Monday, December 2, 2024

Biden presidency began with Hunter scandal lies, and ended with broken pardon pledge - John Solomon

 

by John Solomon

Republicans said the Sunday night pardon of Hunter Biden exposed a continuing dual system of justice.

 

Hunter Biden with father Joe Biden
Hunter Biden with father Joe Biden
Getty Images

Joe Biden began his presidency with a series of lies about his son Hunter’s business dealings: the laptop was Russian disinformation, the family didn’t get China money and the future president never consorted with influence-seeking associates.

And he is ending his tenure in the White House with a stunning broken pledge.

After months of the White House and Joe Biden personally insisting there would be no pardon, the 46th president granted clemency Sunday night to his son that erased his federal gun and tax convictions.

The bookends to a major political scandal left Republicans who investigated tens of millions of dollars in foreign payments to the first family crying anew about a dual system of justice.

“It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability," said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who oversaw a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry that delivered explosive new revelations about the nature of the Biden family grift and systematically proved Joe Biden lied to the American people.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who led the initial probe into Hunter Biden in 2020 only to see it stymied by FBI interference and lies about Hunter Biden’s laptop,  said the pardon was the ultimate exclamation point to a justice system that relentlessly pursued Donald Trump and his associates but often protected Hunter Biden and his friends.

“Just confirming that under Democrat governance, there truly is a dual system of justice, one that protects Democrats and another weaponized against their political opponents,” Johnson wrote on X.

In a statement issued by the White House, Joe Biden argued his son was the victim of a political prosecution, even though it was conducted by a special counsel supervised by the Biden DOJ, secured a gun conviction in the Biden family’s home state of Delaware and resulted in a guilty plea in which Hunter Biden admitted to tax crimes.

“Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter," Biden said. "From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted."

“Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form," Biden added. "Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently."

You can read the full pardon decree here.

Hunter Biden, 54, was convicted earlier this year by a Delaware jury on gun charges, and then pled guilty to tax charges in California. 

The clemency was a major about-face. The White House had repeatedly said Biden would not pardon his son.

And the president himself answered “yes," when ABC News asked if he would rule out pardoning his son.

In his statement, Biden claimed to have wrestled with the decision.

“For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded,” he said. “Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

Most Americans are finishing the Biden presidency with a low regard for the president: his approval rating sunk to 37% last month. And voters who took Joe Biden at his word that there were no shenanigans or wrongdoing with his son’s business dealings now believe they were misled and that the president engaged in illegal or unethical conduct.

A poll last year found majority of voters, 61%, believed that Biden had at least some involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings, with 42% saying they think he acted illegally, and 18% saying that his actions were unethical but not illegal.

But Joe Biden’s repeated lies about his own participation in the scandal – he dined with Hunter’s partners while insisting he didn’t -- and his campaign’s bogus portrayal of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation in the final days of the 2020 election will likely linger through history as part of his legacy.

“Joe Biden has lied from start to finish about his family’s corrupt influence peddling activities,” Comer said Sunday night. “Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son’s foreign business associates and that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden.

“The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people,” he added.


John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/biden-presidency-began-hunter-scandal-lies-and-ended

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Support for Patel to run FBI mostly divided along party lines, but ousting Wray appears more complex - Just the News Staff

 

by Just the News Staff

While Patel appeared to be the favorite for the position among MAGA supporters, he strikes fear in the heart of many currently in power in the FBI and Justice Department.

 

kash patel
Kash Patel - JTN

President-elect Donald Trump sent shockwaves through the Washington establishment and the halls of Congress this weekend when he named Kash Patel as his choice to be the new FBI director. 

While Patel appeared to be the favorite among MAGA supporters for the position, he also appears to have rattled those inside the FBI and Justice Department accused of using their power to undermine Trump.

The 44-year-Patel, in fact, made a public pitch for the post before being nominated, saying a top priority if confirmed would be to shutdown the FBI headquarters and "reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state.’” 

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the new Congress and will be presiding over the confirmation hearing for Patel, posted on X that Christopher Wray, the current FBI director who was appointed by Trump in 2017 after he fired James Comey from that position, has “failed at fundamental duties of FBI” director, and said that Wray has shown “disdain” for congressional “oversight and hasn’t lived up to his promises,” according to The Washington Times. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Sunday told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” that Patel is a “very strong nominee” and said it is “no secret” that Wray will resign or be fired. 

“You look at his background, he has a serious professional background,” Cruz said of Patel. “He was a prosecutor; he was a public defender. He was a senior intelligence staffer on Capitol Hill. He was a senior intelligence staffer in the White House. He was the chief of staff of the Department of Defense. He was the deputy director of national intelligence."

But not everyone is pleased. 

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton compared Patel to one of the former Soviet Union’s most feared secret police chiefs, Lavrentiy Beria, according to The Hill. 

“Trump has nominated Kash Patel to be his Lavrentiy Beria,” Bolton said in a statement to NBC News’ “Meet The Press” on Sunday. “Fortunately, the FBI is not the NKVD. The Senate should reject this nomination 100-0.”

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, South Dakota, made clear his support for Wray: 

“I think the president picked a very good man to be the director of the FBI when he did that in his first term,” Rounds told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson congratulated Patel in a post on the social platform X. 

“Kash Patel has extensive experience in national security and intelligence,” the Louisiana Republican wrote. “He is an America First patriot who will bring much-needed change and transparency to the FBI.”

Senator Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., said on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” that Patel “represents the type of change that we need to see in the FBI.”

“This entire agency needs to be cleaned out. It’s not doing its job,” he said of Wray, while also arguing there are “serious problems” with the “politicization” that has occured in the bureau.

“The American public knows it,” Hagerty continued. “They expect to see sweeping change and Kash Patel is just the type of person to do it.”

When Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin was asked for his reaction on CNN’s “State of the Union,” he replied, “Christopher Wray, of course, is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, as he has said, but apparently has demonstrated too much the independence and objectivity in the job for Donald Trump, who wants much more of a personal loyalist in the position. And that's why he's gone to Kash Patel.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said on CNN on Saturday night that “The fact that Kash Patel is profoundly unqualified for this job is not even like a matter for debate. So I think what we should, what we should really be thinking about right now is what does this signal in terms of Donald Trump’s intent for the FBI,” according to The Hill. 

He also said Patel’s leadership would “disrupt,” “dismantle” and “distract” the agency.

Michael Flynn, a retired Army general who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser at the beginning of his first term in office, posted on the social platform X that “Kash is America’s choice as Director of the FBI. Accountability is coming. Congratulations and well deserved.” 


Just the News Staff

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/nomination-kash-patel-head-fbi-draws-strong-responses-both-sides

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran in crisis: Battling Israel left Tehran too weak to deal with Syria, researcher says - Maya Cohen

 

by Maya Cohen

"The Iranians have paid a very high price for operating all their proxies against Israel over the past year," explained Sabati.

 

IRAN’S SUPREME Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends Friday prayers and a memorial ceremony for Hassan Nasrallah in Tehran earlier this month. (photo credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency/Reuters)
IRAN’S SUPREME Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends Friday prayers and a memorial ceremony for Hassan Nasrallah in Tehran earlier this month.
(photo credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency/Reuters)

The surprising offensive by Sunni rebels in Syria reveals a deep crisis in Iran's strategy, Institute for National Security Studies researcher Benny Sabati said in a recent interview with Maariv, arguing that Tehran's efforts in combatting Israel left the Islamic Republic depleted.

"The Iranians have paid a very high price for operating all their proxies against Israel over the past year," explained Sabati.

Iran finds itself significantly weakened

"Their command has been eliminated, their soldiers and field commanders - many of whom are in Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups," Sabati noted. As a result, "Iran is entering the campaign in Syria in a very weak state; it has no means to help Assad's regime at all."

This double blow is not only about the inability to provide assistance but also about inflicting harm.

"They targeted a general and several IRGC members, killed them, and captured the Iranian consulate. On one hand, Iran is unable to assist; on the other, it has become a target itself.”

 Members of Syrian opposition fighters walk along a street in Aleppo, after the Syrian army said that dozens of its soldiers had been killed in a major attack by rebels who swept into the city, in Syria November 30, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/MAHMOUD HASSANO)
Members of Syrian opposition fighters walk along a street in Aleppo, after the Syrian army said that dozens of its soldiers had been killed in a major attack by rebels who swept into the city, in Syria November 30, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/MAHMOUD HASSANO)

Struggling with parallel fronts

According to Sabati, Iran’s problem is compounded by its inability to manage simultaneous fronts. 

"The Iranians have an issue. They neither like nor believe in fighting on two fronts. When they’re focused on the Israeli front, that’s all they deal with," Sabati said. 

"They likely had to neglect this front of the extremist Sunnis," Sabati added. "They’ve abandoned it for the past two or three years in favor of focusing on Israel." 

The consequences of this neglect are now becoming evident, the researcher argued.

"Now the genie is out of the bottle."

Turning to Russia for help

In search of a solution, Iran turned to Russia, he continued. "Iran's foreign minister spoke last night with Russia's foreign minister, asking for help." 

However, even the Iranian foreign minister's visit to Damascus seemed futile, Sabati added. 

"He can come to encourage - that’s all he can do. They don't have much in their pocket."

Domestic criticism and regional implications

The situation is escalating amid internal criticism in Iran, as "the public is very angry about the aid provided to regional countries and all the terrorist organizations," said Sabati. 

Meanwhile, the regional implications largely depend on Russia's response. 

"If the Russians intervene and suppress this rebellion, it's a different story. If they don’t, we will witness a significant weakening of both Iran and the Syrian regime."

 
Maya Cohen

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-831577

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Khamenei’s dilemma: Syria, Assad, Takfiris, and the fight for Iran’s influence - Alex Winston

 

by Alex Winston

“Takfiri groups are good news for enemies of the world of Islam," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote on X.

 

Illustrative image of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (photo credit: Canva, REUTERS/MAHMOUD HASSANO, SANA/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)
Illustrative image of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
(photo credit: Canva, REUTERS/MAHMOUD HASSANO, SANA/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

At a time when Hezbollah and Israel have signed a shaky ceasefire and Hamas is seriously weakened in Gaza, one of Iran’s other proxy strongholds in the Middle East is causing increasing concern for the ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Syria.

Dozens of Syrian Army soldiers have been killed as rebels of the Islamist terror group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham swept into the major city of Aleppo, forcing the army to redeploy in the biggest challenge to President Bashar al-Assad in years.

Russia, a major Assad ally, said its air force had carried out strikes on Syrian rebels in support of the country’s army, following what was the boldest rebel assault for years in a civil war where front lines had largely been frozen since 2020.

Iranian-backed militias also entered Syria on Sunday night from Iraq to support Assad and were heading to northern Syria to reinforce the beleaguered Syrian Army forces battling insurgents, according to Syrian Army sources. Dozens of Iran-aligned Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi fighters from Iraq also crossed into Syria through a military route near Al Bukamal crossing.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, once known as the Nusra Front, is designated a terrorist group by the United States, Russia, Turkey, and other states.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in Tehran, Iran May 30, 2024. (credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS)Enlrage image
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in Tehran, Iran May 30, 2024. (credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS)

To throw his opinion into the mix, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sent out a post on X on Sunday evening, addressing the current situation in Syria, stating, “Takfiri groups are good news for enemies of the world of Islam. Exactly at a time when all Islamic Ummah’s attention is focused on the issue of Palestine, takfiri [apostate] groups, [that] instead of concentrating on [the] Zionist regime’s malevolent nature, draw the attention to other places. #Syria”

Khamenei’s post criticizes takfiri groups, a term often used to describe extremist Sunni factions that declare other Muslims apostates. He accused these groups of serving the interests of Islam’s enemies, such as the US and Israel, by diverting attention away from the Palestinian cause and the “malevolent nature” of the “Zionist regime.”

This perspective aligns with Khamenei’s long-standing belief in the umma (Muslim community at large) – that unity among Muslims is essential to resist external threats, particularly from Israel. By engaging in internal conflicts – such as those in Syria – takfiri groups weaken the Islamic world and shift focus from what Khamenei views as the central issues: Palestinian liberation and opposition to Zionism.

Khamenei, while embodying the Shia theocratic model, often invokes the concept of the umma to assert Iran’s leadership in a broader Islamist struggle.

A relationship worth saving?

Iran and Syria’s alliance began in the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Syria, under former president Hafez al-Assad, was one of the first Arab nations to back Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. The shared hostility toward Israel and opposition to Western influence in the Middle East cemented their ties. Syria also provided critical logistical support to Iran, allowing the passage of arms and supplies to Hezbollah – the Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon – which Israel has spent years trying to disrupt and has amped up its pressure since the war against Hezbollah erupted after October 7.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), particularly its Quds Force, has been the primary actor managing Iran’s relationship with Syria. The Quds Force, tasked with overseeing Iran’s extraterritorial operations, established a significant presence in Syria to support both strategic goals and ideological ones, such as exporting the Islamic Revolution’s principles. Iran’s support for Syria includes arms supplies, economic aid, and the training of pro-Assad militias.

The onset of Syria’s civil war in 2011 marked a turning point in the relationship.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, like his father Hafez, positioned himself as a key ally of Iran. When anti-Assad protests escalated into a violent conflict, the IRGC intervened decisively to ensure Assad’s survival, as losing Syria would have been a strategic blow to Iran’s regional influence.

Iran has since poured billions of dollars into Syria, supplying arms, deploying IRGC officers, and recruiting militias from across the region, including Afghan, Pakistani, and Iraqi fighters. This intervention helped Assad regain control over much of the country. Iran also viewed the war as a chance to expand its “axis of resistance” against Israel, consolidating a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean.

The Assad family’s secular Ba’athist ideology contrasts with Iran’s theocratic Shi’a governance, but their partnership endures due to shared goals. Both regimes oppose US policies in the region, support Palestinian resistance groups, and resist Sunni-dominated powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

For Iran, Syria acts as a critical bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon and provides access to Israel’s borders, complicating Israel’s defense strategies and acting as an Iranian deterrence.

While the Iran-Syria alliance remains strong, it faces challenges, including economic pressures and differing priorities in post-war reconstruction. Syria’s dependence on Russia has introduced a new player into the dynamic, sometimes complicating Iran’s influence. However, the IRGC’s deep entrenchment in Syrian security and economic structures ensures its continued leverage.

The relationship between Iran, the IRGC, and Syria is a multifaceted alliance defined by strategic necessity, ideological convergence, and mutual survival against shared adversaries. The IRGC’s role as Iran’s external arm ensures that Syria remains central to Iran’s regional ambitions.

Missing friends

Over the course of 2024, Khamenei has lost some of his closest allies.

The elimination of figures such as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh (killed in Tehran itself), and Hamas’s Gaza chief Yahya Sinwar will have led the Iranian leadership to be desperate to keep Assad – its closest ally in the region – in power, no matter what the cost.

In Khamenei’s eyes, the umma is not just a concept but a mission, embodied in the jihadist groups that  Iran backs and the IRGC’s extensive reach. His message, accusing HTS  of drawing attention away from Israel’s wars and the Palestinian issue is merely a pretense hiding his real intention: Assad must stay in power, or Iran’s influence will be critically wounded in Israel’s periphery.


Alex Winston

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-831597

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Northern border terrorist-related arrests soar - Bethany Blankley

 

by Bethany Blankley

Greatest number of KSTs have been apprehend under the Biden administration in U.S. history: 1,903.

 

U.S. - Canada border
U.S. - Canada border
JEFF KOWALSKY /Getty Images

(The Center Square) -

Federal agents are arresting a record number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist at the northern U.S. border, including a Jordanian national with ties to terrorism who recently was removed from the country after illegally entering from Canada.

Border Patrol agents in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Blaine Sector apprehended Jordanian national Mohammad Hasan Abdellatif Albana, 41, near Lynden, Washington, a few miles from the Canadian border.

Lynden is roughly 22 miles to Aldergrove in British Columbia. There are 13 land ports of entry at the U.S.-Canada border in Washington, including the Lynden-Aldergrove Port of Entry. The POE is famous for the 1979 murder of U.S. Customs inspector Kenneth Ward, who was shot while performing a vehicle inspection by members of far-left domestic terrorist group the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Albana illegally “entered the U.S. without being admitted, inspected or paroled by a U.S. immigration official,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. He would have been considered a “gotaway” if he hadn’t been caught. Gotaways is the official CBP term for foreign nationals who illegally enter between ports of entry to intentionally evade capture and aren’t caught.

Once apprehended, he was identified as a match on the terrorist watchlist, processed for removal, and removed to Jordan on Nov. 15 because he posed “a risk to the national security of the U.S.,” ICE said.

Albana was among 44 individuals who’ve been arrested and identified as a known or suspected terrorist (KST) this fiscal year, according to CBP data last updated Nov. 20. By comparison, 8 KSTs were apprehended at the southwest border over the same time-period.

As The Center Square first reported, the greatest number of KSTs are being apprehended at the US-Canada border.

Overall, the greatest number of KSTs have been apprehend under the Biden administration in U.S. history: 1,903.

The majority, 64%, totaling 1,216, were apprehended at the northern border coming from Canada between fiscal years 2021-2024, according to CBP data.

A record 687 KSTs were reported at the southwest border over the same time period.

CBP publicly reports four KST data sets: apprehensions at land ports of entry and between ports of entry at the U.S.-Canada and US-Mexico borders. Data is reported by fiscal year, from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.

Those identified as KSTs are matched to the Terrorist Screening Dataset, the federal government's database that contains sensitive information on terrorist identities. The TSDS originated as a consolidated terrorist watchlist to hold information on known or suspected terrorists. Over the past decade, it evolved “to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals,” CBP says.

Over the last four years, most congressional reports and news reports have solely focused on KSTs apprehended between ports of entry at the southwest border, ignoring the greater number apprehended, and unknown number illegally entering, at the northern border.

Since 2017, the greatest number of KSTs have been apprehended every year at the northern border, except in 2019, The Center Square first reported. The greatest number apprehended in U.S. history at the northern border was 487 in fiscal 2023.

Under the Biden administration, 1,209 KSTs were apprehended at US-Canada ports of entry and seven between ports of entry. By contrast, 989 KSTs were apprehended at the southwest border; 604 at ports of entry and 385 between ports of entry.

“The record number of people on the terrorist watchlist coming across the northern border” disproves the “most secure border in the world” claim made by Canadian officials, President-elect Donald Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, told The Center Square. “It’s really simple math,” he said, pointing to CBP data. “What they won’t tell you are the unknown gotaways coming through the northern border.”

Unlike the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border, there are no border walls and significantly less technological equipment and agents to patrol the U.S.-Canada border, the longest international border in the world totaling 5,525 miles, The Center Square reported.

Because there are far fewer Border Patrol agents in the field, less technological surveillance and a lack of operational control, combined with national security threats posed by Canadian policies, among other factors, the number of KSTs who’ve illegally entered from Canada between ports of entry is unknown, border officials tell The Center Square. Unlike the southwest border, where agents in the field can track illegal entry and report gotaways, no comparable capability exists at the northern border, where one agent may be responsible for 500 miles.

“There’s always been a national security vulnerability there; it remains a national security vulnerability,” Homan told The Center Square. “There are hundreds of miles of open border that is not being patrolled and that's just a stone-cold fact.”

Homan told The Center Square the Trump administration will secure the northern and southwest borders.


Bethany Blankley

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/northern-border-terrorist-related-arrests-soar

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Fact Check: Family separation has always been policy, including under Democrats - Bethany Blankley

 

by Bethany Blankley

Family separation became a major issue during the Bill Clinton presidency with the Elian Gonzalez case.

 

ICE Detention facility, Adelanto, Calif., Nov. 15, 2013
ICE Detention facility, Adelanto, Calif., Nov. 15, 2013
John Moore/Getty Images

(The Center Square) -

On Thanksgiving Day in 1999, a 5-year-old boy, Elian Gonzalez, was found clinging to an inner tube floating off the coast of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

His mother had attempted to enter the country illegally after fleeing Cuba while embroiled in a custody dispute. At some point, the makeshift boat they were in capsized, and she and others drowned. Elian survived, was granted refugee status and sent to live with an uncle in Miami. His father, still living in Cuba, demanded that he be sent home.

At the end of the Clinton administration, in December 2000, the head of Immigration and Naturalization Service ruled that Elian must be returned to his father. Attorney General Janet Reno authorized his removal. What followed sparked a national debate after a photographer captured the image of a terrified child being apprehended by Border Patrol agents holding semi-automatic rifles. The photograph made international headlines, the photographer won a Pulitzer Prize, and Elian was removed from the U.S. and reunited with his father. Now a member of the Cuban legislature, he turns 32 in December.

Elian’s family separation, as well as millions of others, began with illegal immigration.

That incident occurred at the tail-end of the Clinton administration, which was responsible for more than 12 million deportations. According to a Migration Policy Institute analysis, more illegal foreign nationals were deported under Clinton than under former President George W. Bush (10 million) and former President Barack Obama (5 million). According to another analysis, more illegal foreign nationals were removed under Obama than under former President Donald Trump, with removals from the interior peaking in 2011.

Under Trump, multiple media outlets claimed he began a family separation deporation policy. The claim resurfaced after he was reelected, vowed to implement a massive deportation operation, and tapped Tom Homan, the former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his border czar to implement it.

Trump and Homan worked to end several Obama-era policies, including catch and release, which President Joe Biden reinstituted and expanded. Under Trump, federal authorities began prosecuting illegal border crossers in an attempt to deter illegal entry, led by Kevin McAleenan. McAleenan served in several leadership roles at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, under Bush, Obama and Trump.

Homan, who’s served under six presidents, explained to The Center Square that “entering the country illegally is a crime. When we started prosecuting, of course, when the parent goes to jail, the child can't go with them. They're put in custody of ORR,” he said, referring to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Under the Biden administration’s ORR, allegations of abuse of unaccompanied children increased exponentially, The Center Square reported. Children were sent to live with nonfamily members, including gang members and sex offenders, and human trafficking assistance requests skyrocketed, according to several reports.

Prosecuting illegal border crossers “wasn't about separation,” Homan, who worked with McAleenan, said. “It wasn't about cruelty. It wasn't about being inhumane. It's about if you start prosecuting people they will stop coming illegally and hopefully more lives will be saved.”

After they began prosecutions, “the numbers across the board went down drastically,” he said.

In the spring of 2018, Border Patrol agents were inundated with a surge of illegal border crossers; under McAleenan, prosecutions ramped up. The purpose was to “dissuade crossings between ports of entry, which is dangerous for the people making these crossings,” he told The Los Angeles Times.

McAleenan also emphasized the difference between “the concept of family separation and prosecuting adults who cross the border illegally, even if they are bringing in children with them. We do not have a policy of administrative separation. We are not doing that,” he said at the time. “Families or people that come across as a group, as a family-unit group, are being separated only if the adults are being prosecuted or if there's a determination made by the agent that there's not actually a family relationship, which has happened several hundred times just in the sector this year.”

He also reiterated what Homan and others have explained to The Center Square: cartel operatives and smugglers use fake families to exploit a federal detention policy ruling stemming from an Obama-era class-action lawsuit. In 2015, an Obama-appointed U.S. District Court judge in central California ruled on what is referred to as the Flores Settlement Agreement. Among other things, it prohibits ICE from detaining illegal border crosser families throughout the entirety of their immigration process, allowing for a quick release. The ruling incentivized “people to pretend to be families even if they're not,” McAleenan, and others, have argued.

The purpose of arresting illegal border crossers, including fake families, Homan argues, “is about saving lives and stopping the sexual assault of women and children coming across the border.”

Homan is working on a plan to find more than “300,000 children that were smuggled into this country at the hands of the criminal cartels,” he told The Center Square. “Who knows what the hell happened during that journey with these animals. Then they were released into the United States to unvetted sponsors,” adding that the media “won’t talk about” the children who were separated from their parents under the Biden administration and are still missing.


Bethany Blankley

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/fact-check-family-separation-has-always-been-policy-including-under

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Final 2024 Election Media Post Mortem: What’s Worse? Gaslighting Your Audience or Gaslighting Yourselves? - Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann

 

by Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann

In our final look at the disaster of the Harris-Walz campaign, let us examine the biggest casualty of November 5: The American legacy media.

 

In the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election, we are witnessing a real-time transition in the legacy media, from having a genuine impact on public opinion to having virtually no impact at all. Presidential and policy endorsements from legacy media outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times now have virtually no influence on voters, who have tuned them out. Was this a long-standing trend or a sudden shift in public sentiment?

A case in point is MSNBC. Its far-left audience, having felt betrayed by the likes of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, has abandoned this propaganda arm of the DNC. The network has long since halted any pretense of journalistic integrity and has routinely launched into unhinged rants to satisfy the needs of its audience with no interest in “fair and balanced” reporting. When Joe and Mika recently visited President-elect Donald Trump, they did so in a manner that infuriated their audience and amused everyone else. They’re toast.

And, apparently, so is MSNBC. It’s so bad that corporate parent Comcast is about to unload most of its cable properties, MSNBC among them, lest it tarnish the “reputation” of its vaunted NBC News brand. This is nonsense. The NBC News brand is almost as tarnished as MSNBC’s. There are now jokes circulating on some platforms that Elon Musk is considering buying MSNBC. But can Musk buy MSNBC without purchasing the bundle of other media properties offered by Comcast, like CNBC?

Along with MSNBC, the “leadership” at CNN parent, debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery, including CEO and President David Zaslav, is looking at ways to reduce the debt on the company’s balance sheet. At the same time, he’s looking to mitigate its sharp post-election loss of viewers. Job and pay cuts at CNN have been rumored for years. Does anyone think 77-year-old Chris Wallace voluntarily left a paying gig at CNN to move into podcasting? Wallace is just one of many who will find themselves without a slot on cable news and playing catch-up on streaming and podcast platforms. Or they’ll just evaporate into the ether?

With fewer people paying attention, what will legacy media heads do to attract a broader audience? Moderate their content? Reach out to “conservative” correspondents?

There is no introspection among those who finance and run the legacy media. There will be no epiphany to moderate content or bring forth a balanced approach to reporting or commenting on the events of the day. The Fourth Estate has morphed into a club with members that associate only with each other.

So getting back to our original question, “Which is worse? Gaslighting your audience or gaslighting yourselves?”

To be sure, there are true believers on these networks who actually believe that Trump is still a “threat to democracy,” that he will “jail his opponents,” “reduce women’s rights,” and “enrich his billionaire friends.” Just like he did in his first term, right?

Do you need concrete examples of how Democrats remain unhinged for more than three weeks? Watch these groups of Harris supporters engaging in mass primal scream therapy sessions at Lake Michigan and other locations around the nation.

But we believe that most of these correspondents know that these claims are clearly false, just as Harris’s internal polling knew she was losing almost from the day she was installed as the Democrat nominee, even though public polling (except for Rassmussen Reports and Atlas Intel) showed her in a horse race with Trump. How do we know this? Because most of them are not stupid. They remember Trump’s first term; they know the audience has access to the Internet, and they know that Trump is wildly popular among much of the country. His current approval rate is at all-time highs.

They claimed that Trump, the convicted felon, the accused rapist, the warmonger who will start World War III, is unhinged and an out-of-control authoritarian that is unfit to lead the nation.

CNN predicted Kamala Harris would win a majority of swing states and cruise to an easy victory. ABC breathlessly reported every exaggerated lawfare stunt played by various district attorneys and judges to smear Trump as a bona fide criminal. MSNBC outright promised a Trump loss to its viewers.

Those networks lied to their audience, and their audience knows it. The dramatic decline in viewership right after the election proves this. The trust, belief, and goodwill held by their audience is gone. This epic failure of the legacy media is reminiscent of Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises,” in which the author explains his bankruptcy unfolding “Gradually, then suddenly.”

An already skeptical audience that has been dwindling over the past twenty years has simply walked away.

The correspondents and anchors who guaranteed a different election outcome through their incessant propaganda fell into two categories: idiots who believed the nonsense or liars who knew better but lied about it anyway. Is this what the American legacy media has turned into? Their audience thinks so.

The Winners and Losers in the Mainstream Media: Steve Kornacki (MSNBC) and Harry Enten (CNN)

As far as we can see, there were only three winners. First were polling gurus Steve Kornacki at MSNBC and Harry Enten at CNN. While the so-called journalists over at sister network NBC News were constantly shilling for Kamala Harris right up to the Sunday before the election, especially Meet the Press’ Kirsten Welker, Kornacki had been sounding the alarm. After Harris’ epic defeat, he tried to explain to MSNBC’s continually misinformed audience why she was defeated across all seven swing states.

It was much the same over at CNN, where Enten tried to put the defeat in its proper context. Watch as CNN anchor John Berman looks absolutely befuddled as Enten not only explains why Harris lost the election but, in the aftermath of the election three weeks later, almost 60% of Americans were happy with the pace of Trump’s transition, Matt Gaetz notwithstanding.

Fox News

The winner on the network side was clearly Fox News. Among the broadcast and cable outlets, only Fox News had anything even closely resembling fair coverage. Anchors Brett Baier and Martha MacCallum did an acceptable job of keeping their coverage on track throughout the night.

As the dominoes of each of the swing states fell, Fox was the first of the broadcast and cable networks to call the race for Trump, even before the Associated Press. It was almost as if, throughout the evening, they knew something that the other five outlets didn’t.

The Biggest Losers

Where do we start? The clown car of election night coverage at most media outlets, especially the broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC, was horrific. Thanks to the diligent efforts of many YouTubers, you can watch time-compressed edited compilation videos (linked below) that show how the tone of their coverage changed from joy to despair as the evening turned to morning and Trump declared victory.

ABC

Starting in alphabetical order among the broadcast networks, check out how ABC covered the evening’s events. It seemed that throughout the evening, the panelists, except for Reince Priebus, the token Republican on the panel, each tried to outdo their colleagues in displaying their Trump Derangement Syndrome. While David Muir was pathetic as expected (watch his facial expressions throughout the evening), Martha Raddatz showed why she should have been put out to pasture at least two election cycles ago. Her whiny anti-Trump analysis throughout the evening shed no light on the magnitude of the Harris defeat. All she did was apologize for it.

But the honor for the worst pundit on the ABC panel had to go to Democrat operative Donna Brazile. Yes, the same Donna Brazile who gave Hillary Clinton the questions before one of the 2016 debates. Her commentary was an embarrassment; it added even less to the coverage than from Chris Christie. ABC, don’t you have any shame?

CBS

It was no better at CBS, where Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan put on a show for the ages carrying on their Vice Presidential Debate performance. Their evening’s reporting bias was off the charts. But what would you expect? Everyone on the panel tried to fool themselves that early on, Harris was actually winning according to their exit polling.

But by midnight on the East Coast, they couldn’t hide the magnitude of Harris’ defeat as one swing state after another, starting with North Carolina, fell into the Trump column

NBC

Over on NBC News, their election night coverage, anchored by the Nightly News’ host Lester Holt, Meet the Press’ Kirsten Welker, and the Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie, was everything you would have expected. Wall-to-wall anti-Trump coverage that misinformed its viewers throughout the evening until the swing states started falling.

The expressions on the entire team’s faces couldn’t hide the inevitable as the coverage moved past 11 PM on the East Coast. By midnight, as seen here, they knew the gig was up, that Harris had run a miserable, losing campaign. This was typified by her refusal to clear her schedule to do the Joe Rogan Show with its 60 million viewers. Instead, Harris opted for an appearance on the Call Your Daddy sex podcast, which, as of this date, hasn’t yet garnered even 1,000,000 views. Fans of the show blasted host Alex Cooper for extending the invitation to Harris, saying it sounded like propaganda, which it was.

CNN

CNN? Dreadful, biased, out-of-touch coverage anchored by the likes of Dana Bash, Anderson Cooper, and Jake Tapper was virtually unwatchable. It was a clown car of self-delusion. In the aftermath of the election, where Harris operatives like Jen O’Malley Dillon, David Plouffe, Quentin Fulks, and Stephanie Cutter, interviewed by Obama operative Dan Pfeiffer on the Pod Save America Podcast, admitted that from the convention up until election night their internal polling never had Harris in the lead. How could Bash, Anderson, Tapper, and the rest of the CNN team be so uninformed?

With cuts reportedly coming to CNN, Berman, along with others like Wolf Blitzer, Cooper, and Tapper, are expected to follow Don Lemon and Chris Wallace out the door to the world of podcasting when CNN’s Mark Thompson cleans house in an attempt to remain relevant. (It should be noted that the broom will not be given to rising star Kaitan Collins, who will be adding White House Correspondent to her portfolio in addition to her nightly anchoring duties of her low-rated evening show, where she will be the young face of anti-Trump bias and resistance over at CNN.)

MSNBC

But the worst of the worst has to be the coverage on MSNBC.

Among the reporters on the ground, possibly the biggest shill for Democrats continues to be MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff. Time after time, all day and into the evening, he ignored the obvious, that Democrats were going down to a defeat even as late as 10 PM EST on election night. This segment, earlier in the day in Pennsylvania, when the polls were open, with the always insipid ex-George Bush neocon hack Nicole Wallace in studio reporting on his handing out water with actor Paul Rudd was especially cringe-worthy.

Beyond Wallace, all of the anchors and contributors on MSNBC come in for scorn. If you watched MSNBC’s Election Night coverage, their initial optimism from when the eastern states polls closed up until around 11 PM, you would have thought Harris was going to win all the swing states. Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell, Jen Psaki, Stephanie Ruhle, Ari Melber, Nicole Wallace, Joy Reid, and last but certainly not least, Rachel Maddow, couldn’t stop propping up Harris. They all continued to gaslight their audience until they could no longer.

No analysis of MSNBC would be complete without mentioning its so-called flagship daytime opinion show, Morning Joe (aka Morning Joke). Hosted by the reprehensible husband-and-wife team of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, with its lineup of TDS-suffering regulars like Donny Deutsch, Mike Barnacle, Claire McCaskill, John Heilmann, and Al Sharpton (whose National Action Network received $500,000 payoff prior to his softball interview with Harris two weeks earlier) along with contributors like presidential historians Jon Meachem and Micheal Beschloss, for the last nine years this posse of hyper partisans has vilified Trump, spewing lie after lie while calling out Trump for his lies. It was sad and pitiful to watch this lack of self-awareness play out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

It got so bad that in the wake of Trump’s landslide victory, Joe and Mika made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago last week to kiss the ring of Donald Trump. Licking his shoes may have been a more apt description.

The results? An almost total collapse of their ratings, off almost 50% in the key 25 to 54 demographic advertisers covet since election night. The show that Joe Biden reportedly watches every morning to be told that he’s “the best, most cogent Biden yet” humiliated themselves to the degree that can only be described as staggering. While never big in the morning ratings (it’s traditionally beaten in the cable ratings by the weekday morning lightweights over on Fox and Friends), in the past it was seen by many inside the DC beltway as prestigious and a must-watch.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is now an elitist circle jerk lorded over by its two ringmasters, Scarborough especially. And one of Scarborough’s favorite guests, Axios’ Jim VanderHai, in an acceptance speech getting the self-congratulatory National Press Club’s Fourth Estate Award, railed against the citizen journalists on YouTube who had a much better handle on election night than Axios, his former outlet Politico, the Huffington Post, and the traditional outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

So to answer the question posed at the top of this commentary, of what’s worse, gaslighting themselves or their viewers. We would have to answer, gaslighting themselves. You can’t gaslight your viewers without first gaslighting yourselves. The MSNBC team covered themselves in infamy up to midnight EST on election night when Circle Back Psaki still insisted that the Blue Wall would hold. She had to know that this was bullshit. How could she not? While not a journalist by any dictionary definition, she’s supposed to be an astute political observer. Clearly, she’s not.

Psaki and the rest of the MSNBC on-air personalities were privy to NBC News’ internal polling that had to tell them all that the Harris-Walz ticket was on its way to an electoral and popular vote shellacking. More than 90 percent of counties in the US shifted right in 2024 and voted for Trump, according to the New York Times, on his way to his 312-226 victory in the Electoral College in addition to winning the popular vote.

If you follow any of the news media biz, you already know that cuts are being made in most of the outlets, with CNN and MSNBC probably up for sale. One rumor has it that Elon Musk is a possible suitor for MSNBC (which will likely need a new name if it is divorced from the NBC News mothership whose brand it has been said it’s tarnishing). If this happens, and we think it’s a great idea, the obvious rebrand, MSDNC, will not work.

One can expect that what remains of what was MSNBC will tack to the political center, just as X/Twitter has done. And with its divorce from the reporting resources of NBC News, it’s going to need new reporters (avoid most who will be laid off from the legacy networks). Musk will need to look no further than X/Twitter for capable reporters while bringing in Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and possibly Joe Rogan to anchor the 8-11 PM weeknight block.

That would be a powerhouse prime-time lineup that could completely upend the media landscape. Could Musk (and a potential investor group) be playing 4D chess while everyone else is playing checkers?

***

Richard Truesdell is a former consumer electronics retail executive and automotive travel photojournalist. In the last 25 years, he has visited more than 35 countries on six continents. A former high school history teacher with a BA in Political Science from Waynesburg University, he is a lifelong Conservative moderate who has turned his thoughts and keyboard to political commentary and popular culture. A cross-section of his writings can be found here.

Keith Lehmann is a retired consumer electronics industry executive who has written extensively on technology, transportation, and international travel. Living in Southern California for over fifty years, he has first-hand exposure to societal and cultural happenings of the left and submits decidedly realism-based, Conservative viewpoints, much of which can be found on his Substack.


Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann 

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/02/final-2024-election-media-post-mortem-whats-worse-gaslighting-your-audience-or-gaslighting-yourselves/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Charging Netanyahu with War Crimes Shows the ICC Is Illegitimate and Not Fit for Purpose - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

The decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on unsubstantiated war crimes charges, shows that the body is unfit for purpose, and should be defunded, dismantled, or both.

 

  • [T]he International Criminal Court (ICC)... should be defunded, dismantled, or both.

  • [By] law, the ICC is precluded from prosecuting any country that already has a valid judiciary system. This stipulation is the based on the treaty upon which the ICC was founded.

  • Another option that should be considered is for the incoming Trump administration's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to establish whether maintaining US funding for bodies such as the United Nations and its affiliates, the ICC and ICJ, all of which display a strong anti-Israeli bias, is in Washington's best interests. Certainly, without the lavish funding these bodies receive from Western governments, their ability to pursue their own twisted agenda will at least be severely curtailed.

The decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on unsubstantiated war crimes charges, shows that the body is unfit for purpose, and should be defunded, dismantled, or both. Pictured: The ICC building in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo by Nicolas Guyonnet/Hans Lucas//AFP via Getty Images)

The decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on unsubstantiated war crimes charges, shows that the body is unfit for purpose, and should be defunded, dismantled, or both.

First, by law, the ICC is precluded from prosecuting any country that already has a valid judiciary system. This stipulation is the based on the treaty upon which the ICC was founded.

US defence attorney Alan Dershowitz is assembling a "legal dream team" to contest the charges. He emphasized that it would base its argument on the ICC's lack of jurisdiction.

"We will argue that the ICC has no jurisdiction against Israel, not only because it isn't a member, but also because the treaty that established that court precludes it from considering cases against any country with a valid judicial system that is willing and able to investigate the alleged crimes.... Israel has one of the best and most independent legal systems in the world, one that is both willing and able to investigate its own leaders. The Israeli courts have convicted and imprisoned a former prime minister, a former president and several ministers. Hamas has no such judicial system."

Prosecuting Israelis also represents the growing politicisation of key international bodies, especially those associated with the United Nations, which have no interest in adopting a balanced approach to their dealings with Israel.

Ever since the idea was first mooted at the ICC of bringing war crimes charges against prominent Israeli leaders, it has been obvious that the body's main priority has been to accuse Israelis, instead of concentrating their efforts on groups, such as the Iranian-backed Hamas terrorist organisation, that are responsible for provoking the latest round of bloodshed in the Middle East.

Under international law, Israel has every right to defend itself after the horrific attack it suffered at the hands of Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, and this has formed the basis for the Israel Defense Forces' military offensive to destroy the terror group's terrorist infrastructure and leadership in Gaza ever since.

Even though Hamas and its Iranian backers are unquestionably responsible for starting the Gaza conflict, bodies such as the ICC have opted to concentrate their focus on arraigning members of the Israeli government by bringing allegations of war crimes. By doing so, the body had made a mockery of both the institution and the laws it purports to uphold.

Hamas's willingness to exploit its barbarous slaughter of innocent men, women and children by using the October 7 massacres for its own nefarious ends was laid bare by a senior Hamas leader in a recent interview.

Khalil al-Hayya, the deputy leader of Hamas and the terrorist movement's most senior leader outside Gaza, told the BBC from his safe-house in Qatar in October that the massacres were entirely justified because they were necessary to place the Palestinian issue back on the global agenda. Without it, he said, the cycle of violence in the Middle East would not end.

The breathtaking cynicism reflected in al-Hayya's comments, in which he sought to justify the slaughter of innocents to support Hamas's political agenda, provides a rare insight into the depraved mindset of those responsible for planning and executing the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history.

Using acts of barbarism to pursue political objectives is exactly the type of tactic employed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. If any act fully deserves to attract the undivided attention of ICC prosecutors, it is the atrocities committed by Hamas fanatics on October 7 last year.

Yet, rather than concentrating their efforts on making sure all the perpetrators of these crimes -- including cowardly Hamas leaders like al-Hayya who prefer to plot their atrocities from the safety of their comfortable refuge in Qatar or Turkey -- institutional bodies such as the ICC make Israel -- the real victim in these terrible events -- the primary focus of its attentions.

No credence should be given as well to al-Hayya's nonsensical suggestion that the October 7 attacks will somehow make the Middle East a safer place.

On the contrary, Hamas's merciless October 7 assault against Israel has been the cause of one of the worst outbreaks of violence witnessed in the Middle East since the Iraq war, with Israel forced to wage war on a number of fronts, including Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

The ICC's international credibility, moreover, has been further shredded by its crass attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the barbaric actions committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7 and the IDF's subsequent military response, even though the IDF operates under the auspices of international law, while Hamas terrorists most certainly do not.

Similar criticisms of institutional bias have also been levelled against the International Court of Justice (ICJ), another UN-sponsored body, that adopted a highly biased position against Israel after the South African government, reportedly at the behest of Iran, used the body to accuse Israel of genocidal intent in its conduct of its military campaign in Gaza.

The ICC's token gesture, meanwhile, of also charging Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar -- two of whom were dead at the time -- with war crimes provides yet another example of its refusal to address the realities of the Gaza conflict. Deif, who originally faced war crimes charges together with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, was killed in an Israeli air strike in August. Haniyeh and Sinwar similarly perished at the hands of the IDF.

In such circumstances, bringing war crimes charges against dead terrorists is not just futile, it highlights just how unfit the ICC is as an international body to adjudicate on highly complex issues such as the Gaza conflict.

The fact that arrest warrants issued by the ICC, which includes one issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, are rarely enforced will be of little comfort to Israel, even if it illustrates the ICC's overall impotence.

The decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant nevertheless prompted a furious reaction from the Israeli government, with Israel accusing the ICC of corruption, incompetence and more. Netanyahu's office characterised the "anti-Semitic decision" as something akin to "a modern Dreyfus trial".

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said the decision marked "a dark day for justice [and] humanity." It had chosen "terror and evil over democracy and freedom, and turned the very system of justice into a human shield for Hamas," he added.

Israel can also draw a degree of comfort from the fact that the perverse antics of supposedly neutral bodies like the ICC and ICJ have not gone unnoticed by world leaders.

A statement issued by the White House condemned the ICC's decision. "We remain deeply concerned by the prosecutor's rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision," the White House said. "The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter."

US President-elect Donald Trump is said to be considering sanctions against the British lawyer said to be responsible for persuading the ICC to issue arrest warrants for the senior Israeli politicians.

U.S. Representative Mike Waltz, who will serve as Trump's national security adviser, said the court had "no credibility" and promised "a strong response to the ­anti-Semitic bias of the ICC" when the Trump administration takes office on January 20.

Other countries, such as France, who are members of the ICC, have indicated they will not implement the ICC arrest warrants.

Another option that should be considered is for the incoming Trump administration's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to establish whether maintaining US funding for bodies such as the United Nations and its affiliates, the ICC and ICJ, all of which display a strong anti-Israeli bias, is in Washington's best interests. Certainly, without the lavish funding these bodies receive from Western governments, their ability to pursue their own twisted agenda will at least be severely curtailed.


Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21169/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warrant

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Yes, Mexico Knows Exactly What It Is Doing - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

Mexico understands that an open border, the destruction of U.S. immigration law, illegal immigration, and emigration of millions of its own citizens to America are entirely in its own interests.

 

President-elect Donald Trump recently had a “talk” with newly elected Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum about the millions who have crossed through Mexico to enter the U.S. illegally.

Afterwards, Trump reported that their conversation went well, and supposedly both had agreed to secure the U.S. border.

But given long-standing, de facto Mexican policy to rely on and profit from an open U.S. border, it was not long afterwards that Sheinbaum claimed she had not been so accommodating.

Or, as she now put it of the Trump conversation, “I give you the certainty that we would never—and we would be incapable of it—propose that we would close the border.” And of course, she is right: Mexico never would wish for a secure U.S. border, although it is wrong that she is incapable of guaranteeing one should she choose to do so.

What, then, is going on?

Over the last half-century, Mexico has gradually, even insidiously, developed both a one-sided, asymmetrical relationship with the U.S. based on professed mutual benefit and yet sought to leverage America by claiming it is supposedly guilty for two centuries of oppressive treatment.

How does the strange U.S.-Mexico supposed co-dependence seem to work?

The Mexican government has traditionally seen the U.S. as an endlessly wealthy country, liberally governed, and more or less willing to listen to Mexico’s grievances of the sort that are common in asymmetrical partnerships.

About 60 percent of the Mexican people traditionally in polls have voiced a positive view of the United States, yet a surprisingly low number when considering the millions who try to cross its border illegally each year.

Nonetheless, Mexico for decades has conveniently explained the vast influxes across the border, unaudited and illegal, as largely in America’s interests—and mirabile dictu even to Mexico’s disadvantage. Polls tell, however, a vastly different and far more accurate story.

Logically, some 61 percent of Mexicans in a recent 2024 Pew Center Research Poll voiced favorable views of the United States, whose open borders, generous welfare systems, billions of dollars in remittances, and now-defunct immigration laws they see as entirely in their interest. In contrast, 60 percent of Americans, one of the highest numbers on record, now hold unfavorable views of Mexico, perhaps because of the cynical harm it has done through a perforated border.

Mexico says its emigrants, along with those from Central and South America who cross its own borders with relative ease—often with tacit support—supply America with generations of industrious, low-cost labor, robbing it, in a sense, of millions of its own citizens.

It adds that the attractions of El Norte mean that Mexico must put up with human caravans crossing its own sovereign territory to supposedly meet the hungry American demand for labor, drugs, and sex. Indeed, nearly every recent Mexican president has argued that America’s thirst for lethal fentanyl is responsible for the creation of Mexican cartel lords that now run large swaths of Mexico itself.

However, the problem with such ancient and modern disingenuousness is that even if the United States accepted these excuses, apologized, and promised to close the border and keep clear of Mexican affairs, Mexico would grow even more irate. The reason why is that the current relationship has now grown unbalanced to the point of absurdity—sometimes evidenced in past polls that revealed a majority of Mexican citizens both believed in the mutually exclusive propositions that the American Southwest properly still belongs to Mexico and yet they wished to leave Mexico to emigrate to a non-Mexican northward if given the chance.

In truth, Mexico would face insolvency if it did not receive its current some $63 billion in U.S. remittances, largely sent by its own people who crossed into the U.S. illegally. Trump talks of levying a 25 percent tariff on Mexican imports should Mexico not cease undermining the American border. An additional lever would perhaps be to slap a 30 percent tax on all remittances sent from the U.S. to Mexico. That would both encourage capital to stay in the U.S. and raise over $20 billion in excise fees, more than enough proverbially to “pay for the wall.”

However, such largess is still more one-sided since much of the remittances are made available through not just the industriousness of Mexican expatriates but also the generosity of American taxpayers. Their multifaceted subsidies to the undocumented free up billions for them to help support millions of Mexico’s poor in a fashion that Mexico City apparently is either unable or unwilling to ensure.

The annual flight of millions from Mexico is a sort of updated version of Frederick Jackson Turner’s “frontier safety valve theory” of the American West. Accordingly, the Eastern poor and potentially rebellious fled westward in hopes of a new, better life rather than marching on Washington for cancellation of debts or redistribution of property. Mexico City apparently feels that without their own El Norte “frontier,” millions of southern and indigenous Mexican citizens might instead head en masse to Mexico City.

As for the cartels, Mexico knows well that China sends raw fentanyl to its country unimpeded, where cartel factories prepare it for export to America’s addicted and recreational users. There, disguised as less toxic drugs and even foodstuffs, fentanyl will end up killing up to some 100,000 Americans a year—an annual death toll nearly double the total number of U.S. fatalities in the Vietnam War.

Mexico, which also helps China avoid tariffs on its exports to the U.S. by assembling its products in NAFTA and tariff-free Mexico, certainly knows that the Chinese seek both to profit from its cartel ties and to kill Americans and undermine its security in the bargain. The macabre gambit is likely seen as the Chinese version of an updated Opium War payback, with the twist that the former addicts are now the suppliers.

In an equally sick way, the cartels infuse into the Mexican trickle-down economy, albeit in nefarious and criminal ways, some $30 billion in additional U.S. dollars from Americans addicted to imported Mexican-made drugs tailored for the U.S. market. The presidents of Mexico usually say little about this second source of billions in U.S. foreign exchange or claim American addicts, not Mexican suppliers, explain the growing death and destruction on both sides of the border.

While in office, former President Obrador often said strange things. Two of the most pugnacious were his high-five boast that some 40 million of his own citizens had fled Mexico to cross the border: “Just imagine. There are 40 million Mexicans in the United States—40 million who were born here in Mexico, who are the children of people who were born in Mexico.” (Obrador never explained why his own citizens would willingly flee their own country to a nation habitually caricatured in the Mexican press as racist and exploitive.)

Obrador also periodically delighted in interfering in US elections by urging Mexican expatriates in the U.S. to vote against all Republicans, presumably because they seemed at times to threaten to kill the Mexican golden goose of illegal immigration.

Indeed, in 2023, Obrador urged American Hispanics to never vote for Ron DeSantis’s presidential primary campaign—an irony given Mexico’s chronic complaint of Yanqui interference in Latin American politics.

Obrador believed, as many presidents before him no doubt concurred, that the 40 million expatriates and Mexican-American children, if they were distant from Mexico long enough, would romanticize the country, and so, like most immigrants, become a powerful lobbying force on Mexico’s behalf.

In La Raza literature of the past, and in Mexico’s chauvinistic moments, illegal immigration was envisioned as the ironic response to the ancient “theft’ of the American Southwest. The problem with that thesis is that most Mexicans, as polls have shown, would prefer to live in an American Southwest than a Mexican south.

And it is also increasingly likely that Mexican-Americans will be more prone to vote for border security than open borders—again further proof that their self-interest as patriotic Americans trumps Mexico’s cynical attempts to use them as political pawns. If those trends continue, the American Left and the Mexican government may well lobby for a secure border, in fear they are only augmenting a growing MAGA constituency.

In sum, Mexico understands the myriad ways that an open border, the destruction of U.S. immigration law, illegal immigration, and emigration of millions of its own citizens to America are entirely in its own interests and so hopes to see the continuation of the Biden-Harris-Mayorkas appeasement.

But, given the huge numbers of human trafficking, the chaos, the drugs, the violence, and the financial costs of supporting millions, an open border is increasingly seen by Americans as not to their advantage—as we saw in the recent Trump victory. That reality, not the rhetoric of Mexican presidents, will govern all future negotiations—a truth that President Sheinbaum should digest before she sounds off about a border that she knows her country has done so much to deliberately destroy—and to America’s detriment.


Victor Davis Hanson

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/02/yes-mexico-knows-exactly-what-it-is-doing/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter