Saturday, June 24, 2023

Wagner group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin says advance towards Moscow has been halted - Charlotte Hazard


​ by Charlotte Hazard

In a Telegram post, Prigozhin said this move was done in order to avoid shedding Russian blood.


The Wagner group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin said Saturday that he has ordered his mercenary forces to turn back and return to their bases, and stop heading towards Moscow, according to reports.

In a Telegram post, Prigozhin said this move was being done in order to avoid shedding Russian blood, according to NBC News.

Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed harsh punishment for the armed rebellion led by Prigozhin.

Before the armed rebellion was called off, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin urged Russian residents to stay off the roads and declared Monday to be a non-working day for most residents, with exceptions for public service jobs and industrial enterprises.

Reports of Putin fleeing Moscow have been denied by his spokesperson. 

Moscow has issued an arrest warrant for Prigozhin, accusing him of inciting an armed rebellion against the government.

Prigozhin has long feuded with the Ministry of Defense over its prosecution of the war in Ukraine. On Friday night, tensions reached a boiling point as Prigozhin announced he had withdrawn his forces from Ukraine and entered Russia via Rostov, CNN reported. He accused the Kremlin of attacking his men, which the government has strongly denied.

Russia has opened a criminal case into the mercenary leader for inciting an armed rebellion.

Charlotte Hazard


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Vladimir Putin reportedly flees Moscow on presidential plane as Wagner forces advance - Charlotte Hazard


​ by Charlotte Hazard

The spokesperson for the Russian president however has come out and said that Putin has not fled the capital and 'is working at the Kremlin.'


Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly fled Moscow in his plane on Saturday while the Wagner Group’s mercenary forces are advancing towards Moscow.

Putin was seen flying from Moscow to St Petersburg, according to Flight Radar, before disappearing from the radar, The New York Post reports

The spokesperson for the Russian president however has come out and said that Putin has not fled the capital and “is working at the Kremlin.”

According to The Associated Press, Wagner reportedly has moved through Voronezh, roughly 385 miles from Moscow.

Moscow has issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the Wagner mercenary group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, accusing him of inciting an armed rebellion against the government.

Prigozhin has long feuded with the Ministry of Defense over its prosecution of the war in Ukraine. On Friday night, tensions reached a boiling point as Prigozhin announced he had withdrawn his forces from the front and entered Russia via Rostov, CNN reported. He accused the Kremlin of attacking his men, which the government has strongly denied.

Russia has opened a criminal case into the mercenary leader for inciting an armed rebellion.

Charlotte Hazard


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Moscow Mayor urges citizens to stay off roads and declares Monday a 'non-working' day - Charlotte Hazard


​ by Charlotte Hazard

Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed harsh punishment for the armed rebellion led by Yevgeny Prigozhin.


Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin on Saturday urged Russian residents to stay off the roads and declared Monday to be a non-working day for most residents, with exceptions for public service jobs and industrial enterprises.

Crews have taken action by digging up parts of highways in order to slow down the Wagner mercenary army, Fox 5 reports. Red Square access was closed and two museums had to be evacuated while a park was shut down.

Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed harsh punishment for the armed rebellion led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group.

While there have been reports of Putin fleeing Moscow as the Wagner group reportedly has moved through Voronezh, roughly 385 miles from Moscow, his spokesperson has denied it. 

Moscow has issued an arrest warrant for Prigozhin, accusing him of inciting an armed rebellion against the government.

Prigozhin has long feuded with the Ministry of Defense over its prosecution of the war in Ukraine. On Friday night, tensions reached a boiling point as Prigozhin announced he had withdrawn his forces from the front and entered Russia via Rostov, CNN reported. He accused the Kremlin of attacking his men, which the government has strongly denied.

Russia has opened a criminal case into the mercenary leader for inciting an armed rebellion.

Charlotte Hazard


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Wagner Group forces said to be advancing towards Moscow after capturing Russian military facilities: reports - Chris Pandolfo


​ by Chris Pandolfo

Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin's 'march for justice' is heading towards Moscow as rebel group attempts to oust Russian defense leaders

Armed rebels with the Wagner Group are moving north through Russian territory and appear to be heading for Moscow, according to multiple reports.

Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin is leading what he calls a "march for justice" to oust Russia's military leadership. Overnight, the mercenary group's forces seized control of Russian military facilities in Rostov-on-Don, a city of more than a million people near the border with Ukraine. The seizure is significant — Rostov is home to the Russian military headquarters overseeing the military supply line fueling Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Further Wagner troops are reported to be moving through Vorenezh Oblast, a city about 300 miles north of Rostov-on-Don. An intelligence update from the U.K. Ministry of Defense indicated Wagner units are "almost certainly aiming to get to Moscow." 

"With very limited evidence of fighting between Wagner and Russian security forces, some have likely remained passive, acquiescing to Wagner," the Ministry of Defense said. 


Wagner fighters and tank

Fighters of Wagner private mercenary group are seen atop of a tank in a street near the headquarters of the Southern Military District in the city of Rostov-on-Don, Russia, June 24, 2023.  (Reuters)

Reuters separately reported — citing a Russian security source — that Wagner fighters have seized military facilities in the city of Voronezh, and the governor there has said operations are underway to put down the mutiny. Reuters could not independently confirm the situation there. 

A Wagner convoy with armed vehicles was also seen traveling north on the M4 motorway, which links Voronezh and Moscow in the Lipetsk region, the BBC reported. The regional governor, Igor Artamonov, said Wagner is moving "equipment" in the region and has asked residents to stay home and avoid traveling. 

"Law enforcement agencies and authorities ... are taking all necessary measures to ensure the safety of the population. The situation is under control," Igor Artamonov said per the BBC. 

Armored vehicles belonging to the Wagner group travel along the M4 highway towards Moscow

Armored vehicles are seen as the traffic density occurred where security measures taken along the M4 highway to Moscow amid escalating tensions between the Kremlin and the head of the Russian paramilitary group Wagner, in Moscow, Russia on June 24, 2023. (Boris Alekseev/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to put down the rebellion. In a televised address Saturday morning, Putin said the mutiny amounted to "a deadly threat to our statehood," vowing there will be "tough actions" in response. 

"It is a blow to Russia, to our people," Putin said. "And our actions to defend the Fatherland against such a threat will be harsh."

Prigozhin, a longtime Putin ally, rejected the Russian president's accusations of treason and claimed his forces were fighting "corruption, deceit and bureaucracy" in the Russian military. 


Yevgeny Prigozhin

In this handout photo taken from video released by Prigozhin Press Service, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the owner of the Wagner Group military company, records his video addresses in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, Saturday, June 24, 2023. (Prigozhin Press Service via AP)

Wagner forces have served as a virtual private army for Putin and have provided critical support to Russian troops fighting in Ukraine. The paramilitary group includes thousands of former prisoners who were recruited from Russian jails. However, Prigozhin has feuded with the defense ministry, accusing Russian military officials of starving his troops of weapons and ammunition.

In a series of angry video and audio recordings on Friday, Prigozhin accused Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu of ordering a rocket strike on the private military contractor's field camps where the group is fighting on behalf of Russia in Ukraine. The Russian Defense Ministry denied the accusation. 

"This is not a military coup, but a march of justice," Prigozhin declared.  "The evil embodied by the country’s military leadership must be stopped."

Russia's FSB security service opened a criminal case against Prigozhin for armed mutiny and said his statements were "calls for the start of an armed civil conflict on Russian territory." 



In this handout photo taken from video released by Russian Presidential Press Service, Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the nation in Moscow, Russia, Saturday, June 24, 2023.  (Russian Presidential Press Service via AP)

Putin remains working at his desk in Moscow, according to Russian leader Dmitry Peskov's press secretary. 

"The president works in the Kremlin," Peskov told the Russian news outlet RIA Novosti. 

Earlier, several Telegram channels claimed that Putin had left Moscow for one of his residences in another region, the outlet reported. 

Fox News' Peter Aitken, Adam Sabes, Landon Mion, Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Chris Pandolfo is a writer for Fox News Digital. Send tips to and follow him on Twitter @ChrisCPandolfo.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China in Cuba: Nuclear-Armed Communists on the Warpath - Gordon G. Chang


​ by Gordon G. Chang

All this means that, thanks to Cuba, a war in Asia will be fought on, near, and over the American homeland -- perhaps with nukes.

  • While Americans think of nukes as defensive instruments to deter attacks, Chinese war planners view them as offensive weapons, to compel submission. In other words, China thinks it can prevent others from coming to the aid of, say, Taiwan, by threatening nuclear destruction of their homelands.

  • With all the additional silos in China, why would the People's Liberation Army need missiles in Cuba? Think shorter flight times -- meaning less warning time.

  • All this means that, thanks to Cuba, a war in Asia will be fought on, near, and over the American homeland -- perhaps with nukes.

(Image source: iStock)

China, according to "fragmentary" U.S. intelligence reports, is about to establish a "joint military training facility" with Cuba on that island.

Chinese military personnel are already listening in on American communications from the Lourdes base near Havana and three other Cuban locations. Two of those locations have been known for some time: Bejucal and Santiago de Cuba. These facilities, it appears, have been in operation for all or most of this century.

"What is missing is the strategic aim of China's economic influence, which, in my opinion, goes beyond simply having a strong trade relationship with Latin America," Joseph Humire of the Center for a Secure Free Society told Gatestone. "At its core, the People's Republic of China is focused on gaining geopolitical leverage over countries in Central and South America to be used in an eventual conflict with the United States."

China, with that leverage, is obtaining permission to build in this hemisphere military installations that can be used to attack the American homeland or the U.S. military, should China launch its invasion of Taiwan, Japan, or some other target. China, for instance, is developing what looks like a naval base at the tip of Argentina, at strategic Tierra del Fuego.

Moreover, China's troubled container port in Freeport, Bahamas, about 90 miles from Palm Beach, Florida, could end up hosting Chinese naval vessels.

It also may not be long before China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) bases substantial forces on Cuba, only 94 miles from Key West, Florida.

"For a near-term war, China would use Cuba as a base for projecting and facilitating massive cyberattacks and espionage operations while working with Cuba's formidable intelligence services to undertake a range of 'wet' operations, from assassinations to attacks on U.S. installations, even civilian facilities such as gas stations," said Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center to this publication.

In addition, the PLA could deploy anti-ship cruise missiles in Cuba both to hit U.S. Navy bases in Florida and block the movement of American vessels. China might also put surface-to-air missiles on Cuba, potentially to shoot down planes over the southeast United States.

How about a second Cuban Missile Crisis, this time with the Chinese instead of the Soviets? China's leaders are brazen, as the spy balloon incident of January and February suggests. Would they deploy ballistic missiles and other weaponry there?

Fisher thinks they will. "In the medium term, look for China to facilitate Cuba's acquisition of ballistic missiles, which will at a minimum force a U.S. defensive response that will tie down the U.S. military, reducing U.S. chances of success in other theaters," he says.

Ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads. While Americans think of nukes as defensive instruments to deter attacks, Chinese war planners view them as offensive weapons, to compel submission. In other words, China thinks it can prevent others from coming to the aid of, say, Taiwan, by threatening nuclear destruction of their homelands.

Periodically throughout this century, China's generals and civilians have made unprovoked threats to incinerate Americans cities. American presidents have brushed off the warnings, ignoring the hostile words.

That is no longer a good idea, if it ever was. The Pentagon in a November 2022 report forecast that China would quadruple its warheads from about 400 then to 1,500 by 2035.

The Chinese military is moving swiftly. The PLA, in three separate fields in the northern part of the country, is building at least 250 and perhaps as many as 360 silos, which appear designed to take the DF-41 missile. A DF-41 has a maximum range of 9,300 miles — putting all of America in range from those three locations — and can carry, some believe, 10 warheads apiece.

"For decades, they were quite comfortable with an arsenal of a few hundred nuclear weapons, which was fairly clearly a second-strike capability to act as a deterrent," Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall stated in testimony in March, referring to China.

As Kendall testified, "I don't think I've seen anything more disturbing in my career than the Chinese ongoing expansion of their nuclear force."

So as China increases its arsenal, it's clear that Beijing no longer seeks only a "minimal deterrent." The rapid buildup, therefore, suggests the Chinese military is building an offensive "war-fighting" capability.

With all the additional silos in China, why would the People's Liberation Army need missiles in Cuba? Think shorter flight times -- meaning less warning time.

Moreover, U.S. missile defenses -- and radars -- are currently oriented to attacks from over the Arctic, from the north. Cuba gives China venues for southern attacks.

All this means that, thanks to Cuba, a war in Asia will be fought on, near, and over the American homeland -- perhaps with nukes.

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.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hunter Biden to Chinese Businessman: “I Am Sitting Here Waiting for the Call With My Father” - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

"Don't ask about the big guy."


The idea that Hunter Biden’s scandals are unrelated to his father fell apart some time ago and new pieces of evidence only hammer the problem home.

Take this account from the IRS whistleblower.

For example, we obtained a July 30th, 2017, WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, where Hunter Biden wrote: “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

There’s no ambiguity here on Hunter’s end. The only defense is to claim that Hunter was lying.

But the DOJ figures covering up for Hunter clearly thought that Joe Biden might be at risk.

Weiss was in and out for the rest of the meeting, but it went downhill from there. We shared with prosecutors our outline to interview Hunter Biden’s associate, Rob Walker. Among other things, we wanted to question Walker about an email that said: “Ten held by H for the big guy.” We had obvious questions like who was H, who the big guy was, and why this percentage was to be held separately with the association hidden. But AUSA Wolf interjected and said she did not want to ask about the big guy and stated she did not want to ask questions about “dad.” When multiple people in the room spoke up and objected that we had to ask, she responded, there’s no specific criminality to that line of questioning.

There was also no reason to object to it unless U.S. Attorney Wolf was worried the Big Guy was Joe Biden.

 So FBI raised concerns. I raised concerns about it. She’s like I don’t want to talk about the big guy. Don’t ask about the big guy.

You don’t need to cover up when there’s no crime.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Left Can Have Islam or LGBTQA+. Not Both - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

The Democrat coalition is falling apart.


[Frontpage Editor’s note: Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s masterpiece contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]

Regenbogen, Vienna’s ‘rainbow’ gay pride parade, began with the announcement that three Muslim teenagers with roots in Bosnia and Chechnya, were arrested for planning an attack using axes and knives. The alleged Muslim terrorists were reportedly supporters of ISIS.

Dominik Nepp, the leader of Austria’s conservative Freedom Party, blasted a “completely misguided red-green-pink mass immigration policy that promotes radical Islam in Vienna and throughout Austria.”

“Perhaps at some point the self-proclaimed left-wing moralizers will realize that they are inviting exactly those groups to our country that are in fact their greatest opponents and represent exactly the opposite of what they always preach.”

There’s little chance of that. Austria, like America, still lives in a fantasy world in which the black flags of Islam can co-exist with the rainbow flag, but the fantasy is rapidly coming apart.

Not long ago, the media was hailing Hamtramck as a model with its first all-Muslim city government. Now it’s shocked when the Michigan city banned pride flags on public property.

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” former mayor Karen Majewski complained. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

Majewski has no reason to be surprised. Neither does the media. She broke a city council tie in 2021 between Muslim and non-Muslim city council members in support of the LGBTQ flag.

Asm Kamal Rahman, the president of the local NAACP and a member of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights, had compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.

After hailing the all-Muslim council in a city overrun by Yemenis and Bangladeshis as a sign of progress, the realization has arrived that Democrats can have Islam or LGBT, but not both.

How is a party based around building coalitions of minorities supposed to choose?

Islamic teachings were always incompatible with the sexual politics of its new leftist allies. Muslim Brotherhood groups, eager to capitalize on their newfound status after 9/11, avoided directly addressing those issues. CAIR signed letters and appeared at events alongside gay rights groups like HRC. Muslim candidates running for public office even invoked sexual identity

Rep. Ilhan Omar has an entire page dedicated to the “fight for LGBTQIA+ rights”. But local Muslim officials, like those in Hamtramck, are breaking away from the rainbow coalition.

Muslims vocally protested at a school board meeting in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn, like Hamtramck, has a nearly 50% Muslim population. And that appears to be the tipping point. At a quarter of the population, Muslims generally toe the liberal line in public, while approaching the halfway mark, the masquerade ends and Democrats have to make some difficult choices.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the country’s biggest gay rights group, has a page promoting homosexuality’s compatibility with Islam. The Institute for Social Policy & Understanding (ISPU), under Dalia Mogahed, a former Obama adviser and Islamist ally, with an office in Dearborn and backing from Rep. Rashida Tlaib, however released a survey claiming that 0% of Muslims are lesbian or gay.

Even while the visual language of wokeness seen in innumerable ads and stock photos depicts women in hijabs next to gay and transgender people, the reality on the ground is very different.

When Omar Mateen, an Afghan Muslim terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, a cover-up was launched that persists to this day in which the annual anniversary of the Pulse massacre is marked each year as a testament to homophobia, not Islamic terrorism.

While Omar may not have even known that he was in a gay nightclub before he began killing people, other Islamic terrorists have set out to target gay pride events in the United States.

Elvin Hunter Bgorn Williams, a Muslim convert who joined ISIS, discussed driving a “semi-truck” through “the gay pride parade in downtown Seattle”. Amer Alhaggagi, a Berkeley High School graduate, a Yemeni Jihadi whose lawyer called him an “all-American boy”, had declared, “I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club, Wallah or by Allah.”

The media treats Muslim terror attacks as meaningless outliers, but it’s harder to dismiss events in Dearborn and Hamtramck the same way. Or to ignore the fact that Muslims and the LGBT movement have incompatible values and agendas. And the Left can’t claim to champion both.

The Democrats believed that they could build a ‘rainbow coalition’, a majority of minorities that would swamp the nation, overthrow the old America and replace it with their new alliance. The strategy appeared to be working as long as the minorities were united by their opposition to a majority. But the cracks are spreading, and not just among Islamists and gay rights activists.

Urban Democrats are being forced to come to terms with the fact that they may not be able to secure the support of both black community groups and Asian voters at the same time. Latinos are displaying a growing tendency to go their own way. Even the Jewish electorate, once a reliable rubber stamp, is turning conservative and religious in strongholds like New York City.

Immigrants, once seen as a vanguard of demographic transformation, are securing cities and states for the Democrats, but those groups whether Latino, Muslim, Asian or even African, are proving to have their own agendas that are at odds with a party that claims to be diverse, yet has become politically monocultural, imposing a ruthless ideological discipline that has purged non-black religious conservatives, traditional feminists, immigration restrictionist environmentalists and working class whites in pursuit of the ideal leftist collective.

But the new immigrants are much more likely to hold traditional values on matters of sexual morality: to be opposed to abortion, pride parades and everything white lefties love so much.

Muslim Democrats, like Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib, who built their national political power to implement an anti-American agenda based on this big intersectional lie, are caught in the middle.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, whose district includes parts of Hamtramck, responded to the gay pride flag ban by tweeting, “I can’t imagine how it feels for our LGBTQ+ neighbors in Hamtramck to watch their own elected reps decide their existence doesn’t matter. This is painful to see in a city that has always fought for equal justice for all. This action divides our communities.”

Hamtramck legalized animal sacrifice in homes, and made Eid a paid holiday, as did Dearborn. Despite their protestations, Muslim elected officials in cities on track to have an Islamic majority are representing their community and not anyone else’s. They are the most obvious example that the notion of multicultural “communities” that transcend identities through collective solidarity is a myth. And so is the entire majority of minorities coalition that claims “brown people” or the “oppressed” have anything in common beyond a hostility toward white people.

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan lashed out at Hamtramck by declaring, “The City of Detroit proudly raises our Pride Flag at the start of every Pride Month.” And it will until it has a Muslim majority.

Democrats have dismantled tolerance and opened the door to a gold rush by members of its coalition to impose their most extreme agendas on the public with no regard to everyone else.

A leftist majority will force pride flags and LGBT pornography in schools on everyone. A Muslim majority will force sharia on everyone. That is what happens in a country that has abandoned both its traditional consensus on values and its respect for individual beliefs leaving regions with a choice between female genital mutilation and transgender masectomies, between marrying 7-year-old girls and grooming first graders.

America has three choices, either imposing sharia or sexual identity politics, or returning to what we were before we had to choose which group of extremists to allow to abuse our children.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Giving ‘progressive’ antisemites the benefit of the doubt - Jonathan S. Tobin


​ by Jonathan S. Tobin

Both mainstream Jewish groups and their allies in the Biden administration are determined to avoid taking on left-wing Jew-haters and the ideas that drive them.


Rabbi Arthur Schneier and Deborah Lipstadt attend an “Efforts on Combating Antisemitism” briefing at United Nations Headquarters in New York City on June 15, 2022. Credit: Lev Radin/Shutterstock.
Rabbi Arthur Schneier and Deborah Lipstadt attend an “Efforts on Combating Antisemitism” briefing at United Nations Headquarters in New York City on June 15, 2022. Credit: Lev Radin/Shutterstock.

Can you oppose antisemitism while at the same time make common cause with Jew-haters, their organizations and the ideas that propel them forward? The answer from the Biden administration and their allies that control the legacy organizations that purport to speak for American Jewry is “yes.”

That is a point that has been repeatedly clear in recent weeks as once again, the political left has shown itself incapable of responding to the growing problem of antisemitism without seeking to give a pass to their ideological allies. The same forces unfairly seek to connect the dots between mainstream conservatives and marginal extremists on the far right that are antisemitic and to which they have no ties or affinity. But they are guilty of doing the same thing themselves.

One of the best examples of this came from the person who holds the federal position that is actually tasked with fighting antisemitism: Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. Lipstadt has been spending a lot of time lately defending the Biden administration’s recent “National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism.” That document was lauded by most of the organized Jewish world because, at least in principle, it represented a commitment to fighting all forms of Jewish hatred, no matter the origins.

But when asked about why the administration included the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the document—allowing a group that is itself helping to spread Jew-hatred in the Muslim community—Lipstadt responded with a figurative shrug of the shoulders.

Ignoring the reality of CAIR’s contemporary behavior as well as downplaying its past record, the historian-turned-Biden administration apologist said that Jews were obligated to give even those rabid Jew-haters a second chance. Jews come from “a tradition that believes in forgiveness. Our holiest days of the year are about change. So, if they’re really willing to change, if they’re really willing to say, ‘Hey, we now see this is a serious problem, then they are welcome.”

Lipstadt, who shredded her credibility but earned the nomination to her prestigious post by supporting the outrageous claim by Democrats that the Trump administration and Republicans were analogous to the Nazis, left an important element out of her lame rationalization for CAIR’s inclusion. The administration sees the radical group as politically aligned with the Democrats and fits in with their intersectional mindset, in which so-called victims groups can do no wrong even if they are open Jew-haters.

Of course, Lipstadt’s rationalization and the White House’s largely meaningless strategy paper are small potatoes compared to the Biden administration’s decision to rejoin UNESCO, the U.N. cultural organization. Like the rest of the world body’s many agencies, UNESCO is an important source of antisemitism, using its prestige and influence to deny Jewish history and slander Israel, such as its outrageous claim that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is an endangered Muslim site.

The government is compelled by U.S. law to defund UNESCO because of its recognition of “Palestine” as a member state, an attempt to make an end run around the peace process whose goal is to delegitimize Israel. But a Biden administration that is besotted with the United Nations has been itching to rejoin UNESCO, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken claiming that it’s necessary in order for the United States to compete there with its global rival China.

That’s pretty rich considering that Blinken made that statement during the course of a visit to Beijing in which he allowed himself to be repeatedly insulted and then kowtowed to the Communist regime’s ambition to conquer Taiwan. But while Americans have come to expect that sort of behavior from Blinken, the UNESCO decision could have been a moment for Lipstadt to demonstrate her independence by publicly protesting or resigning. Yet having already sacrificed so much for the privilege of being called “ambassador” for the rest of her days, she clearly saw no reason to make a stand that might upset or undermine her political masters.

And so, it’s difficult to blame the Biden administration for its refusal to stand up to left-wing antisemites when the official Jewish community is doing the same thing.

That was demonstrated this past week when both the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) pulled out of the Combat Antisemitism coalition over that organization’s video that directly linked “woke-ism” and the hard left’s ideologies like intersectionality and critical race theory (CRT) to Jew-hatred.

Unlike most of the legacy Jewish groups, Combat Antisemitism is a genuinely nonpartisan group that seeks to unite Jews from all ends of the political spectrum in the fight against hate. It has done exemplary work standing up to the BDS movement and pushed hard for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism despite pushback from the anti-Israel left, which seeks to leave the war against Israel and Zionism out of the struggle.

The video in question sought to highlight a basic fact of contemporary American life. The progressive left’s adherence to the ideas behind the woke catechism of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) are, despite their anodyne-sounding words, a permission slip for antisemitism. Equity is a demand not for the equality of opportunity that has enabled American Jewry to thrive, but for equality of outcomes. That means quotas and the enshrinement of racial discrimination in perpetuity. The goal of the woke movement is not so much to claim that a color-blind society is unattainable, but that it is undesirable.

Steeped as it is in toxic theories about “white privilege,” advocates for DEI—who have conquered academia, the corporate world and now the Biden administration—label both Jews and Israel as “white.” In their worldview, individuals are divided into two groups: oppressors and “people of color” who are oppressed, with Jews on the wrong side of the line. In this way, both CRT and DEI legitimize the myth that the Palestinian war on Zionism is analogous to the struggle for civil rights in the United States.

Far from being an academic argument, this progressive belief has enabled antisemitic attacks on Israel’s existence and Jewish rights not merely to thrive but to be mainstreamed in American political discourse. While right-wing antisemites are confined to the fever swamps of political life, left-wing Jew-haters are no longer marginalized. Instead, they are granted a hearing on the op-ed pages of publications like The New York Times and, as the careers of Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and other “Squad” members have illustrated, become a rising force within the Democratic Party.

Yet for both the federations represented by JFNA and the community relations councils fronted by JCPA, admitting this is a bridge too far. They’re willing to mouth sentiments about opposing all forms of antisemitism, but when it comes to calling out their political allies on the left, especially in minority communities and the antisemitic Black Lives Matter movement, they want no part of it. As a result, they’ve ditched the Combat Antisemitism coalition, depriving it of exactly the kind of mainstream liberal support that made it so effective.

This decision is disgraceful but was inevitable given the drift to the left in these groups that was epitomized by the selection of Amy Spitalnick, a veteran left-wing political hack, as head of the JCPA. Spitalnick’s elevation seemed to indicate that her group would fight hard to advance the partisan progressive agenda of the left and deprioritize the best interests of the Jewish people, and now this proves that such predictions were prescient.

This is but one more example of the failure of the Jewish establishment in this country. While federations still do essential work in local communities and community relations councils have an important job to do, the umbrella groups representing them have shown themselves—and not for the first time—to be more comfortable in the role of auxiliary Democratic Party front groups than in standing up for the interests of the Jewish people in the United States or in Israel.

The majority of American Jews who are politically liberal and loyal Democratic voters are uncomfortable with confronting the truth about both these Jewish groups and President Joe Biden. Still, whether they like it or not, an administration that has embraced DEI, included CAIR in its antisemitism document and rejoined UNESCO has shown that far from fighting the antisemites, it is allied with them. The same is now sadly true of JFNA and JCPA. As much as most Jews would prefer to ignore these truths and avoid drawing conclusions from these dismal developments that explain why antisemitism is both growing and being mainstreamed by the political left, they can’t pretend they haven’t been warned.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). He is also a senior contributor to The Federalist and a columnist for Newsweek, as well as a writer for other publications. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House coronavirus panel subpoenas communications between COVID origin paper authors - Ben Whedon


​ by Ben Whedon

Anderson testified before the committee in mid-June and indicated that he and his co-authors primarily used the Slack channel while drafting the publication.

The House Coronavirus Subcommittee on Friday announced that it had issued a subpoena seeking private communications from a Slack channel belonging to one of the authors of a publication on the origins of the Coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Kristian Anderson, in conjunction with co-authors, produced the "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" publication and may, according to Chairman Brad Wenstrup, have played a key role in suppressing the idea that COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. Anderson testified before the committee in mid-June and indicated that he and his co-authors primarily used the Slack channel while drafting the publication. He further informed the committee that it would to pursue a subpoena for those communications because not everyone involved consented to their handover.

"We are following the breadcrumbs of a COVID-19 cover-up straight to the source," Wenstrup said in a press release announcing the subpoena. "Dr. Kristian Andersen played a pivotal role in potentially suppressing the lab leak hypothesis, and Americans deserve to know why this happened, who was involved, and how we can prevent the intentional suppression of scientific discourse during a future pandemic."

"It is clear that the authors of “Proximal Origins” may have possessed conflicts of interest for supporting a zoonotic origin of COVID-19," he continued. "Fully investigating the internal messages between the co-authors and contributors is a crucial step to inform future legislation and hold guilty parties accountable. The Select Subcommittee looks forward to Dr. Andersen’s speedy and comprehensive response to today’s subpoena."

Formerly maligned as a conspiracy, the notion that COVID-19 escaped the Wuhan Institute of Virology has increasingly gained traction among government agencies, including the Department of Energy and the FBI.

Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

After broad lobbying effort, UN leaves Israel off child-killer ‘list of shame’ - Mike Wagenheim


​ by Mike Wagenheim

Israeli officials sought to ensure that the annual report, which documents those who kill and main children in armed conflicts, did not falsely accuse the Jewish State.


U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres (center); Gilad Erdan (left), Israel's ambassador to the United Nations; and Dani Dayan, Yad Vashem chair, at the exhibit “The Yad Vashem Book of Names of Holocaust Victims.”/UN
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres (center); Gilad Erdan (left), Israel's ambassador to the United Nations; and Dani Dayan, Yad Vashem chair, at the exhibit “The Yad Vashem Book of Names of Holocaust Victims.”/UN

Following a lobbying campaign by Israeli officials, the United Nations left the Jewish State off of its list intended to shame nations, whose armed forces do harm to large numbers of children.

The United Nations distributed its annual report on the treatment of children in conflict zones to members of the U.N. Security Council on June 22. It is expected to release the report publicly on June 27.

Israel has never been listed, but Palestinians and their allies pressured U.N. officials to flag the Jewish State this year, after it received a 2021 warning.

In recent weeks, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented Israel’s case that the United Nations was using flawed or otherwise misleading facts and figures.

Last month, Erdan and Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, IDF coordinator of government activities in the territories, shared evidence with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres that some rockets which Arab terror organizations shot at Israel fell short and killed or injured children in Gaza.

The two also showed the secretary-general that some of the minors from Palestinian Authority-controlled territories were killed after they committed acts of terror and were tied directly to terror organizations in Judea and Samaria.

Guterres also received examples of the Palestinian Authority’s incitement—on social media and in schools—which lead to higher incidences of terror attacks by Arab minors, and of the civil, life-improving projects Israel attempts to run on behalf of Palestinian Authority residents.

“The continuous stream of information from high-level security officials to the diplomatic outreach did seem to yield results in this case,” an Erdan spokesman told JNS.

As part of the outreach, Erdan wrote a May 19 letter to Virginia Gamba, U.N. under-secretary-general and Guterres’ special representative for children and armed conflict who largely authors the report.

In the letter, which JNS viewed, Erdan noted the extensive damage to Palestinian children due to Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s aggression against Israel earlier that month, including firing more than 1,400 rockets toward Israel, killing an Israeli civilian and injuring several more.

“Not only does the Palestinian Islamic Jihad target Israeli civilians in its attacks, it also continues to use its own population and civilian infrastructure to carry out their attacks, children in particular,” Erdan wrote. “According to our records, roughly one of every five rockets fired by the PIJ in this operation misfired and fell in Gaza. On May 10th, such misfired rockets caused the death of at least two Palestinian children: Yazan Alian, 16-years-old, and Lian Luhe, 8-years-old.”

Rockets are fired from Gaza towards Israel, May 10, 2023. Photo by Atia Mohammed/Flash90.

Erdan also noted that PIJ rocket fire led to a shuttering of the Erez Crossing at the Israel-Gaza border.

“The humanitarian crossing of Palestinians, including minors, for medical treatment, was forced to close due to the launch of dozens of mortars and rockets towards the area adjacent to it, causing undue delays to Palestinian civilians, who were intended to cross,” Erdan wrote.


Erdan and his staff also shared with Gamba a video showing evidence that Israel called off or modified numerous strikes on Gazan terror targets “due to the presence of civilians, including children, adjacent to targets.”

Russia was placed on the blacklist this year, along with affiliated groups, which marked the first time a permanent U.N. Security Council member was flagged. 

The U.N. report also condemns violence against children in the Congo, Haiti, Somalia, Syria and other countries.

Mike Wagenheim


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, June 22, 2023

‘Biden is playing for time on Iran’s nuclear program’ - Amichai Stein


​ by Amichai Stein

Washington's emerging nuclear agreement with Iran is deeply flawed, and seeks mainly to put the matter on ice until after the November elections, experts tell JNS.


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reviews new nuclear achievements during the country’s National Nuclear Energy Day in Tehran, April 10, 2021. Credit: Iranian Presidency Office.

While the Biden administration is denying it, the fact is that in recent weeks the United States and Iran have been holding indirect talks regarding Tehran’s nuclear program.

According to U.S. officials and Western diplomats, in the weeks and months after the unofficial death of attempts to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement, the Biden administration conducted several “what’s next” meetings. What emerged from these meetings was the idea of a new kind of a nuclear deal, one based on “freezing” Iran’s nuclear program, not halting or reversing it.

“This is an agreement designed to pause the current situation,” said Gabriel Noronha, former State Department adviser on Iran and now a Jewish Institute for National Security of America Fellow. “It’s just a statement: It’s impossible to continue on the path we’re going down,” he added.

So what will the agreement contain? Based on the few details to have emerged so far, Iran, for its part, will agree to stop enriching uranium to 60%. In return, the United States will unfreeze billions of Iranian dollars. Some reports claim that Iran will also be allowed to increase its oil exports.

One obvious problem with such an agreement, according to Israel’s former national security adviser Eyal Hulata, is that it doesn’t actually freeze uranium enrichment.

“In this agreement, according to the reports, there is a break in the accumulation of high-enriched material, but Iran can continue the accumulation of low-enriched [20%] material,” he told JNS.

Such an agreement would not extend Iran’s break-out time to a bomb, he explained.

“So the danger that the U.S. administration warned about—a short break-out time, that will allow them [Iran] to enrich enough weapons- grade uranium [90%] for one nuclear bomb in two weeks—still remains,” he said.

But the greatest flaw of such an agreement, he added, was that “time doesn’t stop.”

Hulata, currently a senior international fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, went on to explain that the arms embargo on the Islamic Republic is set to end in October, while after 2025, the “sunset clause” in the JCPOA will be triggered, lifting various restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

“From the Israeli point of view, [under such an agreement] the ball remains in Iran’s court. Break-out time remains short. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact, and the clock continues to tick towards the end of the sanctions,” he said.

Former State Department adviser on Iran Gabriel Noronha also criticized the emerging agreement.

“Ultimately, there is no change in the amount of enriched uranium held by Iran, there is no change in the [nuclear] program itself. They will still be able to secretly conduct weapons experiments. Iran will receive a lot of money—and then in another month it will be able to violate the agreement,” he said.

An end run around Congress

Setting aside the question of what the agreement will consist of, there remains the question of whether it will actually be an agreement at all.

Western diplomats and a U.S. official told JNS that whatever its details, the agreement will be a verbal one, with no documents signed. The reason for this, they said, is that the Biden administration is seeking to bypass the need for congressional approval.

As an example of how hard receiving such approval might be, a letter sent to President Biden this week, warning against the administration’s approach to Iran and demanding a much more aggressive approach, was signed by 26 senators—11 of them Democrats.

“The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act says that any agreement in any form—as long as it is related to the Iranian nuclear program—must be voted on by Congress,” said Noronha. “But the administration is trying to create an ‘understanding’ between the parties,” without a signed document. This is a complete violation of that law.”

According to Hulata, “What the Americans are actually doing is freezing the situation until the U.S. elections next November.”

Israel realized during the Bennett-Lapid government’s term that Iran had dropped down the U.S. list of priorities, he said, “and this was even before the war in Ukraine.”

However, he continued, “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about Israel’s national security, and that is why we insisted that Biden sign the Jerusalem Declaration that says Israel has the right to defend itself.”

Israel shifts from prevention to mitigation

In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to “downgrade” the agreement.

Israeli officials told JNS that Israel’s current view is that Washington has decided to cut a deal with Iran, and that Jerusalem’s chances of stopping it are somewhere “between slim and zero.”

This is likely the reason Netanyahu has changed tack, attempting to influence the terms of the agreement instead of attacking it outright; he doesn’t want it to be seen as his failure if the deal goes ahead.

Which way will Iran jump?

But the big question, the answer to which will ultimately decide whether or not an agreement is reached, is simply whether or not Iran will say “yes.”

“Iran is still open to reaching a deal with the West over its nuclear program,” said Sina Toossi, an Iran expert and nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy.

“The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has backed a diplomatic agreement, as long as it does not undermine Iran’s nuclear capabilities or its national pride,” Toossi told JNS.

“Khamenei said there is nothing wrong with an agreement with the West, if it benefits Iran’s interests and sovereignty. He explicitly used the term ‘flexibility,’ which he had also used before the original nuclear deal in 2015,” he said.

While in a recent speech Khamenei said that the country’s nuclear capabilities must not be compromised, he has not specified what he means by “nuclear capabilities.” However, comments by other Iranian officials suggest that Iran will seek to keep its more advanced centrifuges and stockpiles of enriched uranium.

However, the lure of sanctions relief is a strong one, according to Toossi.

“Although sanctions relief and unfreezing of assets alone may not entirely rectify the deep-rooted issues in Iran’s economic and governance structures, it can indeed provide a much-needed lifeline and some respite to the country’s flailing economy and its most vulnerable people,” he said. “Furthermore, sanctions relief could allow Iran to reestablish key economic and trade ties and attract foreign investments,” he added.

The question is, will those economic benefits be enough to convince Iran to accept the U.S. offer.

Amichai Stein is the diplomatic correspondent for Kan 11, IPBC.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Tyranny of the Clerks - Bruce Thornton


​ by Bruce Thornton

What the 2024 election is really all about.


The Framers of our Constitution were well-versed through experience and history in the dangers of tyranny. Their education in Classical history and literature familiarized them with the political theory and practice of the world’s first constitutional governments like democracy and republics. Their European influencers like Montesquieu and David Hume were similarly trained. From these sources, and their own take on their experiences with King George III, the Framers learned that concentrated and centralized power ultimately leads to tyranny–– the degradation of civil liberties, freedom, and equality.

One form of despotism, however, they could not have anticipated is our modern tyranny of the clerks, the functionaries in hypertrophied government bureaucracies that degenerate into instruments of political factions to be used against rivals. For over a century the Constitution has been weakened and compromised by these unaccountable, mostly anonymous bureaucracies––as the excesses of federal agencies over the last seven years are now making obvious.

The idea of technocracy or rule by “experts,” of course, was not unknown in antiquity. Plato’s famous utopia in the Republic (c. 375 B.C.) imagined a state run by cognitive elite “guardians” created by covert eugenic marriages, and trained for five decades in philosophy and virtue. Subsequently the idea of the “philosopher king” remained a staple of political fantasy all the way down to Marxism’s “vanguard” of the elite intelligentsia who could discern what Marx called the “inner but concealed essential pattern” of economics and history.

But Plato’s ideal has always encountered the problem that Roman satirist Juvenal identified: “Who will actually guard the guardians?” Such utopian notions foundered on the empirical reality of a flawed, irrational, universal human nature driven by “passions and interests.” And one of the most dangerous and destructive is the lust for power that seldom is sated, and always craves more.

That tragic realism, an inheritance from both our Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultural traditions, was also shared by the Founders. As historian Walter A. McDougall writes, “[A]ll Federalists believed human nature was flawed . . . envisioned no utopias, put little trust in republican virtue, and believed the only government liable to endure was one taking mankind as it was and making allowance for passion and greed.” Hence the Constitution’s structure of divided, mutually checking balanced powers.

The progressives at the turn of the 20th century, however, believed that the Constitution was an anachronism based on outmoded beliefs like mankind’s flawed nature. Progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly, in contrast, argued that new “sciences” such as economics, sociology, and psychology had made obsolete tradition, faith, and history as guides to human nature––and Darwinism’s “natural selection” had shown that human nature, rightly guided by technocrats, similarly could progress beyond the old realist view of it as flawed and unchanging.

This new “knowledge,” then, should be integrated into a more powerful centralized government, which would create, as Wilson wrote, a “public bureau of skilled, economical administration,” one staffed by the “hundreds who are wise” given the authority to manage and guide the thousands who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” We see previewed here the arrogance and contempt of government agencies for the citizens and taxpayers subsidizing their abusive powers.

Apart from the begged question that such knowledge of human motives and behavior could be subject to the methods and protocols of real science, the creation of such agencies housed in big bureaucracies ignored the malign tendencies of those institutions. An obvious one is called “professional deformation”: the shift of a bureaucracy’s loyalties, duties, principles, and functions away from the Constitutional purposes it was created to fulfill, to the increasing advantages, enlargement, and scope of the agency and its powers.

This tendency worsens with government bureaucracie, the lion’s share of whose members are not accountable to the market or the voters, which means they can fail with impunity. Indeed, federal government workers are doubly insulated from accountability by both civil service laws and unions. As Ronald Reagan quipped, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

Our country’s regulatory regime illustrates this tendency. The expansion of government agencies that took off during FDR’s New Deal legislation has relentlessly continued, at a total compliance and economic cost of their regulations estimated to be $1.927 trillion annually. And these agencies thrive by dint of Congressional laws that mostly set out general goals rather than detail the specifics of the law’s functioning. That’s how we’ve ended up with two million federal workers who typically enjoy wages and benefits well beyond the private workforce’s.

It seems we have created de Tocqueville’s prescient “soft despotism,” a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and most energetic characters cannot penetrate.”

As a result of this public institutional gigantism, the interpretation, enforcement, and punishments for breaking these regulatory rules are left to the agencies themselves, whose procedures and powers are visible only to those who fall afoul of these regulations, and can afford lawyers. And all these functions are conducted by anonymous clerks who are not accountable to the voters, and vitiate the “checks and balances” of our government’s divided powers.

Perhaps that’s why, as Kimberly Strassel commented recently, these agencies have been hostile to every Republican president since Ronald Reagan––not to mention explaining the federal clerks’ overwhelming preference for Democrats when making political donations. The party of Leviathan takes care of its minions.

And when litigation does succeed in stopping an agency’s abusive power, it takes years and usually a Supreme Court decision to make it stop. A recent example is Sackett vs. EPA, the third time the Court has had to rein in this agency’s notorious penchant for expensive and needless encroachments on the rights of individuals, states, businesses, and civil society.

As the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes, “For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have tried to claim that almost every bit of domestic water imaginable is a federally regulated water”––including private property like that of the Sacketts, who spent 15 years confirming their Constitutional right to build a house on their own property. The “rule” they fought was conjured by distorting or simply ignoring the Clean Water Act, a typical example of how an agency’s power to interpret the law can produce violations of the rights of citizens.

Moreover, the EPA bears much of the blame for the lengthy delays, most instigated by well-heeled environmental lobbyists, that add more costs to big infrastructure construction. As Jonah Goldberg points out, “it took 410 days to build the Empire State Building and 16 months to build the Pentagon but nearly 20 years to complete Boston’s Big Dig highway tunnel project. The Hoover Dam was scheduled to take seven years but was completed in five. That would be a generous timetable for Environmental Protection Agency review of the proposal today.”

Such hubris and incompetence can be found in practically every federal agency, because each is beholden to the federal government, not the voters. In other words, they are political entities, not a collection of objective “experts.” A particularly egregious, if not shameful, recent example is the Pentagon’s addition of transgender and “systemic racism”––both dubious political phenomena––“training” for our troops. No wonder the services are falling short of recruits, when they choose sides in a divisive political debate, rather than sticking to their sole purpose of training warriors to defend our nation’s security.

Finally, for nearly six years we have witnessed some of the worst abuses of government power in our history. Powerful agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS, which are sanctioned to surveil, investigate, arrest, and subject citizens to dawn raids by heavily armed agents, have been weaponized to serve the political interests of one party at the expense of the other, thus trashing the Constitution to which they have supposedly sworn fealty–– especially its tattered 14th amendment’s promise of “equal protection under the laws.”

The indictment of Donald Trump for improperly handling classified documents is just the latest in a series of government actions that deface this critical defense of our freedom and political equality. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, no Trump cheerleader, recently has emphasized the patent injustice of our government’s “selective, vindictive prosecution” of Donald Trump:

The Obama-Biden Justice Department gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a complete pass on similarly egregious offenses.

The Biden Justice Department — even as it indicts Trump — is laying the ground work to absolve President Biden himself on what appears to be appalling classified-information violations going back decades.

Yet the earth has been scorched to make a criminal case against Trump, not only a former president but a current presidential candidate — right now, the prohibitive GOP favorite to run against Biden.

To anyone watching this, the normal reaction to Trump’s indictment is: What about Hillary? What about Biden?

Come to think of it, what about Sandy Berger and David Petraeus, who got slaps on the wrist rather than the serious felony prosecutions for classified information crimes? What about Mike Pence?

It couldn’t be more obvious that these cases are pertinent to the question of whether the indictment of Trump is fair and just.”

Equality under the laws, one of the most important bulwarks for protecting our freedom against tyranny, is in danger. The politicized excesses of our government agencies fit Aristotle’s definition of tyranny: “arbitrary power responsible to no one,” and that governs “with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.

In the end, the 2024 election is not about Donald Trump or Joe Biden. It is about whether we will live free to govern ourselves, or whether we will further endure the tyranny of the clerks.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an emeritus professor of classics and humanities at California State University, Fresno, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents: The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Soeren Kern on Europe's Alarming New Migrant Crisis - Marilyn Stern


​ by Marilyn Stern

Europe is being permanently changed with the unabated flood of Muslim migrants, propelled along by the lack of political will to stop it.


Soeren Kern, a Middle East Forum Writing Fellow and Spain-based security analyst, spoke to a June 16th Middle East Forum Webinar (video) about Europe's migration crisis, and what it portends for the future of the continent. The following is a summary of Kern's remarks:

Various factors are triggering the flood of migrants to Europe this year, which has already surpassed the 300,000 that arrived last year. Primarily males in their mid-twenties, this year's migrants comprise Arabs, Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Northeast Africans, and Sub-Saharan Africans. A U.N. official commented that there are "over 20 million migrants, many of them Muslim, waiting at the doorstep of Europe."

The mild winter in Europe, coupled with the economic chaos in Libya and Sudan, has contributed to this increase. Enticing images of the West's standard of living beamed onto social media and the internet and accessed by Sub-Saharan Africa drives economic migrants who, having lost hope in their own countries, seek out smugglers to take them on the dangerous crossing. Reports of humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGO's) rescuing migrants from the Mediterranean Sea create a "pull effect" that encourages migrants to risk their lives. Moreover, NGO's take advantage of a European Union (EU) law that makes it difficult to deport migrants once they have reached a European port. In February, the number of Tunisians and sub-Saharan Africans trying to reach Italy and Greece spiked after the Tunisian president announced that sub-Saharan Africans threatened "Tunisia's national identity." Consequently, Tunisia has replaced Libya as "the main departure point for Mediterranean crossings."

European politicians divided over treatment of illegal immigration have exacerbated the migrant crisis. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently proclaimed that the British government will stop small boat arrivals across the English Channel. "They're expecting 56,000 small boats to cross the English Channel in 2023, and they're expecting around 140,000 asylum seekers." But despite the British government's proclamation, the U.K. received "one million net migrants" last year alone, indicating that Sunak has neither the "will [n]or ability" to follow through. The U.K. is a desired destination because its lack of a national identification requirement enables migrants to become part of an underground economy. Albanians, who mainly work in the construction industry, are also active in criminal activities. In the U.K., Albanians deal drugs, and its gangs in Spain rob banks, stores, and wealthy private homes.

Spain's migrant crisis is attributable to Morocco, which extracts concessions from Spain to limit mass migration from Morocco's shores. Regardless of the recent deal negotiated between the two countries, if the socialists lose and conservatives come to power in Spain's upcoming elections, Morocco will likely unleash more migration, presumably to extract yet more concessions. Turkey, whose four million migrants are the largest refugee population in the world, signed a migrant deal with the EU in 2016 in which Turkey received six billion euros to stop migration from Turkey into Greece. In addition, the EU is granting Turkish nationals "visa-free travel to the EU," — an outcome "politically unpalatable" to many European countries.

The EU's Commissioner for Migration, one of many political leaders delivering a mixed message, recently announced the importance of mass migration in light of the continent's declining demographics. Humanitarians and multiculturalists embrace the migration cause. Pro-migrant progressive activists caught up in the "climate change" movement justify the need to accept "climate migration" as its consequence.

The EU recently entered into an agreement with its member states to process asylum seekers more quickly at the borders as a means of controlling the crisis. The intention is to relocate 30,000 migrants a year from Greece and Italy, hardest hit by the flood of migrants, to other EU countries such as Poland and Hungary, which oppose the plan. Poland and Hungary claim they are already inundated with migrants fleeing Ukraine's war with Russia. Italy wants a "mandatory relocation of migrants," but the EU plan is unlikely to meet approval in the European Parliament because the EU ultimately wants to "force" Poland and Hungary to forego payment and take in migrants.

In addition to the EU "brib[ing] foreign governments," agencies such as Frontex are increasing border enforcement via naval sea patrols. Collectively, the EU is incapable of handling the migration crisis, leaving countries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Poland, and Spain to craft their own solutions by constructing physical border walls or fences. The reality is that despite efforts to stem the flow, overwhelming numbers make it impossible to stop the continuous waves of migrants.


Unlike the mass migration occurring at the U.S. southern border, where the majority of Latin Americans crossing are Roman Catholic Christians, Europe's mass migration comprises people with an Eastern and Islamic background who have a worldview at odds with the Judeo-Christian foundation of Europe. Assimilating into the host culture is problematic for most migrants, many of whom are illiterate even in their own language and find learning a European language too difficult. Islamist and fundamentalist Salafist groups prey on frustrated and angry Muslim youths who are incapable or unwilling to integrate. There has been an increase in sexual crimes and homicides and a precipitous rise in antisemitism and attacks on churches. Instead of reporting on jihadist attacks, the mainstream media provide cover for attackers by remaining silent, fearing accusations of "Islamophobia" or attributing the cause to "psychological problems," but never to Islamism or jihad.

Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) have infiltrated the EU and European governments and exert influence and control over European media. The EU, under the MB's influence, has even hired an "Islamophobia czar," making any criticism of the mass migrants' Islamization of Europe almost impossible. Notwithstanding this, more effective counter-terrorism policy has led to a decline in jihadi attacks in Europe.

As a result of the onslaught, there is a rise in populist or "civilizationist" parties supported by those who believe in traditional culture and personal liberty, but see their concerns about a disappearing pro-Western way of life disregarded and even disparaged by the elite. One such party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), is now the country's second largest party. When populist parties raise the issue of migration and the negative influence of migrants who do not assimilate to the host country's values, government-funded media outlets dishonestly portray these parties as racist and "Islamophobic." Populist bloggers in Europe post information online and generate hundreds of thousands of subscribers. In Germany, the government tried to shut down these sites, but German courts ruled in favor of the bloggers.

In addition to their dishonest portrayal in the media, a problem hampering AfD and the civilizationist National Rally party in France is that they have lost "credibility" over their support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The Vox conservative political party in Spain, with no connection to Russia, is supported by 15 percent of the population, but the problem for all civilizationist parties is that they do not garner enough votes to gain power. The Vox party joined a coalition government whose priority is making the streets safer, but it is unwilling to "crack down" on mass migration. The liberal Spanish media have branded Vox as the party of neo-Nazis and bigots, when in fact the party's platform champions supporting the constitution, protecting borders, and upholding a just system of law and order.

Although the erosion of European culture has been ongoing for decades, the continent is being permanently changed with the unabated flood of Muslim migrants, propelled along by the lack of political will to stop it. Any program that would interrupt the migration momentum would require "mass economic support to sub-Saharan Africa," which "is not going to happen." Absent a Marshall Plan for Africa and Afghanistan, "this is really unstoppable." Over the next fifteen years or so, if Germany sustains its current migration level, it will be almost twenty percent Muslim. This demographic shift will irrevocably strengthen the presence of Sharia law, which runs "parallel" to Europe's democratic order. "It's a very sad prognosis for the future of Europe and for the future of Judeo-Christian culture on this continent."


Marilyn Stern is communications coordinator at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter