Friday, July 9, 2021

Xi Jinping Is Mobilizing China for War, Possibly With Nukes - Gordon G. Chang

 

by Gordon G. Chang

Xi Jinping on July 1 told the world what he is going to do. We are, in all probability, in the last moments of peace.

  • Beijing looks as if it is preparing for a full-scale invasion of Indian territory.... Ladakh is not the only hotspot. There is a Chinese encroachment in India's Sikkim as well as incursions in neighboring Bhutan and Nepal.

  • Lately, Xi's references in public pronouncements have become unmistakable, and his subordinates have been clear that Xi believes that everyone outside China owes him obedience.

  • Xi, while spouting tianxia-like language and bellicose words, has been getting the Chinese people ready for war.

  • The changes signal the growing clout of the People's Army inside the Party and highlight the militarization of the country's external relations. China is fast becoming a military state.

  • Xi Jinping on July 1 told the world what he is going to do. We are, in all probability, in the last moments of peace.

China's President Xi Jinping, while spouting tianxia-like language and bellicose words, has been getting the Chinese people ready for war. The changes signal the growing clout of the People's Army inside the Party and highlight the militarization of the country's external relations. China is fast becoming a military state. Pictured: Xi (standing in vehicle) inspects People's Liberation Army soldiers at a military base in Hong Kong on June 30, 2017. (Photo by Dale de la Rey/AFP via Getty Images)

China in recent weeks has sent tens of thousands of troops to its disputed border with India in Ladakh, high in the Himalayas.

Beijing looks as if it is preparing for a full-scale invasion of Indian territory.

This deployment occurred while Chinese ruler Xi Jinping, in the words of the Communist Party's China Daily, made a "pro-peace, pro-development, and pro-cooperation speech" to celebrate the centennial of the Party's founding.

"The Chinese people have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will," Xi said on July 1.

In May of last year, the People's Liberation Army moved troops south of the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh, in other words, into Indian-controlled territory. A month later, on the night of June 15, Chinese soldiers launched a surprise attack, killing 20 Indian troops.

India responded by reinforcing its forces and launching a counterattack in August. China then added to its troop count, increasing the number of soldiers from 15,000 a year ago to 50,000 at this moment. Beijing has also brought advanced weapons to the area and began building bases.

Ladakh is not the only Himalayan hotspot. There is a Chinese encroachment in India's Sikkim as well as incursions in neighboring Bhutan and Nepal.

Beijing's campaign against India has been multifaceted. "Since June of last year, there was a China-attributed attack on the Mumbai electric grid, Chinese-linked Maoist terrorists killed another 20 Indian security forces, and we witnessed a destructive attack on an iPhone parts-manufacturing plant that looks like part of a Beijing political warfare operation to discourage the shifting of supply chains to India," Cleo Paskal of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told Gatestone.

As a result, many in India now see China in the worst possible light. As Paskal explains, "The breadth and depth of the Communist Party's aggressive unrestricted warfare against India leads one to think there are no barriers to Beijing's malign behavior."

The Indian people are right to be concerned. China has changed the definition of "warfare," and one of its instruments is disease. If SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing COVID-19, did not start out as a biological weapon, Chinese Communist Party leaders turned it into one, by lying about contagiousness and pressuring other countries to take disease-ridden arrivals from China.

"It's no wonder many Indians think their second wave of coronavirus was a deliberate release by China to weaken them further," Paskal notes.

Beijing looks as though it is even thinking of using nuclear weapons to fight the next war.

The Washington Post reported China appears to be building, in an area covering more than 700 square miles in the Gansu desert, 119 missile silos for the ten-warhead DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile. When added to 26 more silos the Chinese military is building elsewhere, China could soon be housing from these fixed locations about as much firepower as the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal. When China's missiles carried on mobile launchers and submarines are added, China's warheads could end up exceeding America's.

Because Beijing already has a sufficient number of nukes to deter others — China has had for a long time sufficient weapons for a so-called "minimal deterrent"— it looks as if Chinese military planners are thinking of using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity. China's flag officers and political leaders have in public threatened to use their arsenal in this way.

In any event, Xi Jinping in his bellicose July 1 speech promised to "crack heads and spill blood" of those standing in the way of what are, in essence, his plans to take territory under the control of others.

More significantly, he threatened to take down the existing Westphalian international system of sovereign states, established in 1648. "The Communist Party of China and the Chinese people, with their bravery and tenacity, solemnly proclaim to the world that the Chinese people are not only good at taking down the old world, but also good at building a new one," Xi said.

A new world? Throughout this century, Xi has made indirect references to tianxia, or "all under Heaven." For two millennia, Chinese emperors believed they both had the Mandate of Heaven to rule tianxia and the obligation to do so.

Lately, Xi's references in public pronouncements have become unmistakable, and his subordinates have been clear that Xi believes that everyone outside China owes him obedience.

Xi, while spouting tianxia-like language and bellicose words, has been getting the Chinese people ready for war. On July 1, he talked about foreigners meeting a "wall of steel built with the flesh and blood of 1.4 billion Chinese people."

Moreover, he is making preparations to use his shiny new military. Amendments to China's National Defense Law, effective the first of this year, transfer powers from civilian to military officials.

The amendments reduce the role of the central government's State Council and transfer powers to the Communist Party's Central Military Commission. Specifically, the State Council will no longer supervise the mobilization of the People's Liberation Army. At most, the central government will merely implement Party directives.

It is true that the law could be mere posturing — the Communist Party has always been in control — but the signaling is ominous nonetheless. The new law, after all, contemplates the mass mobilization of society for war.

The changes signal the growing clout of the People's Army inside the Party and highlight the militarization of the country's external relations. China is fast becoming a military state.

Xi Jinping on July 1 told the world what he is going to do. We are, in all probability, in the last moments of peace.

 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17547/china-mobilizing-war

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What Is China Doing? - Pete Hoekstra

 

by Pete Hoekstra

There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach "the right" judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.

  • What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China. Failing that, an acceptable outcome would be, as highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, that the virus "that killed millions of people and shattered the global economy" would be "among the world's most consequential mysteries."

  • There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach "the right" judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.

  • The Lancet has again come out with an unjustified dismissal of the lab leak theory, couched in support for the G7's call for a new COVID origins study, led by the World Health Organization (WHO).

  • Nothing could be better for China than having The Lancet as the messenger, lending scientific credibility to what the CCP wants the world to believe.

  • The July 5 publication of the letter in The Lancet is a strong signal that the CCP has launched an active disinformation campaign. The CCP will continue to spare no effort in ensuring that the COVID-19 virus appears to have originated somewhere other than China....

What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China... There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the Chinese Communist Party: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Pictured: Security personnel stand guard outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology on February 3, 2021 in Wuhan, China. (Photo by Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

On May 26, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had asked the U.S. intelligence community to redouble its efforts to determine the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The U.S. findings are expected in about 90 days. So now we know what the Biden administration is doing, but what will the Chinese government, or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), do? In light of China's obfuscation so far, it is absurd to imagine that it will be cooperating with the U.S. investigation. Neither will it be sitting idly by waiting to learn of the U.S. intelligence community's conclusions. Instead, the CCP will be doing everything it can to shape the report and ensure that the findings will be released in a context saturated by Chinese propaganda.

What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China. Failing that, an acceptable outcome would be, as highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, that the virus "that killed millions of people and shattered the global economy" would be "among the world's most consequential mysteries."

There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach "the right" judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.

On July 5, 2021, The Lancet published "Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans." This letter was written by the same "reputable" experts who in early 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, hurried to state -- despite egregiously insufficient evidence -- that the virus developed naturally and could not have been manufactured in a lab. That false narrative set the tone for more than one year.

Now, one-and-a-half years later, The Lancet has again come out with an unjustified dismissal of the lab leak theory, couched in support for the G7's call for a new COVID origins study, led by the World Health Organization (WHO). Among repeated affirmations of "solidarity... with those in China who [have] confronted the outbreak," the letter piously cautions that "it might take years of field and laboratory study to assemble and link data essential to reach rational and objective conclusions..." This type of delay, strategically accompanied by a strong but carefully hedged reassertion of the original claim that "we believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals," is exactly what the WSJ warned might happen. More significantly, it is exactly what China wants. Nothing could be better for China than having The Lancet as the messenger, lending scientific credibility to what the CCP wants the world to believe.

There is little doubt that The Lancet is being used, whether it realizes it or not, as a cog in the CCP propaganda machine. It may have its own interests or the interests of the letter's signatories to protect. Some of these individuals may have been involved in the study of viruses, gain of function, collaboration with the Chinese scientific community, and maybe even with the Wuhan lab. At any rate, it is difficult not to question their objectivity.

At the same time, the WHO is retesting samples in Italy. Naturally, the CCP claims that this demonstrates that the WHO is now exploring the possibility that COVID-19 may have developed outside of China. Some researchers have argued that studies of the origin of the virus should explore other areas outside of China, including the U.S., Spain and Brazil.

The July 5 publication of the letter in The Lancet is a strong signal that the CCP has launched an active disinformation campaign. The CCP will continue to spare no effort in ensuring that the COVID-19 virus appears to have originated somewhere other than China, or that there is so much uncertainty that it will always be one of world's biggest mysteries -- like "Where is Jimmy Hoffa buried?"

 

Pete Hoekstra is a former Representative in Congress from Michigan. He served as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. More recently he was U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17551/what-is-china-doing

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel, UAE economic ties falter as US freezes Abraham Fund 'indefinitely' - ILH Staff

 

by ILH Staff

The Biden administration is supportive of the historic peace treaty but it does not appear enthusiastic about appropriating the funds to see it flourish.

The great fanfare that greeted the signing of the Abraham Accords – particularly the supposedly burgeoning relationship between Israel and the United Arab Emirates – seems to have stalled, following the revelation that none of the economic projects agreed upon have entered into force.

According to financial daily Globes, US President Joe Biden's administration has appeared much less enthusiastic about allocating a budget for regional products than his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, who along with his negotiation team, which his son-in-law Jared Kushner headed, was instrumental in establishing.

The Biden administration has not replaced Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, whom Trump selected to lead the Abraham Fund and who left his position in January. Outwardly, the administration is supportive of the Abraham Accords, but it does not appear enthusiastic to allocate money from its budget to the Abraham Fund.

One of the potential stumbling blocks for American involvement is Biden's focus on domestic issues, particularly the continued massive government expenditure in the wake of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Israeli sources according to Globes, confirmed an unnamed senior US official who maintained that the fund was indefinitely frozen.

There are also tensions between the new Israeli government and the UAE. Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid's recent UAE trip, the first by an Israeli minister, was painted as entirely positive, although the Yesh Atid faction head irritated UAE business people when he failed to meet them.

The issues of the Haifa Port tender and the Europe-Asia Pipeline Co. (EAPC) are also potential points of division. UAE diplomatic sources revealed that they expected Israel – despite its new coalition government – to meet the previous Benjamin Netanyahu government's commitments.

i24NEWS contributed to this report.

 

ILH Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/07/08/israel-uae-economic-ties-falter-as-us-freezes-abraham-fund-indefinitely/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IAEA Inspection Reports Mostly Bad News - Oded Brosh

 

​ by Oded Brosh

The IAEA’s access, already limited, was further curtailed on June 24, when temporary agreements reached by the Agency with Iran expired. In the background is the victory of Ebrahim Raisi in the Iranian presidential election and the ascendance of a more extremist government than that of Rouhani

Map of the main sites of Iran's nuclear program, image via Wikimedia Commons


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 2,091, July 8, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The latest IAEA inspection reports on Iran show a continued escalation in a wide array of nuclear activities prohibited by the JCPOA, including accumulation of enriched uranium in quantities that exceed the limits set in the agreement as well as increasing levels of enrichment. Moreover, the reports complain that the Iranian regime is constantly hindering the Agency’s verification measures, leading to an ever more significant decline in its ability to ascertain and report on the details of Iran’s nuclear activities. The IAEA’s access, already limited, was further curtailed on June 24, when temporary agreements reached by the Agency with Iran expired. In the background is the victory of Ebrahim Raisi in the Iranian presidential election and the ascendance of a more extremist government than that of Rouhani.

On June 9, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a series of reports by the Secretary General dated April and May 2021 on Iran’s nuclear activities. Most are short notifications about Iran’s increasing use of advanced centrifuges and increasing levels of enrichment, both of which are prohibited by the JCPOA.

The most important of the reports issued is the detailed quarterly report, dated May 31, which discusses all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program with special emphasis on uranium enrichment activities and facilities. It shows that while the production of low enriched uranium at the Natanz FEP (fuel enrichment plant) appears to have been curtailed by about half—probably due to the “accident” in early April—most of Iran’s other activities are increasingly worrying.

Iran’s current stock of low enriched uranium at the 5% level is almost 1,800 kilograms, about six times the 300 kilograms allowed by the JCPOA and slightly above the 3.67% enrichment level that it permits. In addition, there are another 1,300+ kilograms of uranium enriched to the 2% level. While that might seem insignificant on the face of it, it brings Iran’s total quantity of enriched uranium to more than 3,200 kilograms, or more than 10 times what is allowed by the JCPOA.

It is true that the 1,800 kilograms of 5% enriched uranium are only about a sixth of the quantity that was in Iran’s possession on the eve of the implementation of the JCPOA in 2015, but this is not particularly reassuring. At the Natanz facility, the Iranians are in the process of installing and deploying for use more and more advanced centrifuges, the IR-2m and the IR-4, for the enrichment of uranium. This activity is not permitted by the JCPOA during the first 10 years’ duration of the agreement; i.e., until 2026 (this is in addition to replacing damaged IR-1 centrifuges, which is allowed).

There is more mostly bad news about the PFEP (Iran’s above-ground pilot fuel enrichment plant), which was not affected by the April incident. At that facility, the Iranians are using advanced IR-4 and IR-6 centrifuges to enrich uranium to the 60% level. The quantity enriched so far is only about two kilograms, which is not yet significant per se—but this activity is prohibited by the JCPOA for the first 10 years other than for R&D.

It would appear that at least in its first phase, this step was taken as a provocation in response to the sabotage at the FEP, as well as to increase pressure on the Biden administration in the ongoing negotiations to hurry up and capitulate to Iranian demands before the situation worsens. The 60% level is very near the level of highly enriched uranium (HEU) required for nuclear weapons, and is therefore alarming.

The Fordow facility (FFEP, or Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant), which is located inside a mountain on an IRGC military reservation, is continuing to produce 20% enriched uranium (as well as 5% enriched uranium). According to the report, Iran has produced about 60 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium so far (current to May 24; since then more may have been produced). This would be about a fifth the quantity in Iran’s possession on the eve of the October 2013 Joint Plan of Action (JPA) interim agreement, in which Iran agreed to cease enrichment to the 20% level and dispose of its existing stockpile. It did both in the ensuing months, using about half to produce fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and downblending the other half into natural uranium oxides.

The accumulation of significant stocks of 20% enriched uranium is an ominous milestone on Iran’s path to producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) for weapons. Moreover, it should be noted that the Fordow facility was allowed by the JCPOA to continue operations with the explicit understanding and stipulation that it no longer be used to enrich uranium, and that the small number of IR-1 centrifuges allowed to remain would be converted to civilian use with Russian assistance.

The Fordow facility is now using prohibited types of centrifuges to engage in prohibited enrichment to prohibited levels. The fact that Fordow was allowed by the JCPOA to continue to exist rather than be closed down and dismantled is telling. It is now clear why Iran insisted on its preservation as an indispensable part of the agreement.

Another disconcerting aspect of the IAEA report is the theme of frustration, and the long list of substantive complaints, about Iran’s increasing undermining of verification, transparency, and access, and its evasiveness at providing the Agency with information requested regarding suspect sites. The latter was always part of the IAEA’s quarterly reports, but this is now extending to more and more sites, including those that were previously accessible to Agency’s IAEA inspectors.

Iran is also increasing its restrictions on the ongoing monitoring of the enrichment facilities in such a way that the IAEA is reduced to estimating the quantities of the various stockpiles of enriched uranium. The report states that at this stage it is confident that these estimates are reliable as they correlate with verified findings, but intimates that this may not be the case in the future.

Over the past three months, Iran has increasingly restricted IAEA access, and the temporary extensions (or what remained of them) expired on June 24. The IAEA’s verification access is so eroded that it is becoming essentially worthless. At the Agency, work is ongoing to agree with Iran to an arrangement that will facilitate some kind of continued access in parallel to the continuing negotiations to renew adherence to the JCPOA.

It is not clear what position the new government in Tehran will take after the installation of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, and his government, which will take place on August 3. There is no doubt that it will be more radical than Rouhani’s and more in line with the extremist position of the Supreme Leader, the IRGC, and the other hard-line factions of the regime. It will be interesting to see whether Russia and the European partners to the JCPOA are able to successfully exert pressure on Iran to at least continue to enable IAEA monitoring of some of the crucial elements of the nuclear program, such as uranium enrichment.

The bottom line is the question of how far Iran now is from the ability to manufacture its first nuclear weapon.

According to the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, a worst-case analysis would put Iran at two to three months from the capacity (given that a decision to do so has been made) to produce enough weapons grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a nuclear weapon. the Institute assesses that had the April incident not taken place, Iran would be less than two months away from this capacity.

But the Institute emphasizes that this is a worst-case scenario, and that most assessments are less dire. Still, Iran is evidently, barring a return to the JCPOA commitments, moving forward toward a nuclear weapon relatively swiftly and with determination, and will continue to do so unless other events like the April incident slow it down. The coming months will inevitably see a series of crises in which the Biden administration, the new Israeli government, important Western European leaders, and perhaps others on the regional or international scene will be heavily invested.

View PDF

 

Oded Brosh is a Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy, IDC Herzliya.

Source: https://besacenter.org/iaea-inspection-reports-mostly-bad-news/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

President Trump Sues Big Tech Over Censorship - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

This isn't a one-shot deal. It's part of an extended legal battle positioning for a Supreme Court endgame.

 


Think of this as Step 2.

Governor Ron DeSantis signing a law restricting Big Tech censorship of political candidates was Step 1. Filing a class-action lawsuit in Florida is the next step after a legal environment was created by state legislation that allowed the lawsuit to be filed. Normally any lawsuit like this would have been a very long shot. It's still a long shot, but it now has the cover of an actual law that's on the books.

Big Tech and its Democrat judges and lawyers are obviously fighting the law with everything they've got.

A Clinton judge already intervened to protect Big Tech absurdly claiming that preventing them from censoring political candidates violates their First Amendment rights. So this is a legal battle that is taking place on multiple levels. But Florida is potentially much more hospitable to a campaign against Big Tech and so there are a number of reasons why, aside from residency, President Trump is filing his lawsuit there.

1. Big Tech has relatively little influence in Florida where the heavyweights are tourism and entertainment companies like Disney. You can expect Big Tech to start buying more influence in the state, but it'll take a while to build up its operation.

2. Under Governor DeSantis, Florida is actually moving affirmatively on legislation while other Republican governors are vetoing laws like this in response to pressure from Big Tech and assorted sports franchises and companies.

This isn't a one-shot deal. It's part of an extended legal battle positioning for a Supreme Court endgame. That's a long and hard road which will require framing it on such terms as to give Chief Justice Roberts as few excuses for tanking it as possible.

In the Facebook lawsuit, Trump contends that he was banned “using non-existent or broad, vague or ever shifting standards,” and accuses the company of prior restraint against him and other proposed class members.

That's undeniably true. Even Facebook's own leftist oversight board admitted as much. But that's typical of a double standard setup in which AOC doesn't get held accountable for Holocaust analogies and leftist rioters are labeled peaceful protesters even when they're attacking government buildings.

The lawsuit claims that Facebook has “also mounted an aggressive campaign of censorship against a multitude of Putative Class Members through censorship (flagging, shadow banning, etc.) resulting from legislative coercion.”

That's the class action part. Trump is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit involving the censoring of a class of conservatives.

The Trump lawsuit takes aim in part at Section 230, the portion of a 1996 law that provides legal immunity for the way that tech platforms moderate third party content on their site. It contends that this is an “unconstitutional delegation of authority to regulate free speech,” and that under pressure from Congress, Facebook can “impose a prior restraint on the protected political speech of a sitting President of the United States.” The lawsuit claims that “Democrat legislators in Congress” exerted “overt coercion” to compel the platform to “censor” views.

That last part is where things get interesting.

The Leftist defense of the censorship is that Facebook isn't a government agency. But that defense is fairly weak after years of Democrat hearings and pressure campaigns on Facebook. Justice Thomas has in particular appeared open to the argument that Big Tech censoring Republicans in response to Democrat pressure is state action. And it's not hard to find plenty of examples of Democrat elected officials threatening, berating, and demanding that Facebook censor their political opponents.

When government officials demand that a company censor its opponents, and it eventually complies, that's state action. 

And that may prove to be the best argument because, unlike a lot of others, it has a century of precedents behind it.

 

Daniel Greenfield
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/07/president-trump-sues-big-tech-over-censorship-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The question is when, not if, Hunter Biden's laptop will bring down Joe Biden's presidency - Thomas Lifson

 

​ by Thomas Lifson

Kamala Harris is Joe's insurance policy. If and when she leaves the vice presidency and is replaced by someone who could be elected in 2024, Joe's and Jill's days in the Oval Office are numbered.

Thanks to a series of leaks from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop computer, we know there is more than enough evidence to appoint a special counsel, or at least convene a grand jury to investigate bribery, tax fraud, and probably several other categories of crime involving the Biden Crime Family.  Three recent articles by highly respected reporters Miranda Devine (who has a book on the subject about to come out and whose work informs the other two writers), Byron York, and Emily Jashinsky present evidence typed in Hunter's own hand of the schemes whereby Hunter acted as the bagman collecting vast wealth from foreign interests by selling access to Joe when he was vice president and a potential candidate for the presidency.

All three accounts are worth reading, though there is considerable overlap.  From Devine, here is an example of evidence that already ought to have led to a subpoena for financial records:

Hunter complained that he was forced to give half his salary to his father. 

"I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years," Hunter wrote in a 2019 text message to his daughter, Naomi, that was found on his abandoned laptop

"It's really hard. But don't worry, unlike Pop [Joe], I won't make you give me half your salary." 

There's no direct evidence of such a wealth transfer on Hunter's laptop. 

A mildly curious U.S. attorney ought to be able to get a grand jury to subpoena the financial records of the Biden clan on this basis.  Or, in an alternate reality, a special counsel, appointed to reassure the public that their president is not beholden to foreign interests, ought to be digging through these and other financial records, such as (via Devine) that Hunter routinely paid at least some of his father's household expenses, including AT&T bills of around $190 a month. 

We know from an e-mail on June 5, 2010, with the subject "JRB bills" to Hunter from Eric Schwerin, his business partner at Rosemont Seneca, that he was expected to foot hefty bills to Wilmington contractors for maintenance and upkeep of his father's palatial lakefront property. Joe's initials are JRB, for Joseph Robinette Biden. 

The bills that June included $2,600 to contractor Earle Downing for a "stone retaining wall" at Joe's Wilmington estate, $1,475 to painter Ronald Peacock to paint the "back wall and columns" of the house, and $1,239 to builder Mike Christopher for repairs to the air conditioning at the cottage of Joe's late mother, Jean "Mom-Mom" Biden, which was on his property and which he would later rent to the Secret Service for $2,200 a month. 

"This is from last summer I think and needs to be paid pretty soon," wrote Schwerin of Christopher's bill. 

Another $475 "for shutters" was owed to RBI construction, of Bear, Del., about 15 minutes west of Wilmington. 

Gifts to public officials that are not disclosed can and have led to criminal prosecution of both parties.

As Byron York reminds us:

For years, Joe Biden was known as the poorest man in the U.S. Senate. It was a label he himself welcomed, claiming it showed how ethically clean he was. "I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left as one of the poorest men in government, in Congress, and as vice president," Biden said during his presidential campaign in 2019. What Devine has discovered suggests that while Biden bragged about his lack of money — in other words, claiming to be free of the financial corruption common in politics — he was relying on his influence-peddling son to pay some of his bills.

York also mentions the photo Devine obtained of Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim with both Bidens at the Vice President's Residence, putting the lie to Biden's claim he had no knowledge of Hunter's business dealings.  Hunter gloated over the size of the business deals he expected with Slim and his associates.  Recall that it was Slim's cash infusion that saved the New York Times when it was at a financial low point.

Jashinsky's headline summarizes the big issue: "In A Healthy Country, The Bidens Would Be Seen As The Picture Of Elite Corruption."  She reminds us that Joe raking off the top of Hunter's business income is an old story:

Hunter's complaint about his father taking a chunk of his earnings might sound familiar. It's basically exactly what we learned from Tony Bobulinski shortly before the 2020 election, even if the media chose not to treat that information credibly.

Here's more from Devine: "Further evidence that Joe expected to receive a slice of his son's income was provided by Tony Bobulinksi, Hunter's former business partner in a firm called Oneida, which was set up to enter a joint venture with the Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC. Bobulinski says that Joe was the "big guy" referred to in a 2017 e-mail who was to be allocated 10 percent equity in the firm: "10 [percent] held by H [Hunter] for the big guy."

CEFC is a recurring character in the Biden drama. When the FBI caught Patrick Ho, an executive with CEFC, bribing African officials with cash in Chad and Uganda, he made a call. It was to James Biden, whose brother had just departed the vice presidency and was exploring a bid for the Oval Office. Why on earth would a corrupt Chinese business executive make an emergency call to James Biden?

Well, according to Jim, Ho was actually trying to contact his nephew Hunter. Here's how the New York Times reported on the exchange back in 2018: "In a brief interview, James Biden said he had been surprised by Mr. Ho's call. He said he believed it had been meant for Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son. James Biden said he had passed on his nephew's contact information."

"There is nothing else I have to say," James Biden told the Times. "I don't want to be dragged into this anymore."

Part of the point of paying Hunter Biden money to oversee business dealings outside his areas of expertise is so that you can make a call just like the one Ho made back in 2017.

So the new emails make it pretty clear that Hunter Biden's corrupt foreign influence peddling benefitted the current president of the United States[.]

It is far from clear how many copies of Hunter's hard drive are in the hands of others, and far from clear who is orchestrating the leaks.  But what is absolutely clear is that Biden's presidency could be brought to its knees, possibly even ended, if the media gatekeepers at the New York Times and Washington Post decided to give the story enthusiastic coverage, bringing the rest of the agitprop along with them.  They could agitate for the appointment of a special counsel, as was done with President Trump over the nonsense Russiagate fake scandal.

Or a U.S. attorney who convened a grand jury could issue subpoenas and eventually obtain indictments, setting the stage for impeachment.

We understand why none of this is happening — yet.  Biden is serving his purpose, appointing officials and signing executive orders that advance the progressives' agenda.  But the drip, drip, drip continues and accumulates.

Glenn Reynolds, AKA the Instapundit, offers a fascinating theory:

Hunter's laptop is being held for when they decide to get rid of Joe. The leaks are just to remind everyone it's out there. Well, everyone except for Joe. He won't remember for long anyway.

This makes perfect sense because Joe Biden already is damaged goods, his accelerating mental decline self-evident to all who do not wear ideological blinders.  What is most intriguing is the calculus behind "when they decide to get rid of Joe."  I strongly suspect that Kamala Harris is now recognized to be such a disaster, unelectable if she inherits the presidency after Joe reigns, is impeached, or leaves under the terms of the 25th Amendment, that she must be Agnewed before Joe leaves.  Clayton Spann yesterday explored some of the types of maneuvers that might be executed to accomplish this, but there are many other approaches one could imagine.

Kamala Harris, for all her purported friction with Dr. Jill Biden, is Joe's insurance policy.  If and when she leaves the vice presidency and is replaced by someone who could be elected in 2024, Joe's and Jill's days in the Oval Office are numbered.

All of this is uncomfortably banana republic territory: powerful, unseen forces pulling strings and deciding the fate of the nation's leadership by manipulating corrupt media and officialdom.  That's where we are today.

Caricature by Donkey HoteyCC BY 2.0 license.

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

 

Thomas Lifson 

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/the_question_is_when_not_if_hunter_bidens_laptop_will_bring_down_joe_bidens_presidency.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rocket, drone attacks target US personnel in Iraq and Syria - Reuters and ILH Staff

 

by Reuters and ILH Staff

Analysts believe series of strikes part of a campaign by Iranian-backed militias. Iraqi militia groups aligned with Iran vowed to retaliate after US strikes on the Iraqi-Syrian border killed four of their members last month.

Rocket, drone attacks target US personnel in Iraq and Syria
US military vehicles are seen at Ain al-Asad Air Base in Iraq's Anbar Province, Jan. 13, 2020 | File photo: Reuters / John Davison

US diplomats and troops in Iraq and Syria were targeted in three rocket and drone attacks in the past 24 hours, US and Iraq officials said on Wednesday, including at least 14 rockets hitting an Iraqi air base hosting US forces, wounding two American service members.

While there were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attacks – part of a wave targeting US troops or areas where they are based in Iraq and Syria – analysts believed they were part of a campaign by Iranian-backed militias.

Iraqi militia groups aligned with Iran vowed to retaliate after US strikes on the Iraqi-Syrian border killed four of their members last month.

Two people were slightly wounded in the rocket attack on the Ain al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq, said coalition spokesman US Army Colonel Wayne Marotto. The rockets landed on the base and its perimeter, wounding three people.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two personnel injured were US service members. One suffered a concussion and the other had minor cuts, one of the officials added.

Two rockets were fired at the US Embassy inside Baghdad's Green Zone early on Thursday, Iraqi security sources said.

The embassy's anti-rocket system diverted one of the rockets, said one of the sources - a security official whose office is inside the Green Zone. The second rocket fell near the zone's perimeter, security officials said.

Sirens blared from the embassy compound inside the zone, which houses government buildings and foreign missions, the sources said.

In Syria, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces said no damage was caused by a drone attack on the Al Omar oil field in an eastern area bordering Iraq where US forces came under rocket fire but escaped injury on June 28.

The Pentagon said a drone had been brought down in eastern Syria and that no US service members had been injured, and there had not been any damage.

Iraqi army officials called the pace of recent attacks against bases hosting US forces with rockets and explosive-laden drones unprecedented.

Iraqi military sources said a rocket launcher fixed on the back of a truck was used in Wednesday's attack and was found on nearby farmland set on fire.

On Tuesday, a drone attacked Erbil International Airport in northern Iraq, targeting a US base on the airport grounds, Kurdish security sources said.

Three rockets also landed on Ain al-Asad on Monday without causing casualties.

Escalation

The United States has been holding indirect talks with Iran aimed at bringing both nations back into compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which was abandoned by then-President Donald Trump. No date has been set for a next round of the talks, which adjourned on June 20.

Hamdi Malik, an associate fellow at the Washington Institute and a specialist on Iraq's Shiite militias, said the attacks were part of a coordinated escalation by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.

The attempt to strike in eastern Syria appeared to be the first example of operations being carried out simultaneously in both countries.

"It seems to me they have the green light from Iran to escalate, especially given that the nuclear negotiations are not going well. But at the same time, they do not want to escalate beyond a certain point – they are more vulnerable to US airstrikes than they used to be – and they don't want to overcomplicate the negotiations Iran is holding with the West."

The United States told the UN Security Council last week that it targeted Iranian-backed militia in Syria and Iraq with airstrikes to deter them and Tehran from conducting or supporting further attacks on US personnel or facilities.

Iran denied supporting attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria and condemned US airstrikes on Iranian-backed groups.

 

Reuters and ILH Staff

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/07/08/rocket-drone-attacks-target-us-personnel-in-iraq-and-syria/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Who Was Karl Marx? - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

A new book delves into 200 years of his evil influence.

 


Karl Marx is over two centuries old. Ideas that used to be radical have long since become stale. Socialism is about as new and exciting as the telegraph or Bernie Sanders. Marxism is most likely to be studied in the countries where, as its proponents claim, it’s never really been tried.

Who was Karl Marx beyond the bearded guy on t-shirts in Berkeley and Austin?

In Who Was Karl Marx?: The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today's Rampaging American Left, investigative journalist James Simpson paints a scathing picture of Marx, his disciplines, and the political movement created by the fake prophet of a real catastrophe.

Marx was "hypocritically greedy, petty, arrogant, lazy, selfish, dishonest, two-faced, lecherous, bigoted and brimming with hatred", Simpson writes, backing that up with historical anecdotes.

Does it matter that Marx was a virulent bigot, that he hated most people, and even sired an illegitimate son, kept him in poverty, and never let him go past the servants' quarters?

It might not matter if Marx were just a writer whose work was disconnected from his loathsome personality, but Simpson convincingly argues that, “progressivism’s end  product  is merely the  reflection of Marx’s personality, played out to devastating effect on the world stage.”

Marxism, in other words, is terrible because Karl Marx was a miserable human being.

The same holds true for much of the Left. Its theories don’t just fail because they’re poorly thought out, but because they’re expressions of malice directed at the rest of the world.

But Who Was Karl Marx? is not a biography of Marx, so much as it’s a sketch of key leftist figures, and the influence of their ideas on the present. The book may begin with Marx, but it goes on to Black Lives Matter and Antifa. It touches on Lenin’s obsession with destroying his opponents through relentless dehumanization and smear campaigns in order to clarify the contemporary leftist obsession with political correctness and cancel culture.

The war on truth and reality are not an accidental derangement, but a calculated strategy.

“We are actually witnessing a Communist overthrow of the United States in real time,” Simpson writes. The smart set would sneer at such descriptions, the way that they did in the thirties and then the fifties. Dismissing talk of Communist conspiracies has been the way of Manhattan and Los Angeles cocktail parties for over a century. But that hasn’t gotten rid of the conspiracies.

Communism, like Marxism, is a name, and leftists are adept at conspiring and branding.

American Communists created an army of front groups, a practice that Simpson also traces back to its origins. The name changes and technical distinctions are a hollow exercise and within that hollowness are some of the same terrifying beliefs and agendas that animated the Weathermen and that fuel the radical agenda of the party that used to be the Democrats.

Cultural warfare, like Marx’s doctrines, is not a new idea. Neither is the reliance on identity politics or the war on truth. The Left does not create new ideas, rather it renews them.

The insistence that leftists have come up with some new ideas, when their new ideas are just the same old ones cloaked in a new flavor of identity politics or climate alarmism is gaslighting. Just because class warfare was swapped out for racial and then sexual identity politics, or because predictions of a new ice age were replaced with global warming and then the generic climate change doesn’t mean that leftist agendas are new, only that they have been rebranded.

Attacking truth and reality are also strategies, as Simpson writes, “to unhinge our society from  any and all anchors to reality, stability and security, to strike fear into our hearts, and to make us desperate for it to stop. I call it psychological terrorism.”

As America debates critical race theory, Who Was Karl Marx? notes that Marx had called for “a ruthless criticism of everything existing”. Obviously that is a privilege that the Left reserves for itself. While its activists and agitators have the right to criticise everything, they are immune from criticism. Critical race theory advances radical criticisms of America, but any criticism of it is deemed racist. The Left’s idea of criticism is not a marketplace of ideas, but a cultural tyranny.

Marx’s own brand of criticism was hateful, ignorant, and racist. And despite reserving the right to criticise everything, he was thin-skinned to the point of violent derangement, responding to any disagreement with frenzies of rage and vendettas that would last for decades. The revolutionary leader was, like most leftists of the period, more consumed with fighting other leftists.

While Marx took few risks, those who did soon came to regret ever trusting him.

"He laughs at the fools who repeat after him his proletarian catechism," one revolutionary later noted. Another accused him of being a secret government agent, alleging that, "everyone who engages in political machinations with Marx and his associates will sooner or later fall into the hands of the police" with "the instigators, Marx & Co. are of course sitting in London out of reach."

Such allegations might seem implausible except when you consider how Lenin was delivered to Russia in a sealed car and how Stalin acted as an informant for the Czarist secret police.The best way for a professional revolutionary to remain safe was by playing both sides.

If Marx had indeed been playing both sides, betraying revolutionaries and collecting money from government agents, he would not have been the first or the last. One of the enduring features of leftist groups is their abusive contempt for their own members and allies. As bosses, leftists are the worst slave drivers, as feminists, they turn out to be rapists, and as revolutionaries, tyrants.

As Simpson writes, “They think they can replace God. But instead, they just act out what they are at the core: entrepreneurial parasites; greedy, manipulative, megalomaniacal psychopaths.”

Leftist politics is a school for sociopaths who aspire to manipulate and destroy others. The techniques laid out in Who Was Karl Marx? make it a particularly potent guide for megalomaniacs, but beyond being a guide to seizing power, the policies don’t actually work.

Marxism is the Theranos of politics. It’s a political pyramid scheme that promises to help its followers steal from others to create equality. And its political schemes always end the same way in tyranny, failure, and death. Evil carries within it the seeds of its own destruction and Who Was Karl Marx?: The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today's Rampaging American Left is a handy guide to the evil that has manifested itself among us in all its destructiveness.

And finally to the ways we can fight back against the Left and defeat it before it destroys us.

 

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/2021/07/who-was-karl-marx-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ibram X. Kendi’s Parents Worked to Give Him a Good Life. He Called Them Racists - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

Critical race theory makes children into the enemies of their parents.

 


Ibram X. Kendi, the critical race theory prophet of his own twisted brand of antiracism, has become mandatory reading material at colleges, corporations, and in the military.

How to Be an Antiracist topped the New York Times bestseller list. Any of the progressive housewives, Fortune 500 executives, and assorted people being forced to page through the book would learn by the second chapter how Kendi’s middle-class black parents were racist.

“Both of my parents emerged from poor families, one from Northern urban projects, one from Southern rural fields. Both framed their rise from poverty into the middle class in the 1980s as a climb up the ladder of education and hard work. As they climbed, they were inundated with racist talking points about black people refusing to climb, the ones who were irresponsibly strung out on heroin or crack, who enjoyed stealing and being criminally dependent on the hard-earned money of climbing Americans like them,” Kendi writes. “My parents, along with many others in the new Black middle class, consumed these ideas.”

What makes these ideas racist? Believing that you can get ahead through hard work is whiteness talking. And expecting good habits to lead to good outcomes is racist because it ignores the systemic racism that makes success impossible for black people. Kendi’s parents, Larry and Carol Rogers, an accountant and business analyst, not only bought into the middle class dream, but they worked hard, and they succeeded at giving him a comfortable childhood.

"My parents... fed me the mantra that education and hard work would uplift me, just as it had uplifted them," Kendi agonizingly recalls. And if nothing else, he partially disproved them, becoming enormously successful on the back of education, but a worthless one in identity politics, and on denying the value of hard work.

"My parents—even from within their racial consciousness—were susceptible to the racist idea that it was laziness that kept black people down," he recalls.

Kendi’s problem is laziness, but it’s a particularly white kind of laziness. How to Be an Antiracist, like most critical race theory texts, leans heavily on the personal narrative of his particularly uninteresting life. Kendi manufactures victimhood out of thin air, when his father waves to him on the basketball court, he suggests that might have gotten him lynched or killed by the police.

His grandmother dies after a struggle with Alzheimer’s. "A disease more prevalent among African Americans," Kendi notes. "There may be no more consequential white privilege than life itself." Black people have a 3.5 percent higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s than white people for a disease that is the fifth most common cause of death among American senior citizens.

When your claim to oppression is your grandmother’s Alzheimer’s, you’re low on material.

But Kendi’s story is a familiar one to generations of white and then minority immigrants where the first generation labors hard to succeed, and then sends its kids to college only to have them come back as radicals who complain that their parents sold out by abandoning their dreams.

The old boomer paradigm that fed sixties white radicalism has kicked in among minority millennials of the upper middle class with a vengeance. The new black nationalist surge on college campuses largely owes its growth to privileged black men and women like Kendi, whose parents took the corporate route, while the kids rebelled and went into Black Studies.

“I always wonder what would have been if my parents had not let their reasonable fears stop them from pursuing their dreams,” Kendi whines. “Instead, Ma settled for a corporate career in healthcare technology. Dad settled for an accounting career. They entered the American middle class”.

Kendi’s racialism is reducible to that cliched radicalism of a son embarrassed by his insufficiently woke parents. It’s about as white as anything. And so is Kendi’s career which has taken him from condemning corporations to producing diversity content for corporations. Like most professional radicals, he wants to overthrow the system by becoming the system.

How to Be an Antiracist’s rants against “assimilationism” echo seventies black nationalism through modern personal identity politics that demands we acknowledge everyone’s identity. Whether it’s white people who insist that they’re Koreans, men who claim to be women, or corporate drones who insist they’re radicals, everyone wants to be who they aren’t.

Kendi’s fake African identity is a familiar brand of identity politics, but born out of the same shallow narcissism of a comfortable generation that seeks meaning in fake identities. A middle class kid named Henry Rogers is reborn as a black nationalist named Kendi. But the fake new identity doesn’t make him more authentic, but less so. The only way to assert a fake identity is for the man in the mask to go on a rampage against his authentic roots and his old past self.

If Obama’s racial memoirs were at least aspirational, Kendi’s is anti-aspirational.

Black people, whether it’s Kendi’s own parents, or black leaders from W.E. DuBois to Eleanor Holmes Norton are guilty of racism for urging achievement. Asking anyone, especially a member of a minority group, to work harder is racist. Suggesting that black people have problems that are caused by anything other than systemic racism is assimilationist.

And yet Kendi’s entire worldview, despite its trappings of sham Africanism, is white.

It’s not some imaginary whiteness, but that of academic identity politics which is absurdly white. Kendi’s parents may have been black, despite some distant white ancestor whom he makes much of, but his entire value system is derived from white political correctness.

He arrived at college "as a racist, sexist homophobe", Kendi writes. The fault was, as usual, his middle class parents. "Dad’s sexist ideas demanded he lead and Ma’s sexist ideas submitted. She would call him the head of the household. He would accept the calling." Horror of horrors.

Kendi’s parents “demonized” single mothers, along with drug dealers and criminals. He blames Reagan and internalized whiteness, but the black opposition to crime preceded Reagan and was a matter of basic self-interest that united the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, and everything in between. It took white people to redefine drug dealers as victims of white oppression.

The cult of the criminal in black activist circles is not a reflection of any organic movement within the black community, but the imposition of a white Marxist perspective. The collapse of support for police defunding in the black community in every poll shows just how alien it is. It’s every bit as alien as Kendi’s hostility to black masculinity which is equally white and assimilationist.

How to Be an Antiracist is meant to be part memoir, but Kendi doesn’t have much of a story to tell. That’s surprisingly commonplace among critical race theory memorists whose lack of interesting personal content, beginning with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me, has only made their works more successful. If Obama’s memoirs offered elements of the exotic, the black middle class activist against whiteness succeeds because his story is familiarly white.

We have come a long way from Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice or Alex Haley’s dubious Malcolm X biography. Today’s black nationalist is a suburban college kid nurtured by a middle class two-parent family who denounces the suburbs, the middle class, and families like his as racist.

But the familiar problem, which Kendi only loosely describes in his chapter on dueling consciousness, and which is better embodied by the title of Black-ish, is that the generation of middle class black parents who kept their children safe from crime (Kendi’s father put up a basketball court in their backyard because he was worried about his son getting shot) succeeded all too well. Like too many generations of Irish, Italian, Jewish, Latino, and Asian parents, they raised radical woke snowflakes who are good for little except complaining.

Assimilationism has done its job all too well. The trouble is that the engines of assimilationism, universities, mass culture, and the upper middle class are assimilating the new generation out of America rather than into it, breeding dissatisfaction and nurturing radicalism as their identity.

Revolutions are made by the prosperous, not the dispossessed. Lenin, a member of a noble family, warred on the nobility. Castro, the son of a plantation owner, fought the plantations. Mao, the son of a landlord, oversaw the mass murder of landlords. The Left makes children into the enemies of the values of their parents. And How to Be an Antiracist is really a very old story about the resentments of middle class children who never really learned how hard life can be.

Ibram X. Kendi calls everything he doesn’t like racist. “Racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and an antiracist the next,” he argues. Racism, like most identity politics tropes, is everywhere and nowhere. It’s an identity politics weapon that is an attack on identity while claiming to be a defense against attacks on identity.

Mostly racism consists of the common sense approaches of his parents to dealing with a dangerous world while antiracism consists of his clueless disregard for how life really works.

Kendi complains about the “constant fearmongering about Black drug dealers, robbers, killers,” of his parents, but young black men are far more likely to be killed by the former than by the police whom he and the Black Lives Matter movement fearmonger endlessly about.

His parents made a difficult journey that he does not understand and has no concept of how difficult it would be to recreate in his own privileged circumstances. That’s the same perch which countless of his white leftist peers occupy. It’s no wonder that he’s so popular with them.

How to Be an Antiracist doesn’t convey a racial crisis, but the crisis of an American upper middle class which has lost touch with its own roots and whose children have become an enemy of its aspirational values. That, more than anything else, is leading the country into the kind of shopworn Marxism that Kendi and other radicals peddle as narcissistic identity politics.

Defining everyone, including his parents, as racists, interpreting and reinterpreting the world through academic lenses, is the hobby of privileged people who don’t have real problems.

Ibram X. Kendi may not have real problems, but the rest of the country isn’t so privileged.

And Kendi has become another of the problems undermining the black community, destroying the middle class life his parents worked so hard to achieve, and tearing apart America.

 

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/2021/07/ibram-x-kendis-parents-worked-give-him-good-life-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Are We Seeing a Cultural Realignment? - John Green

 

by John Green

Are Americans taking back their schools, Constitution, values, and the narrative?

Recently we’ve been seeing stories in the news about average Americans pushing back against liberal initiatives.  Taken alone, these stories are entertaining, though not particularly earth-shattering.  But observed together, do they form a pattern?  Are we seeing the beginning signs of a cultural realignment?

One recent story is that of women protesting a California spa allowing “perfectly normal women with penises” to use the female facilities.  The protesters were quick to point out that they are Democrats and support LGBTGFNB  rights.  But it turns out there is a limit to the amount of leftist baloney that even Democrats can accept.  Equity for people with gender confusion sounds compassionate in theory.  In reality, it facilitates naked men bathing with our six-year-old daughters -- which inspires a different emotion than compassion.

“Perfectly normal women with penises” competing in women’s sports is all over the news too.  The left has been telling us that we need to accept each person’s perception of reality -- even if that person is somewhat gender confused.  But “perfectly normal women with penises” competing in women’s sports has illustrated the absurd destination this path leads to.  Why don’t we go ahead and let heavyweight boxers identify as lightweights and let them beat the crap out of somebody half their size?  After a year of this nonsense, we’re beginning to see that there may be many perceptions of reality, but there is only one actual reality.  Are feminists starting to see that their movement sold them into servitude to liberalism and they’ve become the handmaidens of leftism?

Debate about Critical Race Theory (CRT) being taught in our schools has broken out across the country.  Protests against CRT at school board meetings have gotten loud and contentious.  A number of states have even passed legislation prohibiting it in public schools.  It’s all fine and good to want to eliminate racism until that morphs into teaching our children to hate themselves.  Teachers’ unions and numerous school boards are fighting back against the protests.  The very people who told us just a few years ago that every kid needs to get a trophy -- because we must support their self-esteem -- are now telling us that we need to teach our kids that they’re guilty of sins committed 200 years ago.  They’ve tipped their hand.  They’re not in the business of teaching, they’re in the business of indoctrination. 

Over 60% of U.S. counties are now covered by some form of local 2nd Amendment protection legislation.  Through either state or county legislation, 1,930 counties essentially have 2nd Amendment sanctuary status now.  I like guarantees.  The 2nd Amendment is our guarantee that our government can never turn our military against us.  It’s good to know that our guarantee is backed by 61% (and growing) of our local governments.  It seems our local and state governments still believe the Constitution means what it says and are defending it -- not against foreign enemies, but against domestic enemies.  It’s too bad more of our federal officials don’t remember that part of their oath of office.

Republicans are now unquestionably the party of the working man.  Labor unions continue to back the Democrats, but their members are definitely switching sides -- and the election results prove it.  After decades of losing jobs to bad trade deals negotiated by their so-called advocates, they’re realizing that they were played for patsies.  Trump gave them a glimpse of what was possible with an “America First” ideology -- and they like it.

An unprecedented 38% of Latinos voted Republican in the last election.  Nothing creates a flop-sweat among Democrats more than the realization that one of their designated intersectionality groups can actually think for themselves.  It turns out that Americans who originated from somewhere else still value freedom, the nuclear family, and the availability of jobs.  They like what they came to America for, not what the leftists are trying to turn it into.  This is going to be a problem for proponents of socialism.

Even attitudes on abortion are slowly beginning to shift.  Millennials in the 18-29 age group now support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks by 52%.  Only 44% of those 50 and older support such a ban.  The pro-choice crowd is also alarmed by the “enthusiasm gap” among millennials.  Of millennials who identify as pro-life, 51% consider it an important issue.  Of those who identify as pro-choice, only 20% consider it an important issue.  Pro-life millennials are passionate on the subject, while pro-choice millennials are only tepid about it.  Given that enthusiasm is a leading indicator of a cultural shift, the future is looking much brighter for unborn babies.  Nobody expected a pro-life position to be embraced by this generation of young adults -- surprise!  The Democrats may want to rethink their litmus test.

Andrew Breitbart famously said, “Politics is downstream from culture.”  Political attempts to force a desired culture are tyranny -- plain and simple.  In a free society, politics will always be a reflection of culture.  Are we seeing a pattern?  Are Americans taking back their schools, Constitution, values, and the narrative?  If the pushback we’ve seen in the last few months continues, the left is in big trouble -- and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of wannabe tyrants.

Image: Picryl

 

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star, Idaho. He is a retired engineer with 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He currently writes at the American Free News Network (americanfreenewsnetwork.org).  He can be followed on Facebook or reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/are_we_seeing_a_cultural_realignment.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter