Friday, April 9, 2021

Israel’s Claim Under International Law to the ‘Occupied Territories' - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

A short course for the Biden administration.


The Biden Administration seems to think that the way to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians is to push Israel back within what it describes as the “1967 lines,” which is a more acceptable way of saying “the 1949 armistice lines.” Those lines were not recognized borders; they merely reflected where the respective armies, of Israel and its Arab enemies, when the shooting stopped n 1949.

Let’s give the misinformed Biden Administration the necessary Short Course it clearly needs about Israel’s claim under international law to the West Bank, about the misnomer “occupied territories, ” and about the Palestinian Arabs and a “two-state solution.”

There are two sources for Israel’s claim to the West Bank. The first, and the most important, is the Mandate for Palestine, set up by the League of Nations in 1922, for the sole purpose of creating the Jewish National Home that in time, sympathetically nurtured by the holder of the Mandate, Great Britain, would become the Jewish state. The Arabs were well-provided for, too, by the League of Nations. They were given several mandates – for Iraq, for Syria, and Lebanon. Furthermore, all of Palestine east of the Jordan River “out to the desert,” which had originally been intended for inclusion in the Palestine Mandate, was closed to Jewish immigration by the British, and given to the Hashemite Emir Abdullah to rule over, as the Emirate of Transjordan. And as we know, the Arabs now have twenty-two independent states, far more than any other people, while the Jews have exactly one, a tiny sliver so small that it can scarcely be discerned on a world map.

The Mandate for Palestine – see the Preamble and Articles 4 and 6 — was meant to create “the national home for the Jewish people” by “encouraging Jewish immigration” and “close settlement by Jews on the land.” That was its only purpose: not “two states” but one. The Arabs were already well provided for, by the mandates, and would be even more provided for outside the mandates system. At present, the Arabs have twenty-two independent states, far more than any other people, while the Jews have exactly one, a tiny sliver so small that it can scarcely be discerned on a world map.

The Mandates system of the League of Nations was never thought to “flagrantly violate international law.” It became part and parcel of international law. It did not cease to be relevant, either, when the League dissolved, to be replaced by the United Nations. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter – known as “the Jewish people’s article” – committed the U.N. to bring to a successful conclusion any mandates that still remained.

The Mandate for Palestine is the indispensable document for comprehending the history of modern Israel, yet is too rarely discussed, even by many of Israel’s well-wishers, who may not comprehend its significance. Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan et al must take it upon themselves to study that document. And then they should look at the Mandate maps, that clearly show the territory included in the Mandate. Mandatory Palestine extended from the Golan Heights in the north, to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east, to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. That was the territory assigned to the Jewish National Home. When Jordan seized almost all of Judea and Samaria during the 1948-1949 war, renaming them “the West Bank” in 1950, that did not extinguish Israel’s claim to that land. From 1949 to 1967, Jordan held the “West Bank” as military occupier. When Israel took possession of that territory after the Six-Day War, this did not create its claim but allowed that claim to be acted upon. Israel took control, and began to build settlements, according to the Mandate’s express provisions. Now Israel proposes to annex not all of the West Bank — as it is entitled to, under the Mandate – but only 30%, including the Jordan Valley, critical for the country’s defense, and the towns and small cities (called “settlements,” which suggests impermanence) where half a million Israeli Jews now live. There are pros and cons to such annexation; the wisdom or folly of it may be legitimately discussed, but what is illegitimate is to describe such extension of Israeli sovereignty over territory it was assigned by the League of Nations as a “violation of international law.” It would be a good thing for Joe Biden – and for many others in his administration – to grasp that.

There is a second, independent claim that Israel has to the “West Bank” and the Golan Heights. This is U.N. Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly on November 22, 1967. It was intended to deal with the disposition of territories that Israel won in the Six-Day War.

The chief drafter of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot), the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964 to 1970. At the time of the Resolution’s discussion and subsequent unanimous adoption, and on many occasions since, Lord Caradon always insisted that the phrase “from the territories” quite deliberately did not mean “all the territories,” but merely some of the territories:

His discussion of Resolution 242 follows:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

On another occasion, to an interviewer from the Journal of Palestine Studies (Spring-Summer 1976), he again insisted on the deliberateness of the wording. Lord Caradon was asked:

The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

Nota bene: “from territories occupied” is not the same thing as “from occupied territories” – the first is neutral, the second a loaded description. And Resolution 242 refers only to “territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

Lord Caradon answered:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.

Note, too, how Lord Caradon says that “you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it,” with that “merely” applying to Jordan, but not to Israel, because of the Mandate’s explicit provisions allocating the territory known now as the “West Bank” to the Jewish state. Note, too, the firmness of his dismissal of the 1967 lines as nothing more than “where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948,” that is, nothing more than armistice lines and not internationally recognized borders.

Nothing could be clearer than Caradon: Israel has a right to hold onto territories that it requires if it was to have, as the key phrase in the Resolution 242 puts it, “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries.” That would require, at the very least, the annexation of both the Golan Heights and of the Jordan Valley. This is not the opinion only of Israeli military men, but also that of the American officers who, in 1967, were sent by the Chief of the General Staff to Israel, at the direction of President Johnson, to see what territories Israel would have to retain. Their report made clear that the Golan Heights needed to be kept by Israel to prevent Syrian forces from once again using those looming heights to fire on Jewish farmers far below, and that the Jordan Valley needed to remain in Israel’s hands in order to thwart or slow down potential invaders from the east, who might otherwise send armored columns able to slice Israel in two at its pre-1967 nine-miles-wide waist.

The Biden Administration should stop talking about using the “1967 lines” (a deceptive way of referring to “the 1949 armistice lines”) as a plausible guide for negotiations, and instead discuss the Mandate for Palestine and U.N. Resolution 242 as the essential bases for direct negotiations – no busybody “Quartet,” hopelessly biased against Israel, should be involved in discussions between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. If the Palestinian Arabs don’t like that arrangement, too bad. Israel is willing to discuss giving up part of the “West Bank,” to which it has full title under the Palestine Mandate, for a future Palestinian state that will look a lot like the one so carefully crafted by Jared Kushner and others for the Trump Administration’s “Peace-To-Prosperity” plan. It’s a generous deal for the Palestinians. Israel will be giving up 30% of the West Bank, as well as two large swathes of territory in the Negev. And that’s not all the Palestinians will receive. Under the Trump Plan, $50 billion in aid would be given to the Palestinians. That would be the largest aid package for a single country in history. By contrast, the largest aid package prior to this was the Marshall Plan, which was worth $60 billion, but had to be shared among 16 countries. Perhaps something like this aid package could be revived by the Biden people, once they recognize Israel’s inviolable right to retain, if it wishes, all of the West Bank, and thus should  better appreciate the sacrifice the Jewish state  is making in giving up 70% of that territory to the Palestinians.

Lobbying, and protesting, against the Biden Plan is to be encouraged. But what is needed most of all is the educating of Biden and his foreign policy team about the Palestine Mandate and U.N. Resolution 242. There’s a good deal they need to learn. And chastened by that knowledge, they should then be unwilling to any longer support the Palestinian agenda that right now, they seem – unacceptably – to have embraced.


Hugh Fitzgerald


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel 'deeply concerned' by resumption of US funding to UNRWA - AP and ILH Staff


​ by AP and ILH Staff

Some Republican lawmakers plan to challenge the aid, maintaining it violates the Taylor Force and Anti-Terrorism Clarification Acts, both of which passed with strong bipartisan support.


Israel 'deeply concerned' by resumption of US funding to UNRWA
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks to the press, April 5, 2021 | Photo: Al Drago / Pool via AP

US President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced a resumption of US assistance to the Palestinians, including to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, nearly all of which had been eliminated by former President Donald Trump.

The State Department said it would provide a total of $235 million to projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as to the UN Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. The administration had previously announced $15 million for the Palestinians to combat the coronavirus pandemic. The resumption of assistance has met opposition in Congress from pro-Israel lawmakers, who say the money may violate US law.

Israel expressed deep concern over the move.

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said, "Israel's position is that the organization in its current form perpetuates the conflict and does not contribute to its resolution.

"The renewal of aid to UNRWA should be accompanied by substantial and necessary changes in the nature, goals, and conduct of the organization."

The resumption of assistance was immediately welcomed by the United Nations, UNRWA itself, and the Palestinians.

The administration notified Congress of its intent to ramp up aid to the Palestinians, but until Wednesday it had not publicly acknowledged any assistance other than that for COVID-19. The new assistance comes as the administration cements a new Middle East policy that in many ways is the direct opposite of that pursued by Trump.

"The United States is pleased to announce that, working with Congress, we plan to restart US economic, development, and humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. He said the money includes $75 million in economic and development assistance in the West Bank and Gaza, $10 million for peacebuilding programs, and $150 million for UNRWA.

Blinken sought to forestall congressional criticism by saying that "all assistance will be provided consistent with US law," but Republican members of Congress are already gearing up to fight the aid. The announcement came on the same day that Biden reaffirmed his commitment to a two-state resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a phone call with Jordan's King Abdullah II.

Blinken maintained that US support for the Palestinians is key to advancing American interests in the region.

"US foreign assistance for the Palestinian people serves important US interests and values," he said. "It provides critical relief to those in great need, fosters economic development, and supports Israeli-Palestinian understanding, security coordination, and stability. It also aligns with the values and interests of our allies and partners."

The office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement that it "renewed its commitment to the two-state solution based on the foundations of international legitimacy and its willingness to respond to any international efforts to reach this goal."

The leadership of the cash-strapped UN agency and the United Nations hailed the announcement.

"We hope that others will now follow suit. There were a number of countries that had greatly reduced or halted contributions to UNRWA. We hope that the American decision will lead others to rejoin UNRWA as UNRWA donors," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

The Biden administration has made no secret of its belief that Trump's approach to the Middle East, which alienated the Palestinians, was flawed and made prospects for peace less likely. The new assistance appears aimed at encouraging the Palestinians to return to negotiations with Israel, though there is no indication it will have that effect and Israel has yet to weigh in publicly.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley had championed the removal of funding for the relief agency, suggesting it was responsible for perpetuating Palestinian poverty and questioning whether all of the millions of people it serves are actually refugees.

Just a week before leaving office, Pompeo accused UNRWA of being "riddled with waste, fraud (and) concerns of support to terrorism" and said there are fewer than 200,000 legitimate Palestinian refugees still alive.

In signaling opposition to the renewed funding, pro-Israel lawmakers note in particular that federal laws prohibit direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority or the provision of aid that benefits the PA as long as it continues to pay stipends to people convicted of anti-US or anti-Israel attacks and their families.

Already, a handful of Republicans are preparing to challenge the aid, maintaining that it violates the so-called Taylor Force and the Anti-Terrorism Clarification acts, both of which passed with strong bipartisan support.

The top Republicans on the House and Senate foreign affairs committees said the resumption in aid "undermines US interests."

"We will continue to scrutinize every proposed program to ensure the administration's actions are in lockstep with the Taylor Force Act and in compliance with all laws governing assistance to the Palestinians," said Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas and Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho. "Additionally, we are disappointed that the Biden Administration has decided to resume funding for UNRWA without securing any reforms from the organization."

The resumption of assistance comes just a week after the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report that found the US government had not properly vetted all of its Palestinian funding recipients for US antiterrorism criteria as required by law between 2015 and 2019 when Trump severed most of the aid.

While it said the US Agency for International Development had followed the law with respect to people and groups it funded directly, it had not done the same with entities, known as sub-grantees, to which those groups then distributed taxpayer dollars. "If funding resumes, we recommend measures to improve compliance," according to the GAO report.


AP and ILH Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Should Israel brace for possible attack from Iranian soil? - Yoav Limor


​ by Yoav Limor

The Iranians can launch missiles or, more realistically, deploy armed drones with a range of 2,000 kilometers. These drones fly slowly, near to the ground, and are especially difficult for the air force to detect and intercept.

In response to their recent exchange of blows on the high seas, which reached an apex on Tuesday with the attack on an Iranian spy ship in the Red Sea, Israel is also bracing for a possible strike on targets in Israel from Iranian territory. 

The Iranian-flagged Saviz was hit with limpet mines attached to its hull. Israel didn't claim responsibility for the incident, but foreign news outlets reported that the IDF's Shayetet 13 naval commandos carried out the operation, which was just the latest in a string of operations against Iranian targets the unit has carried out over the past two years. 

It appears that contrary to previous incidents, in which Israel reportedly disrupted illicit weapons or oil smuggling, this time the purpose of the attack was to let the Iranians know that their recent attacks on vessels owned by Israeli businessmen were out of bounds. 

Although the targeted ship was operating under a civilian guise, it was a spy vessel permanently docked near Eritrea to gather information on ship movements in the Red Sea. It's safe to assume Iran will not let this attack go unanswered. One option is to attack Israel from Iranian soil. The Iranians can launch missiles or, more realistically, deploy armed drones with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) and farther. Unlike regular rockets and missiles, the drones fly slowly, near to the ground, and are especially difficult for the air force to detect and intercept. 

As reported, the exchange of blows between Israel and Iran have intensified in recent weeks and have also included Israeli airstrikes on Iran's proxy militias in Syria, Tehran's efforts to smuggle precision missile components into Lebanon, and its widespread maritime activities, some of which has been revealed publicly in recent weeks. In this context, it has been reported that Shayetet 13 has carried out dozens of missions to sabotage illicit oil shipments from Iran to Syria. The money from the sale of this oil was used in part to fund Hezbollah and other terrorist elements. According to assessments, these sabotage operations cost the Iranians upwards of $2 billion. 

The objective of other operations carried out by Shayetet 13 was to prevent advanced weapons from reaching Hezbollah hands in Lebanon. Several days ago, a purportedly innocent ship was damaged, but it was later revealed to have been smuggling components for Hezbollah's precision missile project. The equipment, a fuel mixer for missiles, was to replace similar equipment that was damaged and destroyed in a drone strike attributed to Israel in August 2019.

In response to this chain of events, Iran attacked at least two Israeli-owned cargo ships sailing under a foreign flag. the first attack, in the Gulf of Oman, was aimed at a ship owned by businessman Rami Ungar. It was hit by limpet mines attached to its hull by Iranian commandos.

In the second attack, some two weeks ago, a ship owned by Israeli businessman Udi Angel was hit. The ship was struck by missiles launched from an Iranian vessel. In both cases, Iran's methods were similar to Israel's alleged modus operandi: sabotaging ships but without sinking them or causing casualties. It appears, however, that the succession of blows sustained by Iran, including Mossad operations on its soil, could now spur Iran to change its policy to incorporate direct attacks on Israel, rather than via proxies. It's safe to assume such an attack can only be approved by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.

From past experience, it seems the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, commanded by Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, would be tasked with such an attack on Israel. The IRGC's Aerospace Force is a strategic arm of the Islamic republic, which possesses advanced missile and other capabilities (including drones). This force is responsible for launching the cruise missiles and drones that struck Saudi Arabia's gigantic Aramco oil production facility on September 14, 2019, causing extensive damage.

The Israeli-owned cargo ship, Helios Ray, sits docked in port after arriving in Dubai 
on Sunday, Feb. 28, 2021 (AP/Kamran Jebreil)

Iran never confessed to firing those missiles from its territory, but Western intelligence agencies have solid evidence proving it. Until recently, Israeli officials believed that despite the numerous blows it has sustained, Iran would not launch weapons from its territory so as not to risk a direct Israeli counterstrike. Senior officials said Iran would prefer putting its proxies in the line of fire, rather than itself. The belief was that Iran would try retaliating from Syrian soil, and perhaps even via the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Indeed, it was reported recently that attack drones have been delivered by the IRGC to the Houthis, which led Israel to refocus its intelligence efforts and place its aerial defenses on high alert.

If Iran indeed takes direct action from its territory, it will, for the first time, move the war with Israel out of the shadows. Thus far, this war has been fought secretly and in the dark, or on foreign soil through proxies, primarily its militias in Syria.

In February 2018, Israel intercepted an Iranian drone launched from Syria. The IDF retaliated by attacking Iranian and Syrian targets. During these airstrikes, an Israeli F-16 fighter jet was shot down. Three months later, Iran again tried attacking Israel, this time launching 40 rockets from Syria at the Golan Heights. Most of the rockets landed inside Syria and others were intercepted, and in response, the IDF hit dozens of Iranian targets on Syrian soil in an operation dubbed "House of Cards."

At the time, Israeli officials believed the Iranians were responding to Israel's efforts to dislodge them from Syria, and for stealing their nuclear archive from the heart of Tehran, which had come to light a few days earlier. In January 2019, rockets fired at the Mount Hermon ski resort were intercepted by Israel's air defenses. In June 2019, too, rockets were fired from Syria at the Hermon, one of them landing in Israeli territory without causing damage. In August 2019, Iran tried launching armed drones from Syria at IDF bases on the Golan Heights, but the army hit the drone operators before they could carry out the attack. This incident sparked an escalation with Hezbollah, which sought to avenge their deaths under the claim that they were members of the organization.

In light of the recent escalation with Iran, Israeli defense officials have departed for several Western capitals to present the severity of the Iranian danger. The issue was also raised in meetings between President Reuven Rivlin and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi in Germany, France and Austria recently. Naturally, Israel has reported to the Americans and Russians as well.


Yoav Limor


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The new Georgia voting law is anything but ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ - Mark Jarrett


​ by Mark Jarrett

If you dig into the bill, what you discover is a bipartisan bill that carefully balances preventing fraud with the need to ensure that people get to vote.

Stacey Abrams looked me straight in the face from her twitter video, smiled, and lied to me. She revealed her utter contempt for her opponents -- whom she has libeled as unregenerate racists, and her supporters, whom she believes too stupid to check facts for themselves. Her lie: Georgia’s new election laws are worse than Segregation’s Jim Crow laws -- in fact, they are Jim Crow 2.0!

The worst insult I can give is to call someone a liar. To know the truth and to say its opposite is to reveal a deep emptiness of the soul. But Stacey Abrams was not the only liar to refer to our new law as so bad. Biden said it is “Jim Crow on steroids” or “Jim Eagle.”  Democrat leaders across the land have not corrected these misstatements: The Democrat party is the Lying party.

The outrage the Democrat party focused on Georgia’s election law and election law reforms across the country shows its 2020 election success may be due to new tactics and thus vulnerable to legislative change.

Georgia’s election law was the result of bipartisan compromise and negotiation. Initially, the proposals were more restrictive, yet Democrats came to the table, provided inputs, and some changes were made. Even Stacey Abrams acknowledged the compromises negotiated in the bill -- Souls to the Polls (that is, busing people from Church to polling places) and absentee voting were both upheld.

These were two important parts to the Democrat victories in Georgia. Souls to the Polls reveals the historic partnership between the African American church and the Democratic Party. As my African American friends have discussed with me, it is considered normal for pastors to go over the ballot with their members, explaining who and what to vote for, then busing members who need transport to the polling place.

Culturally, this is different from the white church culture that tends to avoid politics. Still, Georgia wrote Sunday balloting into the law, a concrete example that this law specifically, knowingly gave advantages to African American voters. As the law states:

More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday and many counties offered only a single day of weekend voting. Requiring two Saturday voting days and two optional Sunday voting days will dramatically increase the total voting hours for voters across the State of Georgia, and all electors in Georgia will have access to multiple opportunities to vote in person on the weekend for the first time.

Likewise, the unprecedented absentee vote in Georgia in response to the COVID pandemic was pivotal to the Democrat Party’s victory in Georgia. The new law could have dramatically restricted absentee voting in Georgia -- but instead, it implements measured changes. Again, this shows responsiveness to Democrat concerns, which Stacey Abrams acknowledged with a twitter smile, before insulting the conservatives of Georgia as unrepentant neo-segregationists.

Democrats’ main line of attack falsely claims no one can give water and food to those waiting in line. I did not see anyone complaining about the parts of the law that mandate identifying polling locations with long lines and implementing changes to ensure lines are shorter than one hour.

Regarding the water complaints, I noticed water and food distribution during several days of early October voting in now-Blue Gwinnett County. There were two food trucks and a food stand in the parking lot, handing out tamales, hot dogs, and water to everyone going voting. The new law would not stop this – if electioneers stay either 150 feet from the polling place or 25 feet from voters. May question when I saw all the food being given away was, “Where’s the money for this coming from?”

And that raises one of the key unspoken objections to Georgia’s law: It specifically stops counties from taking private funds for election purposes. Facebook’s CEO gave $350 million in election grants around the country – “saving the 2020 election” and supercharging Democrat-leaning precincts. The law states that any private donations will go through the state, which will then openly and equitably distribute the funds. Because that does not benefit Democrat-leaning counties over Republican-leaning counties…it is clearly Jim Crow 2.0.

Another key provision seems modeled on Florida’s success in cleaning up its elections. After Governor Ron DeSantis was elected, he fired Broward county’s corrupt and/or incompetent elections supervisor, Brenda Snipes. And to some surprise, Florida’s election went off smoothly on election night.

As was the case in Broward, one Georgia county, Fulton, the seat of the state capital, Atlanta, is notorious for its long-time corruption -- with virtually every male mayor since the 70s having been investigated. Fulton provided the edge that put Biden over the top in the state.

Georgia’s new law allows the State Election Board to suspend and replace the elections supervisors in up to 4 counties. It provides a process to begin performance reviews and request investigations into complaints about elections supervisors and their removal for “demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in the administration of the elections.” As both Fulton county and neighboring Dekalb county seem to have continuing problems smoothly administering elections, this process threatens to change their administration if these counties do not ensure smooth elections.

The 2020 absentee ballot count was a major flashpoint: Signature matching was used for verification. The drop-box locations were unsecured. On election night, counting inexplicably stopped, then started once the monitors left. It took days. There were suspicions of ballot harvesting.

In response, the new law says people requesting absentee ballots must use the same ID they’d use for voting in person. Absentee votes can be opened and scanned before Election Day, with counting starting that morning. Counting will not stop until complete and must be complete by 5 PM the following day. Drop-boxes must be at each advance voting location, a video or guard must watch them, and discrepancies will be reported to the Secretary of State. It is now a felony for unauthorized people to deliver or open absentee ballots.

The new law will also prevent the Secretary of State from secretly negotiating election law changes with Stacey Abrams, as happened in 2020. Any such changes must be publicized, and the legislature can review and reverse them. The Secretary of State will no longer be involved in changing the election law.

In short, the reason Stacey Abrams is spitting mad at, and lying about, all those ignorant, racist Georgians, is because a few legislators were smart enough and brave enough to counter Democrat tactics. Jim Crow 2.0 is preventing secret election law changes, securing procedures for absentee ballots, improving accountability for corrupt or incompetent election officials, and stopping the flow of corporate dark money to local election officials. Principles of good government will erase the Democrat’s 2020 election success blueprint.

IMAGE: Stacey Abrams lies to the camera. Twitter screengrab.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.


Mark Jarrett


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China Boycotts Western Companies Over Uyghurs - Soeren Kern


​ by Soeren Kern

"China's government, increasingly keen to punish critics of their Xinjiang policies, is forcing foreign companies to make a choice they have been studiously trying to avoid"

  • Companies are being pressured to scrub from their websites language about corporate policies on human rights, reverse decisions to stop buying cotton produced in Xinjian, and remove maps that depict Taiwan as an independent country.

  • In October 2020, the Geneva-based Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), an influential non-profit group that promotes sustainable cotton production, suspended licensing of Xinjiang cotton, citing allegations and "increasing risks" of forced labor. The statement has since been scrubbed from the BCI website, and, disturbingly, also is not accessible on the Internet Archive.

  • In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in a report, "Uyghurs for Sale," revealed that Uyghurs were working in factories — under conditions of forced labor — that are in the supply chains of more than 80 well-known global brands in the clothing, automotive and technology sectors.

  • "China's government, increasingly keen to punish critics of their Xinjiang policies, is forcing foreign companies to make a choice they have been studiously trying to avoid: support China or get out of the Chinese market.... The Communist Party views itself as increasingly able to exert economic pressure on others, using the 'powerful gravitational field' of the world's second-largest economy.... The choice between the lucrative Chinese market and the values firms profess in the rest of the world is becoming unavoidable...." — The Economist, March 27, 2021.

  • "German companies account for a good one-half of the EU's exports to China. The German export industry has little interest in tarnishing this balance sheet with moral zeal.... The economic dependence on China, however, further weakens the already low impact of moral arguments. As long as Europe, and in this case Germany in particular, is not prepared to reduce this dependency, complaints about human rights violations in China will, at best, continue to trigger sloppy defensive reactions from Beijing." — Die Welt, March 24, 2021.

The Chinese government is boycotting Western clothing retailers for expressing concerns about forced labor in China's Xinjiang region. The dispute revolves around allegations that China's government is forcing more than 500,000 Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic and religious minorities to pick cotton in Xinjiang, which produces 85% of China's cotton and one-fifth of the world's supply. Roughly 70% of the region's cotton fields are picked by hand. Pictured: Women harvest cotton by hand in Hami, Xinjiang on September 20, 2015. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

The Chinese government is boycotting Western clothing retailers for expressing concerns about forced labor in Xinjiang, China's biggest region. The companies are being pressured to scrub from their websites language about corporate policies on human rights, reverse decisions to stop buying cotton produced in Xinjian, and remove maps that depict Taiwan as an independent country.

The escalating fight comes after the European Union and the United Kingdom on March 22 joined the United States and Canada to impose sanctions on Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, a remote autonomous region in northwestern China.

Human rights experts say at least one million Muslims are being detained in up to 380 internment camps, where they are subject to torture, mass rapes, forced labor and sterilizations.

Western companies doing business in China increasingly face an unpalatable dilemma: how to uphold Western values and distance themselves from human rights abuses without provoking retaliation from the Chinese government and losing access to one of the world's biggest and fastest-growing markets.

The current dispute revolves around allegations that the Chinese government is forcing more than 500,000 Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic and religious minorities to pick cotton in Xinjiang, which produces 85% of China's cotton and one-fifth of the world's supply. Roughly 70% of the region's cotton fields are picked by hand. The allegations of forced labor affect all Western supply chains that involve Xinjiang cotton as a raw material. Both the European Union and the United States import more than 30% of their apparel and textile supplies from China.

In October 2020, the Geneva-based Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), an influential non-profit group that promotes sustainable cotton production, suspended licensing of Xinjiang cotton, citing allegations and "increasing risks" of forced labor. The statement has since been scrubbed from the BCI website, and, disturbingly, also is not accessible on the Internet Archive.

After the BCI, which has more than 1,800 members, spanning the entire global cotton supply chain, stopped licensing Xinjiang cotton production, its members — including Germany-based Adidas, U.K.-based Burberry, Swedish retailers H&M and IKEA, and U.S.-based Nike — all said that they would stop using cotton from Xinjiang, in line with the group's guidelines.

At the time, H&M, the world's second-biggest fashion retailer, posted a statement on its website:

"H&M Group is deeply concerned by reports from civil society organizations and media that include accusations of forced labor and discrimination of ethno-religious minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). We strictly prohibit any type of forced labor in our supply chain, regardless of the country or region....

"We do not work with any garment manufacturing factories located in XUAR, and we do not source products from this region. We transparently disclose names and locations of manufacturing factories, mills and yarn producers in our public supplier list and will continue to do so and further accelerate this transparency for our global supply chain.

"In addition, we have conducted an inquiry at all the garment manufacturing factories we work with in China aiming to ensure that workers are employed in accordance with our Sustainability Commitment, and that they comply with our migrant worker guideline."

The statement, largely unnoticed at the time, was unearthed after the EU's announcement of sanctions. The Communist Youth League, the youth movement of the Chinese Communist Party, in a post on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent to Twitter, stated: "Spreading rumors to boycott Xinjiang cotton, while also wanting to make money in China? Wishful thinking!"

The furor over H&M's ban on Xinjiang cotton quickly rose to a fever pitch on Chinese social media, with many calling for a nationwide boycott of the company. Chinese map and ride-hailing applications blocked H&M. Major Chinese e-commerce platforms dropped the brand from their platforms. Angry landlords terminated lease agreements and forced H&M to shutter some of its 500 stores in China, the company's fourth-largest market behind Germany, the United States and Britain.

The Chinese nationalist backlash soon spread to other Western apparel and footwear companies — including Adidas, Burberry, Calvin Klein, Lacoste, New Balance, Nike, Puma, Tommy Hilfiger, Uniqlo and Zara — after state media criticized the brands for expressing concern about Xinjiang. More than 30 Chinese celebrities announced that they were ending endorsement deals with Western brands. Some said they opposed attempts to "discredit China."

The Associated Press reported that China was "erasing" Western brands from the internet:

"In a high-tech version of the airbrushing used by China and other authoritarian regimes to delete political enemies from historic photos, H&M's approximately 500 stores in China didn't show up on ride-hailing app Didi Chuxing or map services operated by Alibaba and Baidu. Its smartphone app disappeared from app stores.

"It wasn't clear whether companies received orders to erase H&M's online presence, but Chinese enterprises are expected to fall in line without being told. Regulators have broad powers to punish companies that fail to support official policy....

"The Communist Party often pressures foreign clothing, travel and other brands over actions by their governments or in an effort to compel them to adopt its positions on Taiwan, Tibet and other sensitive issues.

"Most comply because China is one of the biggest, fastest-growing markets for global fashion, electronics and other consumer brands."

Xu Guixiang, a Xinjiang government spokesman, said:

"I don't think a company should politicize its economic behavior. Can H&M continue to make money in the Chinese market? Not anymore. To rush into this decision and get involved in the sanctions is not reasonable. It's like lifting a stone to drop it on one's own feet."

H&M, in a statement dated March 31, said that it was "dedicated to regaining the trust and confidence of our customers, colleagues, and business partners in China." The statement, which did not mention Xinjiang, appeared to be a failed attempt to strike a balance between placating the Chinese government while assuaging Western human rights groups.

"Why doesn't H&M apologize openly to consumers?" asked the state-owned China Central Television. It called H&M's statement a "second-rate public relations article full of empty words lacking sincerity."

Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng said that forced labor in Xinjiang was "non-existent and entirely imaginary" and that such allegations amounted to slander:

"We oppose any external forces interfering in Xinjiang-related matters and China's internal affairs. We also oppose sanctions imposed on Chinese individuals and entities based on lies and false information, and on the pretext of so-called human rights issues in Xinjiang."

Chinese authorities subsequently pressured H&M and other brands to change "problematic maps of China" on their websites. The Shanghai branch of the Cyberspace Administration of China objected to how Taiwan, the independent island country that Beijing claims as part of its territory, is depicted on the Taiwanese versions of their websites.

After H&M caved to Chinese pressure and changed the map, the government ordered H&M to "immediately remedy" its depiction of disputed waters in the South China Sea, 90% of which is claimed by Beijing. H&M complied, only to anger Vietnam, which holds rival claims to some of the waters.

Meanwhile, in a bid to counter accusations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the Chinese government has produced a new musical — apparently mimicking the American classic "Sound of Music" — which portrays Xinjiang as a rural idyll of ethnic cohesion devoid of repression, mass surveillance and even the Islam of its majority Uyghur population.

The musical, "Wings of Songs," is attempting to reframe the cultural reality of the region, according to the Agence France-Presse, which added:

"The musical omits the surveillance cameras and security checks that blanket Xinjiang. Also noticeably absent are references to Islam — despite more than half of the population of Xinjiang being Muslim — and there are no mosques or women in veils."

Western Brands and Xinjiang Supply Chains

In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in a report, "Uyghurs for Sale," revealed that Uyghurs were working in factories — under conditions of forced labor — that are in the supply chains of more than 80 well-known global brands in the clothing, automotive and technology sectors. The companies include:

Abercrombie & Fitch, Acer, Adidas, Alstom, Amazon, Apple, ASUS, BMW, Bombardier, Bosch, Calvin Klein, Candy, Carter's, Cerruti 1881, Cisco, Dell, Electrolux, Fila, Founder Gap, General Motors, Google, H&M, Hitachi, HP, Jaguar, L.L. Bean, Lacoste, Land Rover, Lenovo, LG, Mercedes-Benz, MG, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Nike, Nintendo, Nokia, Panasonic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, Samsung, Sharp, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Uniqlo, Victoria's Secret, Volkswagen and Zara.

In July 2020, the Financial Times reported that Western brands including Brooks Brothers, Hugo Boss, Lacoste and Ralph Lauren had received apparel shipments from a Chinese company whose subsidiary is facing U.S. sanctions over alleged forced labor in Xinjiang.

In May 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that many multinational brands — including Adidas, C&A, Calvin Klein, Campbell's Soup Company, Coca-Cola, Disney, Esprit, Gap, H&M and Kraft Heinz and Patagonia — were directly or indirectly benefiting from factories allegedly using forced labor in Xinjiang.

Some companies have denied the allegations, others have promised to investigate and still others have pledged to stop sourcing supplies from Xinjiang. Following are select responses and statements from fashion-related brands, the current focus of Chinese ire:

  • Adidas. A statement said: "In 2019, on learning of allegations against several companies sourcing from Xinjiang, China, where ethnic minorities were reportedly subject to forced labor in spinning mills, we explicitly required our fabric suppliers not to source any yarn from the Xinjiang region. Adidas has never manufactured goods in Xinjiang and has no contractual relationship with any Xinjiang supplier."

  • Burberry. The U.K.-based retailer, a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, was the first luxury brand to suffer Chinese backlash over Xinjiang. Burberry lost a Chinese brand ambassador, and its logo was scrubbed from a popular video game.

  • Gap. A statement said: "We can confirm that we do not source any garments from Xinjiang.... We have implemented a new policy that explicitly prohibits Gap Inc. vendors from directly or indirectly sourcing any products, components, or materials from Xinjiang in the process of manufacturing any orders for Gap Inc.

  • Marks & Spencer. The British retailer was one of the first major brands to back a campaign to stop forced labor in Xinjiang. In January 2020, the company signed a call to action by 'The Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region' — which consists of more than 300 civil society groups — to cut ties with suppliers in China that profit from forced labor in Xinjiang.

  • Nike. A statement said: "We are concerned about reports of forced labor in, and connected to, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Nike does not source products from the XUAR and we have confirmed with our contract suppliers that they are not using textiles or spun yarn from the region."

  • New Balance. A statement said: "We recognize that the risk of forced labor increases as we go further upstream in the supply chain where we also have less visibility and leverage. We are expanding the mapping of the cotton yarn supply chain as well as exploring technologies and other methods to better assure raw material origins."

  • Zara. Zara's parent company, Spain-based Inditex, removed from its website a statement on the company's zero-tolerance policy for forced labor. The statement, which can be found on the Internet Archive, said:

    "We take reports of improper social and labor practices in any part of the garment and textile supply chain extremely seriously. We are aware of a number of such reports alleging social and labor malpractice in various supply chains among Uyghurs in Xinjiang (China) as well as in other regions, which are highly concerning. Following an internal investigation, we can confirm that Inditex does not have commercial relations with any factory in Xinjiang."

Hong Kong human rights campaigner Johnson Yeung tweeted:

"Faced pressures from Chinese state media and Chinese consumers. @InditexSpain @ZARA secretly remove their statement on #Xinjiang Cotton from their website. I genuinely worry that companies will participate in atrocity against Uyghurs again to pledge their loyalty. Hold the line."

Select Commentary

China scholar Richard Ebeling, writing for the American Institute for Economic Research, explained why the Chinese government is persecuting the Uyghurs:

"The Uyghurs, like the Tibetans, and other minority groups in China, have been the victims of Chinese political and ethnic imperialism. The Chinese government has attempted to assure the political unification and integration of, especially, Tibet and Xinjiang by a policy of ethnic and cultural 'sterilization.' For decades, the Chinese authorities in Beijing have instigated Han Chinese population migrations to these two areas to 'dilute' and reduce to a demographic minority the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples within their own lands.

"The Chinese government has attempted to persecute and eradicate the practice of Islam and Buddhism, respectively, among these peoples. The Chinese military has desecrated religious temples and places of worship, murdered and imprisoned religious leaders, forced women of both groups to marry Han Chinese to genetically 'cleanse' Xinjiang and Tibet of their indigenous populations, and have restricted or prohibited the learning and speaking of the distinct local languages and practicing of cultural customs.

"Though, of course, never said officially or publicly, the Chinese government's policy, to guarantee political solidarity and unity throughout each and every corner of the territory of China is to make the country one racially single group, the Han Chinese."

The Economist magazine, in an editorial, wrote that Western retailers increasingly are caught between nationalistic Chinese consumers and conscientious ones at home:

"For more than a year some big foreign apparel and technology companies have been walking a fine line on the human-rights abuses committed by China against Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority in the north-western region of Xinjiang. These firms have been working to clear their supply chains of the forced labor of Uyghurs, hundreds of thousands of whom pick cotton under apparently coercive conditions. What they have not done is boast about these efforts, fearful of angering the Communist Party and 1.4bn Chinese consumers....

"An online furor stoked by Chinese authorities this week suggests that Beijing may be tiring of this double game. China's government, increasingly keen to punish critics of their Xinjiang policies, is forcing foreign companies to make a choice they have been studiously trying to avoid: support China or get out of the Chinese market.

"Chinese authorities have stirred nationalist protests against foreign companies in the past, then tamped them down having made their point. This time the campaign looks like part of a broader, more enduring counterattack against critics of the government's policies in Xinjiang, where it incarcerated more than 1m Uyghurs in a gulag for their religious and cultural beliefs....

"The Communist Party views itself as increasingly able to exert economic pressure on others, using the 'powerful gravitational field' of the world's second-largest economy....

"Western brands that have held their ground on Xinjiang may worry that being seen as kowtowing to the Communist Party could provoke a backlash among shoppers in the West, who increasingly expect companies to behave responsibly on everything from the treatment of workers to climate change.... The firms may also be calculating that the nationalist fervor in China will cool. And they are hedging their bets....

"That could all change as both China's official anger at criticisms of its Xinjiang policies and pressure from Western human-rights campaigners and consumers continue to intensify. Human-rights campaigners are already calling for a corporate boycott of next year's winter Olympics in Beijing.... They know that responding to Chinese pressure by renouncing their own human-rights commitments looks indefensible in their home markets. At the same time, they are understandably worried about the consequences in China. The choice between the lucrative Chinese market and the values firms profess in the rest of the world is becoming unavoidable...."

The Swiss public broadcaster SWF wrote that the conflict worked in favor of the Chinese government:

"The public outrage and the boycott benefit the Chinese government in several ways: Domestically, the boycott distracts from the allegations of human rights violations and presents the issue as an attack by the West on China.

"The H&M case also serves as a chilling example in relation to other countries. The message to international companies: Do not mess with China."

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung highlighted the moral conflict faced by Western countries:

"Western companies are in a conflict: In the West, many of their customers refuse to wear a T-shirt that was produced by forced laborers. In China, which is a production location and an important market for them, companies come under pressure when they openly criticize forced labor. They can hardly please both sides.

"Consider Hugo Boss. The brand from the Swabian town of Metzingen, known for its men's suits, is currently demonstrating how a company is looking for a way out of a moral and economic dilemma — and in the end loses twice.

"The Chinese internet platform Weibo — a kind of national Twitter — recently called for a boycott of Hugo Boss. Two prominent actors terminated their collaboration with the German company, and users on China's social media scoffed at the suit manufacturer's puffing around.

"What happened?

"A few days ago, Hugo Boss said on Weibo that they respect the national sovereignty of China, that the cotton from Xinjiang is among the best in the world — and that it will continue to be bought. This statement would probably have hardly been noticed in the West had the English-language media portal Hong Kong Free Press not reported on it.

"The company told an American broadcaster last September that all their suppliers had to prove that their products did not come from Xinjiang. Suddenly the impression arose that Hugo Boss was saying something different in China than in the West.

"After the Hong Kong publication reported the conflicting statements, Boss deleted the one on Weibo. Instead, the company is now referring to an English-language statement on its Weibo account, in which it says with reference to Xinjiang: 'Hugo Boss does not tolerate forced labor.' ....

"When asked by Die Zeit, a spokeswoman for Hugo Boss said the first Weibo message was 'unauthorized.' He added: 'Our position with regard to the situation is of course unchanged from that of some time ago.'

"But with little effort, an older version of the group's statement can be found on the internet, which was deleted from its website a few days ago — and which is much harsher than the message that is now being spread.... It promised: 'We guarantee that from October 2021 our new collections will not contain any cotton or other materials from the Xinjiang region.'"

The German newspaper Die Welt wrote that as long as Germany is dependent upon China, moral criticism is of little use:

"An example of the [transatlantic] disagreement over the right approach to China is the China Investment Agreement, which the EU, under the leadership of Angela Merkel, waved through ... ignoring all requests from the Biden administration.

"The agreement may superficially improve the situation for European investors in China a little. Above all, however, it represents a prestigious achievement for Xi Jinping and makes it easier for him to point out, if necessary, that the West is unable to find a common position on China.

"Not even its defenders would claim that the agreement would help to positively influence the human rights situation in China. In these days in particular, Europeans are experiencing anew that China is not prepared to even enter into a dialogue with the West on human rights issues. On the contrary, Beijing reacts increasingly aggressively to any kind of criticism....

"The 5,200 German companies that are active in China will have given the German Chancellery a very clear picture of the sensitivities of their Chinese business partners in recent years. That's why Daimler quickly cleans up a social media post about Tibet if Beijing unpleasantly notices it. And that's why you hear nothing from Volkswagen about the situation of the Uyghurs, although, or rather because, the company has a plant in the province of Xinjiang. German companies account for a good one-half of the EU's exports to China. The German export industry has little interest in tarnishing this balance sheet with moral zeal.

"The economic dependence on China, however, further weakens the already low impact of moral arguments. As long as Europe, and in this case Germany in particular, is not prepared to reduce this dependency, complaints about human rights violations in China will, at best, continue to trigger sloppy defensive reactions from Beijing."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Backward Masking Biden - Lloyd Billingsley


​ by Lloyd Billingsley

On the “Big Guy’s” watch, China’s influence will "grow and expand."


“China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.”

That was Joe Biden in his March 25 press conference. The squad of compliant reporters failed to ask about gains China had already made on Biden’s watch, which began in 2012. That year, as The Atlantic reported, “Biden Gets China,” a move orchestrated by Thomas Donilon, once described by James Mann in Foreign Policy as “Obama’s Gray Man” and seldom mentioned in the press.

Donilon advised Biden in his 1988 run for the presidency and presided over a meltdown at the Federal National Mortgage Association. That prompted Robert Scheer of the Nation to brand Donilon a “top hustler” and wonder why President Obama would tap him for National Security Advisor.

On Biden’s watch as vice president, China ramped up internal repressions and became more aggressive, modernizing their military and creating island bases that put key American allies and interests at risk. In 2019, on the anniversary, of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Joe Biden called for “recommitting to the universal struggle for human dignity” but offered no direct criticism of China’s Communist regime. During the 2020 campaign, Bidcen described the regime as “not bad folks, folks.” With the PRC, that was Biden’s essential message from the start.

Sen. Joe Biden voted against strong sanctions on Communist China as a response to the Tiananmen massacre. In 1998, the United States again proposed sanctions on the PRC, including visa restrictions, and Biden was part of a group of ten senators opposed to the measures. In 2001, Sen. Biden, then head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported China’s entry to the World Trade Organization. As he explained, “the United States welcomes the emergence of a prosperous, integrated China on the global stage, because we expect this is going to be a China that plays by the rules.” That theme emerged in Biden’s White House press conference.

“We are going to hold China accountable to follow the rules, whether it relates to the South China Sea or the North China Sea, or their agreement made on Taiwan, or a whole range of other things.” Nobody pressed Biden on the details, or his past record of not holding China accountable.

In his conversation with Xi Jinping, Biden said, “I made it clear that no American President — at least one did — but no American President ever back down from speaking out of what’s happening to the Uighurs, what’s happening in Hong Kong, what’s happening in-country.”

That ignored the composite character president David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama.

In a 2015 Foreign Policy piece headlined “Why Won’t Obama Speak Out About China’s Crackdown on Activists?” Rana Siu Inboden explained, “the Chinese government has increased its repression of Chinese human rights defenders.” A full 261 of the defenders “have been disappeared, detained, questioned, or harassed,” including Pu Zhiqiang, sentenced to ten years in prison and known for “speaking out on behalf of the beleaguered Uighur Muslim minority group and defending victims of torture.” Inboden lamented the administration’s “muted response.”

So Biden was mistaken that no president had ever backed down from speaking out. And in a February 17 interview with Anderson Cooper, Biden took up the theme:

“And so the idea I’m not going to speak out against what he’s [Xi Jinping] doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan, trying to end the One China policy by making it forceful — I said — and by the — he said he — he gets it.  Culturally, there are different norms that each country and they — their leaders — are expected to follow.” So Biden is okay with China’s “norms.”

“If you know anything about Chinese history,” Biden told Cooper, “it has always been — the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home.  So the central — to vastly overstate it — the central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China.  And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.”

No departure from the “not bad folks” description, and earlier in February Biden urged more infrastructure spending, otherwise China was “going to eat our lunch.” In similar style on March 25 Biden said, “I see stiff competition with China.” The handlers keep busy masking up Biden’s previous statements while ignoring his lucrative entanglements with the regime through son Hunter.

Like police captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden) in The Godfather, the “Big Guy” is into the regime for big money. As Michael Corleone said, that’s a terrific story, but for Democrats and their media allies, it’s only a Russian disinformation campaign. On Joe Biden’s watch, Communist China’s influence will continue to grow and expand.


Lloyd Billingsley


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter