein that “we (the U.S.) have no opinion on… Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,”  A week later Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait drew the U.S. into a conflict that heads into its third decade and at a cost of thousands of U.S. lives and untold billions of dollars.     

In February 2014, Russia militarily annexed Crimea, Ukraine’s southernmost peninsula, in defiance of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances guaranteeing Ukrainian security.  Apart from $1 billion in aid to Ukraine by the U.S. and words volleyed across the Atlantic calling for a Russian withdrawal, there was no U.S. or UK show of force nor any UN assistance; the Russians stayed put.  Over the next months, Russia, with renewed bravado, subsequently occupied eastern Ukraine, where it remains to this day. 

Strategic clarity and clear intentions, like the Monroe Doctrine, might have been more likely to preserve peace. 

Will Biden-Blinken “…Choose the Harder Right Instead of the Easier Wrong…”?

Washington needs to divorce itself from its decades-long “One China” policy and its strategic ambiguity mantra to deter Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. 

To avert potential conflicts, a new U.S. Taiwan policy should be that in addition to complying with the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. will defend Taiwan if Taiwan is attacked, militarily or otherwise, without provocation.  In the event of such aggression, the U.S. will recognize that there is the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan and the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on China.  

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and the “One China Policy emerged when Jimmy Carter recognized the PRC.  Ronald Reagan later added the “Six Assurances” in 1982 to further compliment the TRA.  Unfortunately, the declarations are not legally binding:  1) the TRA does not lawfully require the U.S. to defend Taiwan; it merely states the U.S. will provide “necessary defensive articles for Taiwan to protect itself”; 2) the “Six Assurances” guide U.S.-Taiwan relations but is a non-binding, unenforceable resolution. 

The U.S. has never formally stated if it will aid Taiwan if China invades and its continued adherence to this strategic ambiguity will encourage China to inadvertently pull the U.S. into war.  Biden’s 2020 Interim National Security Guidance augmented this vagueness: “We (the U.S.) will support Taiwan, a leading democracy and a critical economic and security partner, in line with longstanding American commitments.” 

The premise of the strategic ambiguity and the One China policy are obsolete 

They were effective when:

1) The U.S. was the dominant global superpower; 

2) China was economically depressed and militarily weak and awakening from a nightmarish Cultural Revolution; and

3) Taiwan was a developing country under martial law and barely taxiing to the ramp to become one of Asia’s Four (economic) Dragons.  

Strategic ambiguity has lost its effectiveness today because:

1) U.S. swagger has dimmed globally as domestic issues (i.e., gender and racial politics) vie for influence and resources;

2) China’s might, militarily and economically, has increased exponentially as it

   a) spreads its brand of ideology via the Belt and Road Initiative,

   b) suppresses basic human rights against ethnic and religious minorities,

   c) disavows civil liberties and universal suffrage they legally agreed upon for Hong Kong,

   d) has refused to denounce the use of force to overtake Taiwan (see 2005 Anti-Secession Law); and

3) Taiwan has

   a) matured into a rule-based, thriving democracy,

   b) successfully managed the coronavirus pandemic to become a model for the world, and

   c) created a nurturing and paternalistic platform for world-class semiconductor manufacturers to flourish. 

Taiwan is of a Vital Strategic Interest to the United States 

Biden needs to acknowledge Taiwan’s geostrategic position, its vibrant democracy and world-class semiconductor industry are economic and security benefits the U.S. and the free world need to defend, but would lead to catastrophe if not protected.  Foreign Policy defines vital strategic interests as “conditions strictly necessary to safeguard and enhance a country’s survival as a free and secure nation.”

If China invades and occupies Taiwan, the CCP will control the ingress/egress of the South China Sea, one of the world’s most vital sea lanes, where one-third of all global shipping transits.  Taiwan, Douglas MacArthur’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” at the north end of the South China Sea, sits in a commanding, over-watch position to monitor and control all shipping flow.  Other strategic advantages for China:

  • China’s blue water navy will have unimpeded paths directly to Hawaii, North America, and South America.
  • China will control the sea lanes where 40% of its total trade transit through.
  • China will have unencumbered sea lines of communication and control of the Taiwan Straits.
  • China will gain access to 60% of the world’s $85 billion semiconductor chip manufacturing industry. Without these chips, computers cannot compute, smart phones cannot be smart, F-35s cannot fly nor fight.    

A China-occupied Taiwan gives China the ability to disrupt trade that may lead to or precipitate a global economic crisis.  When that happens, will Biden-Blinken still debate whether Taiwan is of vital strategic interest to the U.S.?  

A Path to Conflict 

The 1989 Tiananmen Massacre started the slow death spiral of the West’s dream of a politically open China.  China’s ethnic/religious genocide against the Uighurs and the Tibetans cast doubts on the CCP’s respect of human rights.  China’s unilateral abolishment of legal commitments to Hong Kong’s autonomy and the passage of the 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law nailed shut the coffin on universal suffrage for Hong Kong.  Combined with the 2005 Anti-Secession Law, its unabashed declaration of intent to occupy Taiwan and not renounce the use of force against Taiwan, China’s actions foretell its “reunification” intentions with Taiwan.

China’s actions and its intent with Taiwan, combined with the past strategic ambiguity the U.S. leading to unintended conflicts do not bode well for Taiwan to remain free and democratic.  To extricate the U.S. from being unintentionally led into a conflict with China or avoid losing Taiwan to China, Biden-Blinken need to explicitly state U.S. intentions to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.  Ambiguity leads to miscalculations; clarity begets maximum deterrence.

Image: Luo Shaoyang 

 

Dean Chang  retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel and from the State Department as a foreign service officer with combined service in the continental U.S., Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/support_taiwan_to_deter_china.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Covering Up Ahmad Al Issa's Islamic Yearnings - Jamie Glazov

 

​ by Jamie Glazov

Denying the Jihad in the Boulder Jihad.

 


Frontpagemag Editors’ note: As we witness U.S. authorities and the establishment media trying to de-Islamize the Jihad in Boulder and to obscure the fact that the Jihadist perpetrator, Ahmad Al Issa, is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer, a vital question confronts us: why does the Left consistently engage in Jihad Denial? Why is it so invested in denying the Islamic roots of Islamic Jihad?

This is, without doubt, one of the most pertinent questions of our time, especially now with the Boulder Jihad -- and its tragic victims -- hovering right before our very eyes. Frontpage Mag editors have therefore deemed it vital to run, below, an excerpt from Jamie Glazov’s book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.

The excerpt, which includes sections of Chapter 1 of the book ('The Case'), details the Obama administration's horrific record of trying to hide and camouflage the true sources of Islamic terror -- an effort that spawned catastrophic consequences.

This documentation equips us with the understanding of why Jihadists like Ahmad Al Issa are able to sow the destruction that they do today -- and so easily. It also sets the foundation for our insight into why exactly the Left practices Jihad Denial -- and what all the specious ingredients of that denial entail. These facts will all be unveiled in several published segments of Jihadist Psychopath in our forthcoming issues of Frontpage Mag.

Don't miss this essay below.

[To read the chapter on what the Left actually is -- and why it aids and abets Jihad -- read Utopian Virus: HERE.
The Virus in Power, meanwhile, explores how the Left took power in America -- and why it had such an easy time doing so. Read it: HERE. The introduction crystallizes the general nature of Jihad Denial: HERE.]

*


The Case.

On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder had an incredulous and perplexed expression on his face as he sat before the House Judiciary Committee. He just couldn’t understand what Representative Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the Committee, was asking him, over and over again. Specifically, Smith wanted to know if Holder thought that “Radical Islam” had any connection to Jihadist attacks perpetrated against the United States. Rep. Smith had to ask the same question, repeated in different ways, six times while Holder looked confused and uttered short rejoinders about how Rep. Smith’s questions weren’t making sense to him. Finally, apparently realizing that Rep. Smith would not desist, Holder affirmed that whatever it was that the congressman was talking about (Holder would not pronounce the words), it was definitely not connected to the attacks to which Smith was referring. [1]

Holder’s behavior before the House Judiciary Committee clearly reflected the position of the Obama administration on the terror war -- a position that the administration had made conspicuously evident from the moment it took office. It would be the Hear No Islam/See No Islam position when it came to terrorism. Whenever Jihadists would strike, Jihad Denial would be the name of the game. This, of course, was central to the Left’s cause, since denying Jihad and its true roots helps to advance the progressives’ goal of making America more vulnerable to Jihad. And now the progressive dream had come true: the Left had its own Radical-in-Chief in the White House who was faithfully executing its destructive agenda.

----

Obama’s new path of Jihad Denial and romancing the Muslim Brotherhood took on devastating significance in October 2011, when his administration dutifully followed Muslim Brotherhood “requests” and purged all FBI and other intelligence agencies’ training manuals of any mention of Islam and Jihad.[2]

The Department of Defense followed suit and enforced a purge of all individuals who didn’t toe the new Party Line. New disciplinary action and re-education was made mandatory for anyone in the government who dared to acknowledge Islam’s role in the terror war.[3] Those who courageously told the truth about Islam, such as the scholar Robert Spencer, were removed from their positions as trainers of FBI and military personnel on the jihad threat and were replaced by members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA.[4]

In the State Department, meanwhile, officials would be forbidden from asking Muslim immigrants about their views on Sharia and Jihad before approving their visa applications.[5]

A “counterterrorism” government guide would also tell officials that keeping Muslims out of the country for supporting Sharia Law violated the First Amendment. [6] All American officials and investigators were now permitted to consider only violent or criminal conduct in the terror war. Radical ideology was to be ignored, particularly if it had the veneer of “religious expression.”[7]

----

It soon became clear that Countering “Violent Extremism” {CVE) was the Obama administration’s primary “focus” in the terror war. It served the administration’s agenda perfectly because, at first glance, no one could point to what it was exactly that was being countered. There was no clear objective or identification of any specific enemy and, unsurprisingly, no mention of Jihad or Islam. Countering “violent extremism” became one of those very vague and ambiguous goals to which the administration could refer when it came time to prove it was doing something about terrorism when, in fact, it was doing absolutely nothing at all.[8]

While the CVE strategy had its nebulous aspects, there was actually something that it very clearly sought to “counter.” Indeed, it became quite evident that there were certain individuals, along with an ideology, that the administration regarded as “extremist” and that it wanted to block. And who were the guilty parties? The truth-tellers about Jihad, of course. The counter-jihad movement represented the true “violent extremism” because, according to the administration, it was instigating all the terrible and racist hatred that was being displayed against Muslims everywhere.[9] The evidence substantiating this supposed reality proved non-existent, but the notion prevailed nonetheless. And it was here that we saw the Left’s upside-down inversion of who the good and bad guys really were: Jihad had somehow become the victim, while the victims of Jihad became the terrorists.

The administration’s CVE charade was, in a nutshell, really all about one basic agenda: enforcing Jihad Denial and persecuting the dissidents who violated it. This situation yielded a disaster: the real threat facing America could not be named or labelled. In his book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, author Stephen Coughlin documents how, under Obama, a dire threat was reduced to a “nameless abstraction.” U.S. leaders and intelligence agencies ignored the most basic tenets of intelligence, which included the critical component of threat identification. The problem, notably, began in the Bush administration. Having worked himself in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate in the immediate post-9-11 period, Coughlin recalls how he discovered that,

within the division there seemed to be a preference for political correctness over   accuracy and for models that were generated not by what the enemy said he was but on what academics and “cultural advisors’ said the enemy needed to be, based on contrived social science theories.[10]  

Under Obama, the situation went from bad to worse. Coughlin describes how Islamic supremacists became completely aware of the administration’s calculated self-delusion and, consequently, felt arrogantly at ease in actually molding American leaders’ thinking and policies. Our enemies, Coughlin writes, “successfully calculated that they could win the war by convincing our national security leaders of the immorality of studying and knowing the enemy.”[11] As a result, they became overridingly confident in their ability to fulfill the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal, which the Brotherhood boasted about in its own documents, of sabotaging the United States through the process of “civilization-jihad” and achieving this goal by Americans’ own hands.[12]

Thus, America’s suicidal disposition in the terror war reached a crisis level under Obama, when American officials actually started seeking advice and direction from precisely those forces seeking to destroy the country. As Coughlin shows, while the government identified certain individuals and organizations as providers of material support to terrorism, and as members or allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, it simultaneously sought out “those same people as cultural experts, ‘moderates’ and community outreach partners.”[13]

With Obama in the White House, therefore, the enemy was in effect advising Americans and formulating their policy on how to promote their cause. Obama was also mischaracterizing the conflict America was in. “The public face of Islam in America,” Coughlin notes, “was shaped by the Muslim Brotherhood.” Islam in America, in turn, “took the form favored by the Brotherhood.”[14] This catastrophe was compounded by the surreal fact that many officials in senior positions in the Obama administration didn’t even know anything about Islam and were completely oblivious to the Islamic doctrines that justify and even mandate Jihad against the West.[15]

Suffice it to say that while threat identification is the foundation for any successful war effort and is, therefore, crucial to protecting Americans and enhancing our security, under Obama such identification was impossible. As Coughlin points out, “a postmodern form of relativism” had rendered America “incapable of recognizing existential epistemic threats and hence made it defenseless in the face of them.”[16]

And it got worse. Not only did the Obama administration avoid recognizing the true threats that faced America, it spent a significant amount of time chasing around non-threats on purpose. Immense resources were wasted on investigating harmless non-Muslims solely for the sake of appearing non-racist. “Since 2009 we’ve opened investigations of groups we knew to be harmless,” a Pentagon counterterrorism official revealed, “they weren’t Muslims, and we needed some ‘balance’ in case the White House asked if we were ‘profiling’ potential terrorists.”[17] In this way, the Obama administration could proudly maintain that it was not engaged in “Islamophobia.”[18]

Meanwhile, The Obama administration was not content with solely silencing threat identification within the government. It would cause embarrassment, after all, if the media and American citizens could still talk openly and honestly about the ideology that posed a threat to America and the West. House Democrats, therefore, faithfully sprung to action and launched an effort to criminalize truth-telling about Jihad in the country at large. Their effort produced House Resolution 569, which leading Democrats in the House of Representatives sponsored on December 17, 2015. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution sought to destroy the First Amendment by condemning hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.[19]

Conflating truth-telling about Jihad with the supposed hatred of all Muslim people, the resolution sought to criminalize any attempt to accurately identify America’s enemies and the ideology that inspires them. As Robert Spencer notes, the resolution used

the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.[20]

The Left’s effort with House Resolution 569 was an extension of U.N. Resolution 16/18, the effort pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (O.I.C.), the 57-nation alliance of Muslim states, to stifle free speech about Islam globally by implementing a U.N. rule against the so-called “defamation of religions.” The real aim of U.N. Resolution 16/18 is, of course, to shut down “Islamophobia,” which means to curtail any truth-telling about Islam and to impose Islamic blasphemy laws worldwide.[21]

Any law applied in the U.S. that is based on House Resolution 569 or U.N. Resolution 16/18 would be a violation of the U.S. First Amendment. But this doesn’t concern leftists very much, since that is precisely their objective. This explains why Hillary Clinton personally committed the State Department to impose U.N. Resolution 16/18 on the United States in her meeting with the General Secretary of the O.I.C. in July 2011, while she was serving as Secretary of State. Clinton also affirmed that, until the effort could become U.S. law, there would be action undertaken -- by means of “peer pressure and shaming” -- to intimidate Americans who engaged in the kind of speech that U.N. Resolution 16/18 sought to end. Then, tellingly enough, in June 2012, when Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez was asked by the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution to confirm that the Obama administration would “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion,” he refused to answer.[22]

While the Obama administration and its leftist loyalists were busy trying to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the United States, other American progressive forces empowered Islamic supremacism in other realms. The leftist leadership of New York City, for instance, became busy accommodating Muslim Brotherhood directives by preventing the New York Police Department from focusing on Muslims in fighting Jihad. The process started in 2012, when the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group, filed a federal lawsuit (along with a few other Muslim Brotherhood plaintiffs) against the NYPD. In its complaint, the MSA charged that the civil rights of Muslims were being violated by the NYPD's use of informants and plainclothes detectives to monitor various Islamic institutions -- particularly MSA chapters -- in the New York/New Jersey area.[23]

In early January 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton agreed to a settlement that would exempt Muslims from NYPD surveillance. The new guidelines explicitly barred police officers from basing any future law-enforcement investigations on race, ethnicity, or, as in the case of the MSA, religion.[24] As part of the settlement, New York City also deleted from the department’s website an exhaustive NYPD report, titled "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," which provided a crucial tutorial for all law enforcement organizations seeking to understand how an individual is moved to Islamic radicalization.[25]

The NYPD's traditional practice of cultivating informants and using undercover investigators within the Muslim community had undeniably prevented many Jihadist attacks.

But now, with more than thirty thousand worldwide Muslim terrorist attacks inspired by Islamic texts since 9/11,[26] with Jihadist attacks on the rise globally, and with the FBI recently stating that it was investigating as many as 900 open cases on individuals suspected of being ISIS operatives,[27] it has become illegal for the NYPD to single out anyone in the Muslim community for surveillance and undercover operations. As writer Daniel Greenfield noted regarding this development, “if a successful terror attack occurs in New York, it will be because Bill de Blasio crippled the NYPD at the behest of Islamic groups.”[28]

---

In America, we see how the Left succeeded through Obama in enforcing Jihad Denial and in enabling the strength of Islamic supremacist forces. In achieving this feat, progressives empowered the advance of Jihad and Sharia in the United States, which made the nation vastly more vulnerable to its enemy’s attacks.

It is undeniable that the Jihadist attacks that occurred on American soil throughout the Obama years could have easily been prevented. This fact will be heavily documented later in our story, but for now we will cite just one illustrative example: the Boston Marathon Massacre that the Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated on April 15, 2013, did not have to happen. The Russians, after all, had warned the FBI about the Tsarnaevs before the massacre, but the intelligence agency found nothing after its “investigation” of the two brothers. This is because the Bureau had its hands tied behind its back with the Jihad Denial rules of the administration. It couldn’t ask the right questions, nor pursue the right and necessary leads.

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Notes:

[1] Stephen Dinan, "Holder balks at blaming ‘radical Islam’," The Washington Times, May 14, 2010. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/14/holder-balks-at-blaming-radical-islam/#ixzz30MluWyrS

[2] Robert Spencer, “Hillary Lets the Jihadist Cat Out of the Bag,” Frontpagemag.com, January 24, 2013. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/print/

[3] Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, (Center for Security Policy Press: Washington D.C., 2015), pp.21.

[4] Robert Spencer, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, (Washington, D.C: Regnery, 2015), pp. xiii-xvi; Frank Gaffney, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, (Sherman Oaks, CA, David Horowitz Freedom Center: 2012).

[5] Leo Hohmann, “Exploding Muslim immigration overwhelms FBI,” WorldNetDaily.com, July 17, 2015. http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/exploding-muslim-immigration-overwhelms-fbi/#vJezltXyYmuQXX0j.99

[6] Daniel Greenfield, “Counterterrorism Gov Guide: Keeping Out Muslims for Sharia Law Violates First Amendment,” The Point, Frontpagemag.com, December 16, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261149/counterterrorism-gov-guide-keeping-out-muslims-daniel-greenfield

[7] Ibid.

[8] For an authoritative account of the CVE strategy, see Stephen Coughlin Interview, “The Hoax of ‘Countering Violent Extremism’” on The Glazov Gang, JamieGlazov.com, April 12, 2016. http://jamieglazov.com/2016/04/12/the-hoax-of-countering-violent-extremism-on-the-glazov-gang/

[9] Ibid.

[10] Coughlin, p.12.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, p.13.

[14] Ibid, p.17.

[15] Ibid., p.14.

[16] Ibid., p.17.

[17] John R. Schindler, "The Intelligence Lessons of San Bernardino," Observer.com, December 14, 2015. http://observer.com/2015/12/the-intelligence-lessons-of-san-bernardino/

[18] Ibid.

[19] Robert Spencer, “House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam,” Frontpagemag.com, December 29, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261268/house-democrats-move-criminalize-criticism-islam-robert-spencer

[20] Ibid.

[21] Deborah Weiss, “Democrats Castigate ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech in Proposed Legislation,” Frontpagemag.com, January 26, 2016. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261550/democrats-castigate-anti-muslim-speech-proposed-deborah-weiss; Robert Spencer, “Secretary of State Clinton says State Department will coordinate with OIC on legal ways to implement UN’s resolution criminalizing ‘defamation of religion’”, JihadWatch.org, August 3, 2011. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/secretary-of-state-clinton-says-state-department-will-coordinate-with-oic-on-legal-ways-to-implement

[22] Melanie Arter, “DOJ Official Won’t Say Whether Justice Department Would ‘Criminalize Speech against Any Religion’”, CNSNews.com, July 26, 2012. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-official-won-t-say-whether-justice-department-would-criminalize-speech-against-any. See also Coughlin, p.22.

[23] John Perazzo, “The MSA Defeats New York,” Frontpagemag.com, January 12, 2016.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261427/msa-defeats-new-york-john-perazzo; for documentation of the MSA being a Muslim Brotherhood front group, see the profile on the MSA at DiscovertheNetworks.org: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6175

[24] Ibid.

[25] Paul Sperry, “The purge of a report on radical Islam has put NYC at risk,” NYPost.com, April 15, 2017. http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/the-purge-of-a-report-on-radical-islam-has-put-nyc-at-risk/; Patrick Dunleavy, “NYPD Caves to Political Correctness,” InvestigativeProject.org, January 8, 2016. http://www.investigativeproject.org/5121/nypd-caves-to-political-correctness

[26] See the website thereligionofpeace.com which keeps a track of the number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

[27] Kevin Johnson, “Comey: Feds have roughly 900 domestic probes about Islamic State operatives, other extremists,” UsaToday.com, October 23, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/23/fbi-comey-isil-domestic-probes/74455460/

[28] Daniel Greenfield, “Bill de Blasio Cripples NYPD Surveillance of Muslim Terrorism,” The Point at Frontpagemag.com, January 7, 2016. http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261384/bill-de-blasio-cripples-nypd-surveillance-muslim-daniel-greenfield

 

Jamie Glazov  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/covering-ahmad-al-issa-jamie-glazov/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

When Black Mass Shooters Kill Asians, It’s Not a Hate Crime - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

The racist killers of Asians the media isn’t interested in.

 


"Those Asian officers who stand by and observe everything I previously mentioned," Christopher Dorner wrote in his manifesto. "You are a high value target as well."

The black mass shooter's first target was Monica Quan, the Asian-American daughter of Randall Quan, the first Chinese-American to become an LAPD captain.

Monica was shot three times in the back of the head. Afterward, Dorner (pictured above) called her father and told him that he "should have done a better job of protecting his daughter."

The media coverage of Dorner’s shooting spree focused on the racist rants about white police officers (or caucasians) in his manifesto, but there was very little discussion of his hatred for Asian-Americans even though he had named them as targets in his hateful screed.

When black mass shooters kill Asian people, the media tries to gloss over it.

Colin Ferguson's mass shooting in the 90s on a New York train is remembered largely for the decision by his radical leftist lawyers, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby to use the “Black Rage” defense. Shortly before his death, Kunstler argued that black people are entitled to rage.

But what is often forgotten is that two of the six people whom Ferguson murdered were Asian.

Maria Theresa Tumangan Magtoto was the daughter of an official with the Philippine Senate. Mi Kyung Kim, a Korean-American, had been working as a library assistant at Columbia.

A third of the men and women whom Ferguson killed were Asians.

This wasn't a coincidence. Notes in Ferguson's pockets were scribbled with rants about white people, "Uncle Toms", and "Chinese" people. None of the Asian-Americans he shot were actually Chinese, but the racist gunman didn't seem to care.

“When Louis Farrakhan mentioned Mr. Ferguson at a New York rally on Dec. 18, his audience erupted in an ovation”, “The Hate That Hate Begot”, a New York Daily News article, noted.

“God spoke to Colin Ferguson and said, 'Catch the train, Colin, catch the train’”, the Nation of Islam’s Khalid Abdul Muhammad declared at Howard University.

When John Allen Muhammad went on his rampage, his victims included Hong Im Ballenger, a Korean immigrant who ran a beauty supply store. As the D.C. sniper’s last name showed, he had been a member of Farrakhan’s black supremacist Nation of Islam hate group.

The Nation of Islam believes that non-black people were created through a eugenics program by a mad scientist from the original black race. “Asians want to know if we are targeting all Asian business. We know Asians have targeted Black communities to exploit. The JIG IS UP," Jeffery Muhammad, the Nation of Islam leader in Dallas, had warned.

This sort of anti-Asian hate extends into the highest reaches of the Democrats and the media.

Before Al Sharpton was an MSNBC host, a Democrat presidential candidate with a DNC speaking slot, and a Democrat kingmaker, he was leading boycotts of Korean stores.

Sharpton had supported the infamous Family Red Apple boycott at which racist mobs had called the owners, "yellow monkeys" and chanted, "Koreans, go home." The Freddy’s Fashion Mart protests, led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network, later turned lethal, culminating in the murders of seven people.

While the motive there was antisemitism and the victims were mostly young Latino women, the fire was followed by threats of violence against Korean stores in Harlem.

And Powell had cut his teeth on black supremacist boycotts of Asian businesses.

In a previous boycott incident at the Victory Fish Market, he had allegedly fractured the skull of Kim Soo Yea: the wife of the store owner.

The National Action Network has since been addressed by every top Democrat from Obama to Biden to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

The Democrats have jumped eagerly on the spa shootings. Their media insists that the shooter could not have been a sex addict motivated by his own disorder, as he said, but that he must be a racist who hated Asian people, while refusing to make a reckoning with the publicly stated hatred for Asian people of black mass shooters like Colin Ferguson and Christopher Dorner.

The spa shootings emerged as a convenient distraction from the protests over the escalating criminal assaults on Asian people in California and New York by mostly black perpetrators.

“The perpetrator in some cases has been African American,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed had said. “And as an African American woman, as the mayor of your city, I am here to hold everyone accountable.”

That was not the media’s agenda.

Back in February, Time was scolding Asian-American victims and telling them that they needed to figure out “how to tackle anti-Asian violence without relying on law enforcement institutions that have historically targeted Black and brown communities”.

After the spa shootings, headlines like "Advocates Discourage Anti-Black Sentiment Amid Violence Against Asians" and the clumsy attempts to falsely ascribe attacks by black men on elderly Asian people to President Trump and whiteness ("This violence is caused by a system that makes working people compete against each other for scraps of what the wealthy possess," Oakland City Councilwoman Carroll Fife) gave way to political relief for Democrats.

The media spread the false claim that a police spokesman had dismissed the attack as a case of the perpetrator having a “bad day”. Even though neither the police nor the FBI had found a racial motive, the media spread its racism narrative without even the tiniest trace of evidence.

It makes little difference to the actual case. Even now, at the peak of the Democrat pro-crime policy wave where criminals are let loose for slashings and robberies, a mass murderer is never going to set foot outside the prison system whether or not he’s charged with a hate crime.

But there’s a great deal politically at stake for the Democrat media which is seizing the opportunity to deflect a politically problematic crisis back into politically safe waters.

Racist killers don’t make a big secret of their hate. White supremacist mass shooters like Dylann Roof at the Mother Emanuel church in Charleston and Robert Bowers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, or black supremacist shooters, like Micah X. Johnson in Dallas or David Anderson at the Kosher market in Jersey City, left their ugly beliefs in public view.

Dorner and Ferguson had notes and manifestos.

The media spends a lot more time talking about politically convenient mass killers than inconvenient ones. It’s why Robert Bowers got so much more coverage than David Anderson. It’s also why Colin Ferguson and Dylann Roof received a very different reception.

It is wholly possible to be an evil person without being a bigot. The average serial killer is not a racist. He’s just wholly devoid of empathy and enjoys the pain and suffering of others. Not every crime needs to be viewed through the narrow academic lens of prejudice: let alone ‘whiteness’.

But much as Communists couldn’t see the world in any terms other than class, Wokies can’t  understand any event except by shoving it into their identity politics prism. Some things fit into that prism, others can be made to fit with enough fake news, and still others will never fit and have to be ignored, covered up, and buried at midnight in the media graveyard of dead stories.

The media is no longer in the business of reporting stories, but of politically reconciling them in the same way that Pravda reporters had to reconcile events with Marxism-Leninism. The media politically confronts events, and tries to understand them, before distilling their understanding.

Journalism has become an academic enterprise of grad students treating every event like an opportunity to unload critical race theory lectures so that the public can be properly educated.

But now that the media is suddenly interested in mass shooters who target Asians, it might want to revisit Ferguson and Dorner who actually targeted Asians and wrote about doing it, instead of trying to ascribe a racial motive to a monster who left behind no evidence of being a bigot.

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/when-black-mass-shooters-kill-asians-its-not-hate-daniel-greenfield/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter