Friday, July 16, 2021

Chaffetz claims 'direct evidence' Joe Biden was privy to Hunter's business deals, as House GOP seeks documents - Charles Creitz


by Charles Creitz

GOP seeks White House docs on Biden family business ventures

 GOP seeks White House documents on Biden family business ventures

Government Accountability Institute fellow Jason Chaffetz, a former Utah Republican congressman, claimed Wednesday on "Hannity" that there is direct evidence being laid out by one of his GAI colleagues that shows President Joe Biden was privy to his 51-year-old son R. Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings.

Chaffetz alluded to news that investigative author and GAI President Peter Schweizer had found materials on a hard drive Hunter Biden left at a Wilmington, Del., laptop repair shop that prove Joe Biden was a "direct beneficiary of Hunter’s nefarious foreign dealings," in the words of host Sean Hannity

"I do work with Peter, and what he’s done is his cross-referenced some of the data from Hunter Biden’s laptop with the Secret Service records released by [Wisconsin Sen. Ron] Johnson and another business associate of Hunter Biden. So they are very careful about what they’re looking at here," Chaffetz said.

"But there is direct evidence that Joe Biden himself — Joe and Jill Biden -- took direct benefit by using assets and things that were purchased based on the transaction that Hunter Biden was involved in and engaged with these foreign entities," he added.

"[Hunter] has taken money from the former mayor of Moscow’s wife to the tune of millions of dollars. He has flown on Air Force Two with one of his business associates," Chaffetz continued.

"How does a business associate of Hunter Biden's fly on Air Force Two to go to Mexico City to set up a deal? You haven’t heard the last of that -- He’s also flown on Air Force Two to China and then he has these Ukraine monies flowing in by the tens of billions of dollars. This is one of the biggest political scandals that we have ever seen and it’s being covered up by the media, it is not being investigated and the FBI certainly is doing its part to make sure that this information doesn’t get out the door," the Utahn added.

Hannity added that Chaffetz' and Schweizer's purported findings give credence to claims former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski made on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in 2020, weeks after the New York Post's bombshell report on the existence of the laptop was censored on social media.

Bobulinski, a Navy veteran and the former head of SinoHawk Holdings --  which he describes as a partnership between the CEFC China Energy conglomerate and two Biden family members -- told Carlson that he almost walked out of October's second presidential debate when candidate Biden discussed the topic.


On Wednesday, Fox News learned exclusively that the Republican side of the House Oversight Committee – which is led by Ranking Member Rep. James Comer of Kentucky – launched an effort to probe the business ventures of President Biden's family members, especially Hunter Biden's newfound art career, and document how the Bidens have sought to "profit off the presidency."

Citing news reports, committee Republicans accuse Hunter, the president's brother Frank Biden and his sister Valerie Biden-Owens of using the president’s position to their advantage – and are demanding answers from the White House on such business dealings.

Of high concern for the Republicans is Hunter Biden's new career path as an artist and his plans to sell his paintings at upcoming exhibitions in Los Angeles and New York, where his art could be listed as high as $500,000. In order to avoid an appearance of outsiders trying to peddle influence with the Biden family, the White House crafted an agreement to keep the names of the buyers confidential from the 51-year-old Biden and the White House.

Last week, Walter Shaub – who served as President Barack Obama's ethics czar – sounded the alarm on Hunter Biden's newfound passion, calling the White House arrangement allowing him to sell his art "the perfect mechanism for funneling bribes" to his father.

Also last week, activist Rod Webber was arrested for vandalizing the Georges Berges Gallery in New York City's SoHo, which is marketing Hunter's art.

Fox News' Tyler Olson and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Charles Creitz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tehran insists it can enrich uranium to weapons grade purity if needed - Neta Bar and Reuters


by Neta Bar and Reuters

"The Zionists, together with reactionary regimes in the region, emphatically opposed the nuclear deal from the outset." They thought the Iranian regime would collapse when Trump withdrew from the deal, "but that was a miscalculation," Iranian President Rouhani says.


Tehran insists it can enrich uranium to weapons grade purity if needed
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attends a cabinet meeting in Tehran | File photo: AFP / HO / Iranian Presidency

Iran said on Wednesday it could enrich uranium up to 90% purity – weapons-grade – if its nuclear reactors needed it, but added it still sought the revival of a 2015 deal that would limit its atomic program in return for a lifting of sanctions.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's remark was his second such public comment this year about 90% enrichment – a level suitable for a nuclear bomb – underlining Iran's resolve to keep breaching the deal in the absence of any accord to revive it.

The biggest obstacle to producing nuclear weapons is obtaining enough fissile material – weapons-grade highly enriched uranium or plutonium – for the bomb's core.

Iran says it has never sought nuclear weapons.

"Iran's Atomic Energy Organization can enrich uranium by 20% and 60% and if one day our reactors need it, it can enrich uranium to 90% purity," Rouhani told a cabinet meeting, Iranian state media reported.

The nuclear deal caps the fissile purity to which Tehran can refine uranium at 3.67%, well under the 20% achieved before the pact and far below the 90% suitable for a nuclear weapon.

Iran has been breaching the deal in several ways after the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018, including by producing 20% and 60% enriched uranium.

Rouhani, who will hand over the presidency to hardline cleric Ebrahim Raisi on Aug. 5, implicitly criticized Iran's top decision-makers for "not allowing" his government to reinstate the nuclear deal during its term in office.

"They took away the opportunity to reach an agreement from this government. We deeply regret missing this opportunity," state news agency IRNA quoted Rouhani as saying.

"The Zionists, together with the reactionary regimes in the region, emphatically opposed the nuclear deal from the outset. When a political crazy man came to power in the US, they told him that if he left the deal, the regime in Iran would collapse. But that was a miscalculation," Rouhani said in defense of the accord.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not the president, has the last say on all state matters such as nuclear policy.

Like Khamenei, Raisi has backed indirect talks between Tehran and Washington aimed at bringing back the arch-foes into full compliance with the accord. Former US President Donald Trump quit the deal three years ago, saying it was biased in favor of Iran, and reimposed crippling sanctions on Tehran.

The sixth round of nuclear talks in Vienna adjourned on June 20. The next round of the talks has yet to be scheduled, and Iranian and Western officials have said that significant gaps remain to be resolved.

Two senior Iranian officials told Reuters that President-elect Raisi planned to adopt "a harder line" in the talks after taking office, adding that the next round might resume in late September or early October.

One of the officials said many members of Iran's nuclear team might be replaced with hardline officials, but top nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi would stay "at least for a while."

The second official said Raisi planned to show "less flexibility and demand more concessions" from Washington such as keeping a chain of advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges in place and insisting on the removal of human rights- and terrorism-related US sanctions.

Trump blacklisted dozens of institutions vital to Iran's economy using laws designed to punish foreign actors for supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.

Removing oil and financial sanctions is essential if Iran is to export its oil, the top prize for Tehran for complying with the nuclear agreement and reining in its atomic program.

Sources told Reuters a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards pushed for Iraqi Shiite militias to ramp up attacks on US targets during a visit by an Iranian delegation headed by the head of Revolutionary Guards Intelligence, Hussein Taib, to Baghdad last week. The visit by the delegation followed US attacks on Iranian-backed militias on the Syria-Iraq border on June 27.

Reuters reported the Iranians had advised the militias to broaden the attacks while avoiding a large-scale escalation. In addition, a senior official in the region said Taib had met with several Iraqi militia leaders and relayed them the following message from Khamenei: Maintain pressure on US forces in Iraq until they depart the region.


Neta Bar and Reuters


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

American Decadentocracy - Gary Gindler


by Gary Gindler

What term better describes the current state of U.S. society?


What do American sailors read? The list of books recommended for the US Navy has been around for a long time and is not a secret. It includes excellent books on the history of naval battles, reports on the effectiveness of various weapon systems, and naval battles' strategy elements. Of course, there have been a few oddities on this list. As an example, the US Constitution continues to be missing from this list. However, there was never something seriously reprehensible on this list – till Joe Biden became a Supreme Commander.

The author of one of the recently suggested books for sailors, Ibram Kendi, is known for his catchphrase, "White people are a different breed of humans." The author of the book "How to Be an Antiracist" overtly states that he hates all whites and promotes the view that whites are devils. Let me remind you that this is the 21st century.

So far, no one has convincingly explained why such an intellectually weak and otherwise damaging book is recommended for reading in the Navy. However, it is only on the surface that the book is the quintessence of idiocy. The fact is that this book is written in a foreign language, which, however, draws its vocabulary exclusively from English.

The language of the book is well-known; it is Newspeak. This book argues that racism and capitalism "will eventually die at the same time." The author argues that "capitalism is essentially racist and racism is essentially capitalist." Contrary to popular belief, anti-racism is not a euphemism for black racism. The situation here is reminiscent of the story with the term "global cooling." This term has been replaced by the term "global warming" and then by "climate change," whereas this term has nothing to do with climate.

Just like modern Antifa has nothing to do with anti-fascism. Just like the phrase "Black Lives Matter" has nothing to do with black people. Moreover, both the words "Black Lives Matter" and "anti-racism" do not have any racial connotations in Newspeak.

Likewise, Critical Race Theory has nothing to do with race. Therefore, it is not some new coherent theory, as it is solely paraphrased Marxism. The correct translation of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" from Newspeak into ordinary English is, "The life of Marxists Matter." Likewise, the accurate translation from Newspeak of the term "anti-racism" is Marxism.

Once you know the proper translation, you begin to understand why the phrases "White Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" evoke such a harsh reaction from the left. After all, within the language of the left, these phrases mean "The life of anti-communists matter," which, of course, is very offensive to them.

"White," in modern Newspeak, simply means anti-Marxist (sometimes anti-communist) and has nothing to do with the amount of melanin pigment in one's skin. This is why the word "Black" in Newspeak should be capitalized, just as it is customary in English to capitalize the word "Marxist." In other words, in Newspeak, a black is a black person, but a Black is a soldier of the revolution, a Marxist with a capital M.

The author of the "white privilege" concept, former Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev has proposed many other popular constructs of Newspeak. (Professor Ignatiev himself was – depending on what language the conversation was in – either white or Black). According to Ignatiev, "racism is a form of anti-communism." Therefore, all whites, according to the left, are anti-communists by definition.

The message being drummed into American sailors is very simple: "You might be a racist without even knowing it." The incredible thing is that this may turn out to be true – the vast majority of sailors are really not racist, but this is only if you use the "old" definition of racism. The characterization of racism in modern Marxist Newspeak means anti-communism – and this is precisely what the sailors do not suspect. Nor do the sailors suspect that Critical Race Theory is simply a less radical and more academic (to be more precise, more pseudo-scientific) presentation of the outmoded communist concepts of Noel Ignatiev.

In the brainwashing of the sailors, the 8-year purge of senior officers from the ideologically objectionable contingent during Barack Obama's presidency also played a role. This purge was similar in its parameters to Joseph Stalin's Red Army purge, although it was less extensive and less bloodthirsty. It seems that both pernicious purges have been crowned with success – in the Red Army and in the American military, political loyalty and adherence to ideological dogmas are now integral to successful careers. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has continued Obama's senior officer degradation program. As in the Soviet Union, they try to make American officers not warriors but fighters on the ideological front. What percentage of military officers would like to be transformed from combatants into loyal apparatchiks?

We should fear that foreign intelligence services will eventually find out the best-guarded secret by the Pentagon – the political loyalty of the American military is now placed above their military merit. The question of how the American and Chinese generals will behave in the event of a military conflict in the Taiwan region is also fascinating. After all, both military men have gone through a very similar ideological selection and are grounded in practically identical, sister ideologies.

The currently quite loyal American officers seem to have liked Biden's innovations – new types of hairstyles and appearance are being introduced in the US Army. Ponytail hairstyles, cosmetics, manicures, and lipstick will now be allowed (with one exception – men's nail polish must be transparent). Braids with bows and dyed hair will also be permitted for women. Can you imagine what horror American soldiers with make-up, varnished nails, and multi-colored knots of ribbons will bring to the enemy?

One of Biden's most recent initiatives is an Executive Order to train all federal government personnel in the basics of Critical Race Theory. Unfortunately, it looks like the actual goal of this Order would be an introduction of the institution of political commissars in America, designed to emulate the activities of Soviet commissars. Apparently, soon the left will simply forbid civil servants to think otherwise; everything that does not correspond to the general party line will prohibit any ideological dissent in the American power structures.

Previously viewed as a purely natural phenomenon, permanent climate change is now mobilized to settle political scores. The quintessence of the insanity of the American left is the acceptance into the arsenal of political battles of such truly permanent concepts as a person's gender and race.

Muslims call "unbelievers" (that is, non-Muslims) by the word kafir; it is against the kafirs that the jihad is waged. The left also came up with a word for all "nonbelievers" in Karl Marx's genius – "white." At the same time, whites (in the racial sense) should not attach any racial meaning to the definition of "white" in Newspeak.

The level of "black," like the level of "white," currently denotes only the level of adherence to Marxist dogmas and nothing more.

When you hear that "all whites are racist," don't be upset. It merely implies that "all opponents of Marxism are racists" (learning foreign languages ​​has always been beneficial, and Newspeak is no exception). As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

If you think that modern America resembles an absurd theater, try simply visiting the numerous websites of American communists. Everything is explained in detail, and an accurate translation from Newspeak into the language we are familiar with is given. There is no absurdity in America – on the contrary, everything is happening according to the well-known and proven plan – the plan to squeeze America out of America. As a result of this plan, visiting some areas of America with the American flag is strongly not recommended, but red flags with a hammer and sickle are welcome.

With Biden's arrival at the White House, America took a giant leap from democracy to decadentocracy.

The term decadentocracy, understood as the political setback and decline of the achievements of the 18th century American Revolution, perhaps best describes the current state of American society. So, what awaits American military and government officials in the next phase of decadentocracy? Marx's "Das Kapital?" "Communist Manifesto"? "Red Book" by Mao? Or the favorite book of the left in the recommended reading pantheon, "Mein Kampf?"

Most likely, many American admirals and generals, supporters of radical leftist ideology, value themselves very highly. Hence, let's consider a modest proposal for people like them – add the memoirs of the Soviet communist Karl Radek to the recommended reading list. From the memoirs of Karl Radek, the world first learned about to whom exactly comrade Lenin assigned the nickname "useful idiots."


Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and a new science founder: Politiphysics. Follow him on (soon-to-be-suspended from) Twitter.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The National Education Association’s Radical Agenda for Public Education - Richard L. Cravatts


by Richard L. Cravatts

Turning classrooms into indoctrination centers for social activism.


One positive aspect of the vigorous current debate over critical race theory (CRT) being taught in public schools is that parents and other interested parties have a new awareness of what is being taught in their children’s classrooms. The criticism has also resulted in educators closing ranks against a questioning of their perceived role in promoting a leftist, radical ideology that many think has no place in public school systems.

In a July 6th speech at an American Federation of Teachers (AFT) meeting, Randi Weingarten, the organization’s left-leaning president, defended the teaching about race and pushed back against critics who questioned the educational and moral validity of CRT being part of a school curriculum.

"Let's be clear,” Weingarten proclaimed, mendaciously, however, “critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or high schools.” And answering back defiantly to anyone who questioned how the current teaching about race may be divisive rather than educational, she further claimed that ". . . culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic. They are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history."

Weingarten and other educators, including local boards across the country, have been walking back their previous vigorous defense of CRT, claiming instead, as she did, that teaching about race and white supremacy is merely “accurate history,” and not part of a campaign to indoctrinate students with an ideological mishmash of racial justice, activism, white police brutality, social and economic disparities between whites and so-called “people of color,’ and a culture of white supremacy in which the privilege of the majority disadvantages and oppresses black victims.

But Weingarten’s protestation aside, the National Education Association (NEA) -- with some 1,680,000 members -- and other educators groups are not only actively engaged in promoting CRT but are creating learning environments in which students are bombarded with an increasingly radical set of lesson plans, some taught in conjunction with Black Lives Matter at School Week and some part of regular instruction, that teach children a one-sided view of race, law enforcement, class, family structure, crime, and economics—topics that have not heretofore been a central, or even appropriate, part of K-12 education.

What began as a well-intentioned attempt to teach tolerance and anti-racism in schools—a perfectly acceptable and reasonable component of a child’s education—has widened into an ideological campaign that permeates school curricula and exposes children to a set of radical, leftist ideas about race and society that are certainly not mainstream, even if they should be taught in public schools in the first place.

Some components of that ideological campaign were revealed at the NEA meeting, in fact, in one matter adopted by members, New Business Item 39. Contrary to Weingarten’s minimizing CRT’s presence, the resolution committed the NEA members to “Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory . . . [and] have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.”

And lest there be any doubt about how committed the NEA members are to leftist ideology, the contorted language of this business item affirms the promotion of “an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy [sic], capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”

Not only is the NEA actively engaged in promoting CRT, but, contrary to Weingarten’s public denials, it plans to fund an effort to attack and discredit any critics of CRT in the schools, including the controversial and discredited 1619 Project that attempts “to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”

The NEA’s obsession with race, social justice, and victimization permeates the organization’s ideology and its notion of what should be taught, and propagandized, in public schools. In an NEA resource guide, “Racial Justice in Education,” for example, the organization lays out for teachers a group of what they term “Guiding Principles on Racial & Social Justice in Education.” The NEA’s “vision for public education,” the guide proclaims, “advances inclusion, equity, and racial and social justice in our schools and society.”

Whether it is the primary, or even secondary, role of public education to promote social justice in society is a discussion that may be worthwhile to have before educators commit to it fully and design teaching programs to advance this leftist agenda and indoctrinate children with its tenets.

The bias in the NEA’s vision is revealed in some of the subsequent language of the guide, particularly such bafflegab as the proclamation that teachers’ “work must dismantle white supremacy, and ensure that bigotry or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, disability or national origin are not part of our classrooms, educational curricula, school policies and discipline practices,” and, in a nod to the factually incorrect notion that white law enforcement brutalizes minorities, that “schools must be safe for all students, and free from state-sanctioned, racialized, and gender-based violence.”

Teachers are encouraged to engage as social activists—and to pass on that engagement to their students—by other teaching resources, as well. On an NEA-sponsored website,, for example, one of the recommended books is Teaching for Black Lives, a Rethinking Schools publication. The book’s introduction challenges teachers to enlist in a campaign for racial equity, and, in fact, to transform classrooms into centers of resistance, with students, presumably, complicit activists.

“The ferocity of racism in the United States against black minds and black bodies demands that teachers fight back,” the book’s introduction read, and the editors “see this collection as playing an important role in highlighting the ways educators can and should make their classrooms and schools sites of resistance to white supremacy and anti-Blackness . . . .”

Even though one would expect that teaching basic skills of language, history, mathematics, science, and other disciplines is the primary role of educators, according to the editors of this book, teachers “must organize against anti-blackness amongst our colleagues and in our communities; we must march against police brutality in the streets; and we must teach for Black lives in our classrooms.”

Black Lives Matter, of course, had seeped into school instruction prior to George Floyd’s death, at which point its visibility and adoption accelerated at a dizzying rate. But educators had already begun to adopt some of the movement’s principles and ideology, and particularly those aspects which called on supporters to become activists in the cause of racial justice.

Support for BLM is fine for adult citizens who wish to promote racial equity in American society. Whether it is appropriate for children to have to absorb its worldview—much of it animated with hatred for the police, a vision of a fundamentally and irredeemably racist society, Marxist and anti-Semitic elements, and other less than savory aspects of the movement—is another question, but the NEA and many teachers apparently feel it is their duty to indoctrinate students with this particular view of racism and American society.

Teaching for Black Lives’ introduction admits that one of its sections, “Making Black Lives Matter in Our Schools,” has as its purpose to show “how police violence and the movement for Black lives can explicitly be brought to schools and classrooms by educators through organizing mass action and through curriculum” and how “it is also important for students and teachers to understand their roles in organizing in support of Black life and Black communities, and against anti-Black racism” through “the hope and beauty of student activism and collective action.”

If the prevailing ideology in classrooms, based on these curricular materials, is one that divides children by race, black and white, oppressed and oppressor, victimizer and victim, privileged and unprivileged, then one has to question what exactly the purpose of this teaching is. Who does it benefit? Public schools are not civil rights organizations where activists committed to a particular cause work to address that problem in the wider world and attain racial harmony, peace, economic equity, or some other social good. These are public school classrooms, places where now a white student, regardless of whether he or she has any actual bias in them, will be considered privileged, oppressive, and part of the hateful, bigoted white majority.

Given how the left and Democrats spent the last four years labeling Trump supporters and conservatives as white supremacists, it is obvious now that where once a white supremacist, as it was widely understood, would be wearing a sheet or have a swastika tattooed on his arm, now, in the post-Trump era, a white child encountering this instruction whose parents wear a MAGA hat or vote Republican may think of himself as an irredeemably racist, immoral, and part of the white culture that oppresses and denigrates people of color and who supports the left’s fantasies about empire, colonialism, patriarchy, white supremacy, and police and state violence.

And not content to merely enlist educators in the campaign to obsess on the racist defects of the United States—and to promote that view to impressionable students—teachers additionally try to prepare students for social activism, even recruiting elementary school-aged children to become foot soldiers in the cause of social justice.

A 2019 Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action “Lesson and Activity Plan Links for Elementary School,” for example, designed for use by grades 3-5 but which “may include lessons appropriate for K-2 as well,” is a lesson plan for teaching “Activism, Organizing and Resistance.” In one of the lesson plan’s modules, students are taught “Art and Activism” purportedly as a way of learning about tolerance. While parading as an art activity, the activity “capitalizes on children's natural relationship to art by prompting them to examine the ways art relates to community leadership and activism,” with individual lessons on “Art and Community Activism. Who Are the Activists in My Community?” “Art and LGBT Rights: Study of Symbols” and “Art and Social Justice: What is a Portrait?

In another module, “Resistance Stories (#teachresistance),” students are directed to read stories about activists “in order to consider ideas around economic justice and protest as a means to achieve change.” Once they have read the stories and discussed them in class, they “will then consider ways that they can take a stand about a social issue within their own school or community that concerns them” and “. . . then explore issues in their own communities and engage in a form of activism to address that issue.” And, as an indication that the teachers are anything if not up to date in their use of tactics to disseminate their ideology, the lesson plan also “introduces children to different ways young people have used the internet to work toward positive social change.” An additional, somewhat self-serving part of the lesson plan is the section called “Exploring Teacher Strikes,” during which, through role-playing, “Children explore the reasons why teachers have gone on strikes by engaging in role-playing,” helpful support in the event that teachers want to strike on behalf of BLM, Covid safety, or some other cause that would necessitate them leaving the classroom to extract higher salaries from taxpayers in their districts.     

This, of course, is not teaching; it is political indoctrination. This type of lesson plan and curricula, together with such instructional resources as Teaching for Black Lives and Black Lives Matter at School Week, are one-sided, left-leaning, well-intentioned but divisive tools that have questionable educational value in the first place, and are clearly being shoved down the throats of public school children who find themselves being categorized in groups based on whether they are black or white—the very definition of racism—in a purported effort to combat intolerance in American society.

But by forcing children to assume their roles as either victimizer or victim in what is described as an irredeemably racist society, the NEA and educators are doing a great disservice to public school students who should be judged, as Dr. King put it, not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rats fleeing Cuba's sinking ship? Resignations and calls for ending communist dictatorship are coming fast - Monica Showalter


by Monica Showalter

It's always a bad sign for a dictatorship when loyal apparachiks start peeling off...

So are the rats fleeing the ship in Cuba?

It's always a bad sign when the elites start resigning during times of crisis, as if to get out early to save their skins. There's more than one now as Cuba erupts into protests and calls to end the communist dictatorship, so it's getting to be a pattern.

So here we got one report of a resignation of one of the regime's thuggier members, Cuba’s Deputy Minister of the Interior, Brigadier General Jesús Manuel Burón Tabit, according to top Cuba expert Carlos Eire, writing at the indispensible Babalu blog.

Eire has a loose translation of the news from ABC Spain:

Cuba’s Deputy Minister of the Interior, Brigadier General Jesús Manuel Burón Tabit, has resigned after questioning decision-making within the ministry and the Security Council, as well as the excessive use of police force to repress the demonstrations of 11 July, the day that began the wave of protests that spread throughout the island, as ABC has learned from sources close to the regime.

That's one of guys in charge of torture and internal spying. Based on his official photo, he looks like the kind of guy you wouldn't want to meet while chained in some Castroite dungeon:

But he's the guy who, after a career as a top Cuban internal security official, reportedly felt the government was going too hard on the protestors.

According to ABC of Spain (Google translate has some faultiness here, but you can get the gist):

His departure is motivated by disagreements with other commanders, differences with respect to the measures taken during the protests last weekend. "There is trouble within the Army and differences between the military of the old guard and young generals," say the sources consulted by this newspaper.
The news would also have been confirmed by the analyst and writer Juan Juan Almeida in his program Juan Juan Al medio. According to Almeida, the also member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Cuba, requested his resignation in the lobby of building A of the Ministry of the Interior. His words when he left office were: "Applying the law with strict adherence to it does not mean murder," said Juan Juan.
Maybe it's true, as the information about this blotting-paper-face apparachik is sparse.
It's also interesting that the Cuban government has denied the report, calling it "fake news." Perhaps that is true, too, given this guy's record. Or perhaps they forced him to "un-resign."
But after searching who this Castroite apparachik was over the years, it's likely he wasn't all that happy with the current Castroite government, so maybe he did want to quit, although there are reasons to think he didn't, as well. 
Based on his career, before the uprising, he was doing things like this, as described by Juventud Rebelde, a Cuban state organ:
The Comandante Arides Estévez Sánchez Superior Military School held this Friday morning the graduation ceremony of the 62nd Anniversary class of the Assault on the Moncada and Carlos Manuel de Céspedes Barracks.
As part of it, more than 150 cadets were promoted to the first grade of officers in the legal profile, who knelt on the ground vowed to be worthy heirs of the glorious combative traditions of our people, the working class, the Party, and to follow the example of heroism, self-denial and sacrifice of the forgers of our true and definitive independence.
"The future performance of each of the graduates should be presided over by intelligence, simplicity, modesty, fidelity to revolutionary principles, firmness and a high fighting spirit," said the president of the Ministerial Examinations Commission, Brigadier General Jesús Manuel Burón Tabit.
Kind of boring, actually.
Meanwhile, among the Castroite elites, there was a "re-election" of government last April, which was how the Cubans ended up with the zero-charisma Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez as their nominal dictator. This party session only comes along every five years, and Buron Tabit got ... the same job he had for awhile, that of Central Committee member, which is the rubber-stamp body of the Politiburo, the small 14- or 17-person group (I've seen conflicting reports) which holds the real power. He got passed over.
There's also reason to think he was kind of an ambitious guy, given that he was given this kind of plum assignment, which was hosting Raul Castro's 90th birthday, obviously a task only the most trusted of comrades would garner.
According to, a Castroite organ for leftists around the world:
On the occasion of the celebration of the 90th birthday of Army General Raúl Castro Ruz on June 3, the special Verde Olivo magazine was presented, dedicated to who, for more than 49 years, served as Minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR).
The tribute, held in the Universal Room of the FAR, was presided over by Army Corps General Ramón Espinosa Martín, First Vice Minister of the FAR, and Brigadier General Jesús Manuel Burón Tabit, Vice Minister of the Interior; In addition, other heads of the FAR and the Ministry of the Interior participated, as well as a group of authors of the publication and workers of the publishing house.
Could he have been discontented about being shunted aside and given only the crummy Central Committee position instead of a more powerful Politiburo one? Quite possible.
Even more insultingly than that, he didn't even get named by Cuba's state academics as being on that Central Committee list.
Here's one account by a Castroite professor from the Universidad de Las Tunas, a Cuban state "educational" establishment, whose list of ruling comrades left Buron Tabit off:
The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba elected Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez as its First Secretary. Right at 10 in the morning, at the Havana Convention Center, the last day of the party meeting began in which the new Central Committee, the Political Bureau and the Secretariat of the party organization were announced.
[Long list of communist operatives follows, doesn't include Buron Tabit]
El Pais of Costa Rica, whose political orientation I don't know, reported in April that Buron Tabit was a member of the 96-man Central Committee, and didn't leave him off.
So why he was left off on the academic report, which is supposedly more rigorous, is sort of a red flag. Was he being "erased" from the picture, in the old Stalinist tradition?
But in the meantime, he found himself stuck in the same old Central Committee role. What exactly is the Cuban Communist Party's ruling Central Committee?
According to, apparently a U.S. funded publication for independent journalists in Cuba:
HAVANA, Cuba.- Compiling data is a difficult task and requires patience, but if the information of the Cuban dictatorial regime is involved, it becomes even more difficult because there is no clarity in the searches. It should only be remembered that every time someone is dismissed the Press Release says: "he will take on other responsibilities", or something similar.
As a continuation, it can be said then that the grassroots Popular Power is represented in the Central Committee by only two people, the governor of Santiago de Cuba and the vice governor of Havana.
However, the generals occupy at least 10% of the Central Committee. 11 could be related, of them 4 with Brigade level; 6 of the Division and one of the Army Corps. 10 of them belong to the Revolutionary Armed Forces, and 4 to the Ministry of the Interior. In any case, it is the highest representation among all the ministries that the country has.
[Lists of these characters from all the ministries and other bodies follows]
The only thing that these "members of the Central Committee" get is perks in their respective work centers and provinces, because between two Congresses, the Plenary of the organization almost does not work and anyway there you have to go to raise your hand and show agreement with everything.
So it's mainly a perk machine which enables party elites to travel abroad and shop at special shops with dollar earnings and shields them from any scrutiny about their corruption. It's not a real position of power, it's just the goody bag.
Would this guy want to give up all his party perks for a life of dissidence and suspicion from the others who are still lining their pockets out of some kind of sudden conscience issue, after the kind of career he had?
It's hard to think the answer was 'yes.'
What looks likely and possible though, is that maybe he was shunted aside by the ruling communist elites, which would be about par, given that he was in charge of keeping internal revolts down and the cameras off, and well, he failed rather bigly.
Perhaps the party pushed him out, and said he resigned, given the potential for a chain reaction among other party offiicals desperate to avoid a Ceaucescu fate, and changed its mind.
But even if that entire report was false, as the Cuban dictatorship now says, all of a sudden this morning, another came out of the woodwork and denounced the regime. This one hasn't made the mainstream news yet.
Carlos Eire has another report at Babalu:

The nephew of Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas,, Raul Castro’s son-in-law and the man who actually runs Cuba behind the scenes, has left the island is calling for drastic change in Cuba. Carlos Alejandro Rodríguez Halley released a video yesterday where he calls on his family to stop the repression and to heed the voices of millions of Cubans and step down from power so a transition to democracy can begin.

Via CiberCuba ([Carlos Eire's] translation):

Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez Halley, the nephew of Division General and Cuban Communist Party Politburo member Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Calleja, called on his family and others in power to drop their weapons and start a transition to democracy.

“I make a call for harmony and for the putting down of weapons so a process to start a transition to democracy in Cuba can begin. The people have made clear they no longer want you in power. Listen to the people,” Rodriguez Halley said on Wednesday in a video he posted on Facebook.


“Don’t be responsible for the shedding of more blood,” Rodriguez Halley pleaded with his family. “Cuba has made it clear on the streets and throughout the entire country that they are not in agreement with your government, that it is a failed government that has led the nation into a health, economic, social, and political crisis,” said the young dissident.

“My family is part of the families that are in power in Cuba. My uncle is Division General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Calleja. My cousin is Raul Guillermo Rodriguez Castro, Raul Castro Ruz’s grandson. And it is to them that I say these words and to the rest of my family and all the military in Cuba,” the young man said in the video with obvious distress in his voice.

The young scion of the elites is not in Cuba as he says this but that is a helluva embarrassment for the ruling thug whose nephew that is. That's bound to lead to further defections and comings out, as younger kids aligned with the jurassic dictatorship seek to separate themselves from the jurassics and join the normal Cubans marching in the streets.
Combined with the Buron Tabit stuff, that's already a lot of 'churn' is going on at a bad time for the Cuba dictatorship. From these little events, it's entirely likely that they may be a prelude to a big toppling of the regime -- we saw such peel-offs in the Soviet Union when it fell, although, to be fair, we also saw similar events in Venezuela at various times and the regime just keep clinging to power. The only thing to be done right now is to keep watching for more of them, to see if they keep happening. If they drop off, the dictatorship is consolidating. If they only lead to bigger things, the bad guys are going down. Let's hope it's the latter.
Image: Official photo


Monica Showalter


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanese PM-designate Hariri awaiting response to new cabinet in 'moment of truth' - Reuters and ILH Staff


by Reuters and ILH Staff

Saad al-Hariri says "this government can stop the collapse."


Lebanese PM-designate Hariri awaiting response to new cabinet in 'moment of truth'

Lebanese Prime Minister-Designate Saad al-Hariri arrives to meet with Lebanon's President Michel Aoun at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon July 14, 2021 | Photo: Dalati Nohra/Handout via Reuters

Lebanon's prime minister-designate Saad al-Hariri has presented a new cabinet proposal to President Michel Aoun and said he was awaiting his response on Thursday in a move that could end nine months of deadlock as the country faces economic collapse.

Veteran Sunni politician Hariri has presented multiple proposals to Aoun, an ally of Iran-backed Shi'ite group Hezbollah, over the past months, but they have been unable to agree on a list.

"Now is the moment of truth," Hariri, who has been at loggerheads with Aoun over the naming of ministers since he was appointed in October, told reporters on Wednesday after the meeting.

Aoun said in a statement he would study the proposal that contained "new names and a new distribution for portfolios and sects from what was previously agreed" to reach a decision.

The proposal is for 24 specialist technocrat ministers, in line with a French initiative that envisioned a government capable of enacting reforms that could unlock much needed foreign aid to rescue the nation.

The previous proposals have also been for a technocrat team belonging to different sects. It was not immediately clear specifically how the new line-up differed or what would happen if Aoun rejected it.

However, Wednesday's proposal is seen as Hariri's last attempt to form a cabinet as he was widely expected to give up on his efforts after a trip to long-time backer Egypt.

Saudi-owned Al Hadath television reported earlier that Cairo had asked him not to stand down, citing its own sources.Sources in Cairo said Egypt had promised economic and political support for a new government and that a delegation would travel to Beirut soon.

If the cabinet were rejected and Hariri quit, it would leave the country having to seek another Sunni willing to replace him.

Under a sectarian power-sharing system, Lebanon's president must be a Maronite Christian and the prime minister a Sunni Muslim. With less than a year to an anticipated parliamentary election, few figures might be willing to step forward.

Lebanon has been without a government since the last one resigned in the aftermath of the Aug. 4 Beirut port blast that killed more than 200 people, injured thousands of others and destroyed swathes of the city.

The deadlock has deepened the financial crisis, dubbed by the World bank as one of the deepest depressions of modern history.

"For me, this government can start to rescue the country and stop the collapse," Hariri said.


Reuters and ILH Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New York City’s Ranked-Choice Election is the New Jim Crow. Unless It’s Not - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

Every election the Left doesn’t win is racist.


Is ranked-choice voting racist?

Depends on which of the black mayoral candidates running to run New York City you ask.

According to Eric Adams, it disenfranchises black people, while according to Maya Wiley, "women and minorities win with ranked-choice voting". In a city where every debate is settled by shouting “racist” at your enemies as loudly as possible, the debate over the disastrous experiment that turned a simple election into an endless slog with 5 choices and results that wouldn’t be known for weeks is all about racism.

Adams, who won the majority of the black vote, and is the city’s likely next mayor, had thoroughly mastered the art of shouting “racism” loudly enough to deafen all of New York.

Adams compared a ranked-choice alliance between rival candidates Andrew Yang and Kathryn Garcia to Jim Crow and “America’s dark past.” “That last-minute attempt to derail me on June 19!” he ranted, invoking Juneteenth and slavery. “While we were celebrating liberation and freedom from enslavement, they sent a message, and I thought it was the wrong message.”

“They’re saying we can’t trust a person of color to be the mayor of the City of New York,” Adams complained. Yang, being Asian, was not considered a proper person of color.

Meanwhile, Wiley argued that, "London Breed became the first Black female mayor of San Francisco and Jean Quan became the first Asian female mayor of Oakland in an RCV system."

What the debate is really about is bloc voting.

Exit polls show that 25% of black voters voted for just one candidate as opposed to 10% of white voters. Adams supporters, which included much of New York City’s black Democrat establishment, not to mention Ashley Sharpton, Al’s daughter, hate ranked choice voting because they believe it undermines bloc voting. And far more black voters than white voters stuck to bloc voting as their preferred strategy in the election.

Black voters tend to be relentlessly loyal to their candidates. Black voters dragged a senile Joe Biden through the Democrat primaries at a time when white and minority voters were leaning toward Bernie Sanders. Ranked-choice voting is built around playing the field. But black voters, a group consisting of mostly older black women, don’t fool around or play the field.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had pushed ranked-choice voting, now argues that it might or not be racist depending on whether black people used it or not. The election’s status as the new Jim Crow is also Schrodinger’s Cat and we’ll have to count all the votes to find out if it’s racist.

“I like it if there was relative equality in how people utilize their ballots. In other words: if in more privileged and less privileged communities you saw consistent voting one through five, or as close to that as possible, everyone maximizing the power of their ballot," Bill de Blasio argued. "If it turns out, conversely, that we see a real skew, then I think it’s time to reassess, because what I don’t want to see a system that enfranchises some people and not others."

There are more obvious reasons to reassess the massive disaster of ranked-choice voting, like the 135,000 test ballots that were wrongly added to the total or the endless wait for results.

But in 2021, a 135,000 ballot error or an election that takes weeks to wrap up are not legitimate reasons to throw out an insane election process. The only legitimate reason is racism.

Whether ranked-choice voting is racist or not depends on whether black people embraced it or stuck to bloc voting. The same system that Bill de Blasio and his leftist allies had advocated might turn out to have retroactively been racist because black people didn’t embrace it.

If black people choose to use ranked-choice voting, it’s on the right side of history. And if they stick to bloc voting in sufficient numbers to create racial disparities, then ranked-choice voting is retroactively racist even though there’s nothing inherently racist about the stupid leftist ploy.

This same absurd argument underlies most voting debates in which racial disparities, real or hypothetical, in turnout or in voting are treated as the new Jim Crow. Asking voters for their IDs, or even expecting them to ask a relative to hand in a ballot, rather than a community organizer harvesting ballots for leftist radicals, are all denounced as new forms of voter suppression.

New York City’s mayoral election, in which a black candidate denounced his Asian opponent as the new Jim Crow for using ranked-choice voting exactly the way that leftists intended it to be used, is the end result of declaring that any process that results in racial disparities is racist.

This is the iron logic of anti-racism in which all racial disparities are the fault of white people.

Or as Ibram X. Kendi put it, “when you truly believe that the racial groups are equal, then you also believe that racial disparities are the result of racial discrimination" and "racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large.”

A mayoral election whose likely outcome is New York City’s second black mayor must, by the definition of critical race theory, be racist because it led to racial disparities.

And the perpetrators of the racial disparities are Bill de Blasio and his leftist allies.

But Bill de Blasio and his leftist allies have more practical reasons for questioning ranked-choice voting because while a black candidate may have won, it was the wrong black candidate.

False accusations of racism are just a means to an end.

The mayoral election pitted the city’s black establishment, represented by Eric Adams, against its AOC leftist establishment, and while the latter scored lots of victories, it lost the big one.

Bill de Blasio’s talk of racial disparities in ranked-choice voting is every bit as cynical as Eric Adams accusing an Asian man of being the new Jim Crow and reviving segregation.

But you can’t blame Adams for adopting the insane racist rhetoric of a political party that spends all its time crying, “Jim Crow” when an election doesn’t swing its way. Democrats define any election they lose as racist voter suppression. Adams accusing a fellow Asian Democrat of being the new Jim Crow is no more insane than the attacks on Texas or Georgia voting laws.

And no more insane than Bill de Blasio suggesting that his own ranked-choice voting system might be racist because a black man who wasn’t backed by AOC and the DSA won.

Ranked-choice voting was officially billed as helping black voters. But most black voters didn’t take the bait and allow Maya Willey and AOC to steal the election from Eric Adams.

Now the same leftist machine that pushed ranked-choice voting has to reassess its tactics.

The Democrat backing for H.R.1 and assorted election schemes have the same cold calculations behind the frenzied accusations of racism which is whether a tactic, ballot harvesting or Voter ID, will benefit Democrats and, more specifically, the Left.

New York City’s mayoral election shows that it’s not about electing black candidates, but about electing the right black candidates, and it’s not about turning out black voters, but channeling their voters in the way that benefits the larger leftist coalition exploiting them for their own use.

The new Jim Crow is everywhere and nowhere. It’s in Texas, Georgia, and New York City. It may have helped elect a black mayor, but Jim Crow is sneaky that way. If Andrew Yang had won, the consensus would be that he was the new Jim Crow. If Eric Adams wins, then the new Jim Crow will be a black man. In a system that believes in systemic racism, racism always wins.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Koranic Jew-Hatred: Preached in Jersey, Ignored By 'No Fear' Rally - Andrew G. Bostom


by Andrew G. Bostom

Jewish "advocacy" groups ignore the overwhelmingly disproportionate source of contemporary anti-Semitism.


This past Sunday, July 11, 2021, the usual gaggle of “Jewish advocacy groups” gathered in Washington, DC, posturing and prattling on, allegedly against anti-Semitism, “in solidarity with the Jewish people.” As is their collective wont, once again, these groups blithely ignored any honest discussion of the overwhelmingly disproportionate source of contemporary Jew-hatred: Muslim Jew-hatred, animated by mainstream, doctrinal Islam. Even the courageous Boston area Rabbi who addressed the rally after surviving a recent knifing attack by an Egyptian Muslim, refused to mention this taboo reality.

Barely over 2-weeks prior to this “No Fear Rally,” there was a brazen illustration of the Koranic Jew-hatred openly espoused in U.S. mosques during a June sermon at the Islamic Center of Union City, New Jersey, posted on YouTube on June 25, 2021.

New Jersey imam Mohammad Abbasi, currently a City University of New York faculty member, and previously on staff at Rutgers University, maintained the Jews [“Israelites”], despite their small population in the Arabian peninsula at the advent of Islam, are mentioned so many times in the Koran, because of the extensive corruption, mischief, and tumult they wrought. Abbasi intoned,

[The Koran said:] 'To the Children of Israel, in the Book,' in their book, so it is on ours now, 'you will certainly cause corruption in the land...' I wish I had enough time to explain to you how many ways the word 'cause corruption'… how it emphasizes the concept of fasad and corruption that they are going to enact in this one word…' 'You will cause corruption' – corruption, my brothers, is that you come to something that works and then you spoil it. That is what corruption is...So Allah said to the Israelites: 'You will certainly cause corruption in the land.' You are going to create mischief, tumult, corruption, in the earth – not in Arabia, where they were at the time, not in the Middle East – worldwide. I am not saying that, that is what God says. This is not political talk, this is not a conversation between the Prophet and his companions, that is a promise that came to pass...

And he concluded,

I don't want to leave you depressed; I want to give you the good news now. With the help of Allah they [the Muslims] will erase this filth called Israel.

Imam Abbasi is referencing, primarily, Koran 5:64, and his Koranic interpretation, or gloss, is not “radical.” Abbasi’s gloss on 5:64 comports fully with both the classical and contemporary mainstream understandings of this verse.

Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (d. 2010), was one of the most renowned modern authorities on Koranic interpretation (or “exegesis”). He edited a magnum opus 15-volume contemporary Koranic commentary, and helped create the largest online website of such analyses. Tantawi served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University—Papal equivalent of Sunni Islam’s Vatican—from 1996 until his death. His 700 pp. Ph.D. thesis, (in English translation, Jews in the Koran and Traditions; completed 1966, published 1968), provided a summary gloss on the Koranic depiction of Jews, emphasizing its permanent relevance, while decrying Jews who rejected Islam as “maleficent deniers,” and granting Muslims license to extirpate Jewish “evil,” violently:

(The) Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah (see Koran 2:613:112 ], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places (4:46) , consuming the people’s wealth frivolously (4:161), refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do (3:1205:79), and other ugly characteristics  caused by their deep-rooted (lascivious) envy (2:109)…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims (Koran 3:113), the bad ones do not…so use force with them and treat them in the way you see as effective in ridding them of their evil. One may go so far as to ban their religion, their persons, their wealth, and their villages.

Tantawi’s mature, authoritative Koranic commentary glosses Koran 5:64 in a manner that elaborates upon Abbasi’s interpretation, and roots Abbasi’s Jew-hating vitriol firmly within Islam’s mainstream classical, and modern interpretations. Here are the key points:

The support and cooperation that the Jews had manifested during this age and which had helped them establish a country in Palestine is a temporary matter. This country [Israel] will not last long, but it will return to its Muslim people when they sincerely wage jihad and follow the precepts and teachings of their religion. Fakhir al-Din al-Razi [the great Koranic scholar] mentioned the connection between this verse and that one that has come before it: the Almighty showed that those Jews begrudge and reject Muhammad’s prophecy after providing evidence of its validity out of their envy, their love for money, prestige, and power. Then, the Almighty showed that after they preferred this world to eternity, it was no wonder that just as He- the Almighty-denied them the happiness of religion, He likewise denied them happiness in the world.

His saying “Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it” means that whenever they waged a war against the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers, and whenever they tried to sow the seeds of discord and animosity between them, Allah spoiled their plans, frustrated their cunningness, and cast horror in their hearts. The expression entailed in this honorable verse was driven from what was customary for Arabs at the time, namely, when they planned to wage a war on others, they would light a fire which they termed the fire of war. The expression is therefore a metaphor here. The Almighty likened wars to fire since wars entail devastation and human massacres and such calamities that are likely to ensue from a consuming, raging and devastating fire. His saying “And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters” is an appendix to confirm what had preceded concerning the despicable characteristics with which the Almighty had stamped the Jews. The general meaning is: these Jews save no effort to plot against Islam and its people, they surreptitiously strive to cause corruption throughout the land by inciting sedition, and strife and evoking animosity and envy among people. Allah Almighty does not like corruptors; He hates even loathes them for they prefer perversity and going astray to the right and straight path, and they like evil more than they like good...The verse also revealed some aspects of their vices and stubbornness. Likewise, it showed that the Almighty hates them for they corrupt the land rather than ameliorate and make it better.

The late Grand Imam Tantawi, and local New Jersey imam Abbasi, epitomize countless other traditional Muslim theologians who continue to preach the same “sacralized” Islamic Jew-hatred the Muslim creed has inculcated over almost a 14-century continuum. The bitter fruit of their efforts is apparent. Extreme Antisemitism, as gauged by the Anti-Defamation League’s own validated survey instrument has remained ~3-times more common amongst Muslims than any other ethno-religious group worldwide, for the past two decades, ongoing.

Feckless, see-no-Islam Jewish advocacy groups, as demonstrated by their hollow preening at the risibly dubbed “No Fear Rally” in Washington this past Sunday, lack the courage to confront the global scourge of institutionalized, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred. Of what value are these organizations then, one might ask?


Andrew G. Bostom


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter