Όμορφα, Χρήσιμα, Ωφέλιμα!.. Ξεχασμένα Και Μη!..


PM Benjamin Netanyahu (R). (Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90)
The Israeli prime minister told reporters in Ukraine he is preparing “a massive campaign” against the terrorist organization, and says Iran is “not immune” from Israeli action “wherever necessary.”

By Ariel Kahana, Israeli Hayom via JNS

Israel is readying plans for a “forceful military strike against Hamas,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday.

Speaking with reporters while visiting Ukraine, he was asked whether his government could properly deal with the threat posed by the Hamas terrorist organization ruling the Gaza Strip, just days after another escalation.

“I am preparing a massive campaign; it will be different than anything we have seen before,” Netanyahu said. “I cannot elaborate on the preparations but we are properly positioned for such a scenario.”

Netanyahu dismissed the claims made by Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz that Israeli deterrence had been weakened.

“That is just nonsense,” said the prime minister, “and in fact, Hamas has issued religious rulings to make sure its people refrain from attacking Israel.”

Netanyahu went on to say that Gantz had never offered any alternatives to the current policy, even when he was the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff under Netanyahu.

Netanyahu refused to say whether Israel would try to topple the Hamas regime if the two sides fought another war.

Asked about Iran, Netanyahu reiterated his position that the Islamic republic had “no immunity.” He warned that if needed, “we will act against them wherever necessary; I am not ruling out any place.”


brain tumor
Aug 22, 2019
Israeli researchers discovered a new genetic approach that may stop the spread of brain cancer.

By Israel21c.org

Brain metastases are the final, lethal consequence of many aggressive cancers, and researchers are racing to discover preventive measures.

A new Tel Aviv University study finds a known adjuvant — an ingredient used in some vaccines to strengthen the immune response —may be an effective means of preventing brain metastases in patients whose primary tumors have been removed.

“Some 20 to 40% of lung, breast and melanoma cancer patients develop brain metastases, and current treatments for brain metastases are ineffective,” said Pablo Blinder of TAU’s George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences.

“Surgery for removing primary tumors is usually essential, but the period immediately before and after surgery requires that all chemotherapy and radiotherapy be stopped. This creates a high potential for the initiation and rapid progression of deadly metastases,” he explained.

“Our study showed that an intravenous injection of CpG-C, an adjuvant of synthetic DNA material, during this specific time frame reduces the development of brain metastases,” he said.

The scientists tested the efficacy of CpG-C in reducing brain metastases in mice, whose cancers were of both mouse and human origin. They used cutting-edge imaging techniques to find the specific immune cells involved in the protective effect.

“Our approach gets the immune troops ‘ready for combat’ in both the brain and the rest of the body. It’s not tumor specific, and it has a promising safety profile in humans,” added Blinder.

Further animal tests will need to be conducted before human trials could begin.

“We hope that this drug can be implemented as a preventative treatment for various types of metastasizing tumors with the goal of preventing or reducing brain metastases,” said Blinder.

Blinder led the study with Amit Benbenishty of TAU’s Sagol School of Neuroscience and Prof. Shamgar Ben-Eliyahu of TAU’s School of Psychological Sciences, in collaboration with Dr. Lior Mayo of TAU’s Sagol School of Neuroscience, Prof. Neta Erez of TAU’s Sackler School of Medicine, and Prof. Dritan Agalliu of Columbia University Medical Center. It was published in PLoS Biology.

Ben-Eliyahu’s group and others have previously shown that CpG-C is beneficial in fighting primary tumors and metastases in other organs.



While no one knows what the X-37B’s true objectives are, some speculate that it could be used as a space weapon or spy tool.

AUGUST 28, 2019

Secret spacecraft breaks flight record

The U.S. Airforce’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle mission 4 after landing at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility in Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S., May 7, 2017.
(photo credit: REUTERS)



Our new missile is capable of destroying all

According to the Air Force, the X-37B is the first spacecraft since NASA’s Shuttle Orbiter that can bring experiments back to Earth so they can be further analyzed. That, coupled with its lengthy orbit time, makes the X-37B a spacecraft unlike any other.

5.  “Our new missile is capable of destroying all military battleships, killing all who are on board,” wrote a Hezbollah activist on Twitter.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2019

Members of Hezbollah march with party's flags during a rally marking al-Quds Day, (Jerusalem Day) in

Members of Hezbollah march with party’s flags during a rally marking al-Quds Day, (Jerusalem Day) in Beirut. (photo credit: REUTERS)

Atwitter account affiliated with Hezbollah posted a photo of the terror organization’s new missile on Sunday afternoon, which he says is capable of destroying all military battleships.

“Our new missile is capable of destroying all military battleships, killing all who are on board,” wrote the Hezbollah activist, who often posts photos of South Lebanon Army (SLA) members and their families who have moved to Israel, announcing that they are being called to trial.

View image on Twitter


Jul 3, 2019
Iranian warning follows Israeli foreign minister’s statement that the Jewish State must be prepared for possible involvement in U.S-Iranian clash.

By United With Israel Staff 

An Iranian military commander is vowing “to hand the enemies the harshest response in case of any hostile move against the country, saying that Iran is in possession of secret weapons to be used on ‘rainy days,’” reports the Fars news agency.

“Our deterrence and secret weapons have stopped the filthy enemy 200 miles away [from the Iranian borders] in the Strait of Hormuz,” Brigadier General Alireza Sabahi Fard said, addressing a forum in Tehran on Wednesday, according to Fars, widely considered a semi-official Iranian news agency. His statement was an apparent reference to the shooting down of a U.S. drone by Iran on June 20.

“The enemy knows very well that it should not [opt] for testing Iran’s combat capability as its first mistake will be its last,” he added, according to the news agency.

The Iranian commander of the Khatam ol-Anbiya Air Defense Base reportedly charged that “enemies are exerting maximum pressure, use the most hostile rhetoric against Iran, and have widened their military buildup in the region to intimidate the Iranian nation into holding talks with the U.S., but only in vain.”

Israel’s Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said Tuesday that the Jewish State is preparing for possible military involvement in an escalation in the Gulf between Iran and the United States.

He warned of “mistaken calculations” by the Iranian regime that could bring about a “military conflagration.”

The foreign minister made the comments in an address to a conference sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya

“We must be prepared for this, and thus the State of Israel continues to devote itself to building up its military might in the event that it will have to respond to escalation scenarios,” he said.


WSJ: US Has Secret ‘Knife Missile’ That Can Kill Terrorists Without Harming Civilians

WSJ: US Has Secret 'Knife Missile' That Can Kill Terrorists Without Harming Civilians
In this June 13, 2010, file photo a U.S. Predator unmanned drone armed with a missile stands on the tarmac of Kandahar military airport in Afghanistan. (AP)

By Solange Reyner    |   Thursday, 09 May 2019 

The U.S. military has a secret knife missile that can kill terrorists without harming civilians, and has used it only about a half-dozen times including in operations in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The R9X missile is an unmanned aerial vehicle that deploys sharp blades, hitting targets like a “speeding anvil” from the sky, says the Journal. It’s a variant of the Hellfire missile and is designed with six long blades that only emerge from the missile seconds before impact.
The CIA used the weapon to kill al Qaeda’s Aby Khayr al Masri in Syria in 2017 and Jamal al-Badawi in Yemen in 2019.

Al-Badawi was a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative accused of organizing the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. The U.S. military also considered the weapon as its backup option to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, according to officials who spoke with the Journal.

The R9X was developed under President Barack Obama in response to his mandate to reduce civilian casualties in drone strikes in light of tactics by terrorist fighters to hide among groups of women and children.
Some officials referred to the R9X as “the flying Ginsu” or the “ninja bomb” because the blades can cut through concrete, sheet metal, and other materials – the missile did not even shatter the windshield of the car carrying Masri.


The information was handed to the US before National Security advisor John Bolton publicly said Iran will face “unrelenting force” if it attempts to harm the US.

MAY 7, 2019

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with people of Qom, in Teheran, Iran.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with people of Qom, in Teheran, Iran, January 9, 2019.. (photo credit: REUTERS)

The United States received information from Israel concerning an alleged Iranian plot to attack American interests in the Gulf, Axios reported on Monday.

National Security advisor John Bolton publicly warned on Sunday that Iran will face “unrelenting force” if it attempts to harm the US, in an unusual statement.

In the same statement the US announced that it would deploy the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln to the region.

According to the report, intelligence provided by Israel’s Mossad agency was at least part of  the reason for the warning and the move to deploy the aircraft carrier. The information was allegedly passed to a U.S. team headed by Bolton two weeks ago by an Israeli delegation led by national security adviser Meir Ben Shabbat.

It wasn’t clear what Iran’s plans would have been, but it might have attempted to hit a US target in the Gulf, or one of its allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia or UAE.

Saying that “Iranian temperature is rising” due to US sanctions, an unnamed Israeli official said Iran is looking into attacking US interests in the Gulf.

9. Milli gemilere çok özel görev! Yunanlılar Türk amfibine hayran kaldı.

17 Ağustos 1999’da meydana gelen 7,4 şiddetindeki Gölcük depreminde önemli görevler üstlenen Emekli Tümamiral Cem Gürdeniz, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri’nin depreme en hazır kurumların başında geldiğini açıkladı. Cem Gürdeniz, Türkiye’nin en büyük askeri gemisi olan Anadolu yapılırken Yunan Amiral ile arasında geçen diyaloğu da anlattı.

28 Eylül 2019 Cumartesi 

Milli gemilere çok özel görev! Yunanlılar Türk amfibine hayran kaldı

Emekli Tümamiral Cem Gürdeniz, deprem anında milli deniz unsurlarının ne tür görevler üstlenebileceğini anlattı, Yunan Amiral ile Türkiye’nin milli amfibi gemisi için arasında geçen diyaloğu açıkladı.

İstanbul Silivri merkezli olarak kayıtlara geçen ve 5,8 olarak ölçülen depremin yansımaları sürüyor. Depremin hemen ardından başta GSM şirketleri olmak üzere kimi kurumların krizi yönetememesi büyük depremle önce önemli bir uyarı olarak algılandı.

Depreme en hazır kurumların başında

Telefon hatlarında ciddi sıkıntılar yaşandığı sırada TSK’nın iletişimde en ufak bir kesinti yaşanmadığı bilgisine ulaşılan 1999’daki Gölcük Depremi‘nde önemli görevler üstlenen Emekli Tümamiral Cem Gürdeniz, çarpıcı açıklamalarda bulundu.

Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri‘nin depreme en hazır kurumların başında geldiğini anlatan Emekli Amiral Gürdeniz, “Kara Kuvvetleri, harekatının gereği olarak mobilitesi, zırhlı araçları, istihkam birlikleri olan bir kuvvet. Onların böylesine bir felaket anında akla ilk gelen güç olması normal” ifadesini kullandı.

Yunan amiraller şaşırdı

Amiral Gürdeniz, Kara Kuvvetleri’nin ardından kendi hakim olduğu Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin depreme hazırlıklarıyla ilgili de değerlendirmelerde bulunarak, şunları söyledi:

Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin çok büyük bir felakette en büyük faydası tabi ki amfibi gücüyle olacak. Sahip oldukları çıkarma gemileri bu noktada son derece önemli. Mesela Anadolu Gemisi yapılırken, Yunanlılar dahil toplantılarda sorarlardı bana ‘Amiralim neden bu kadar büyük bir amfibi hücum gemisi yapıyorsunuz? 35 bin tonluk dev bir gemiyi ne yapacaksınız?’ diye… Ben, Yunanlı amirale, ‘Bakın yarın öbür gün Ege’de çok büyük bir deprem olduğunda ilk gelecek gemi bu size yardıma’ demiştim.

Deniz kuvvetleri müdahaleye hazır

Çok büyük bir kıyı şehrimizde deprem olduğunu düşünelim, ilk gelecek olan onlar. Hatırlayın, Gölcük Depremi’nde kaç tane amfibi gemi geldi. O dönemde Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin çıkardığı en büyük derslerden biri buydu. Çünkü İstanbul Depremi’ne, Marmara Depremi’ne süratlen müdahale edecek gemisi yoktu. Düşük süratliydi, 10 mil, 11 mil sürat. Şimdiki süratlere bakıyoruz çok daha yüksek, çok daha büyük kapasiteli. Birinci husus bu.

İkinci husus endoktrinasyon. Bugün lojmanlar bölgesinden, askeri tersaneler, fabrikalar, ikmal merkezleri… Buralarda yapıların güçlendirilmesi. Bugün Deniz Kuvvetleri o kadar hassastı ki, o dönemi hatırlıyorum, bir gecede terk ediyordu binalarını. Yıktırıp, yenisini yaptırıyordu. Yenilenme açısından dersi çıkardı.

Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin böyle bir afet olması halinde hazır olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Bir de 99 depreminden sonra Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin tatbikat konseptine girdi bu.

Ama sivil hazırlık açısından söylüyorsanız, Deniz Kuvvetleri’nin ya da Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri’nin yaptığının 10’da birinin bile yapılmadığını söyleyebilirim. Türkiye, o olgunluğa erişmesi için bir 20 yıl daha gerekir diye düşünüyorum. Çünkü her ülkenin ekonomik, sosyal gelişiminde böyle safhaları olmuş. Türkiye de herhalde o olgunluğa gelecektir.

Dilerim o gün çok geç gelir, geldiği gün de Türkiye gerekli dersleri almış ve düzelmiş olur. Yoksa çok kaybımız var.

10. If You Liked the Mueller Investigation, You’ll Love Impeachment

A day after the Mueller hearings, they pulled the same scam again.

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

Stop me if this sounds familiar.

An intelligence operative backed by a Clinton lawyer accuses Trump of an inappropriate relationship with a former Soviet bloc country leading to an investigation and calls for everything from imprisonment to impeachment. The political half of Washington D.C. is muttering quietly, “Didn’t we do this already?”

After spending years accusing Trump of working with the Russians to undermine Hillary, they’re accusing him of working with the Ukrainians to undermine Biden. If Warren pulls far enough ahead, the Democrats will accuse Trump of working with the Poles or the Latvians to undermine her campaign.

The impeachment push is the same discredited scam that the Democrats had pushed on the country at the cost of millions of dollars, years of legislative stalemate, ruined lives and fake news. It’s like getting a scam email from a Nigerian prince, turning him down, and then receiving another email from the same address, except he now claims to be a Zambian prince, but still wants you to cash the same check.

The Democrats could barely be bothered to shake up the scam they’re once again pulling on America.

This time it’s a CIA officer instead of the MI6 guy who put together the Steele Report. And instead of a report authored secretly at the behest of Clinton lawyers, it’s a ‘whistleblower’ complaint defended by a lawyer who had worked for Hillary Clinton and donated to Biden, and comes by way of a whistleblower outfit co-founded by a Hillary Clinton donor who worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Yes, we did this already.

In April, the Mueller report was released. And it was a big, giant nothing. Democrats tried to play it for all they could. At the end of May, Mueller officially called it quits. At the end of July, despairing House Dems dragged him in to testify. Mueller had more trouble remembering things than Joe Biden.

The vicious scam that had begun with the Steele Report was finally dead. Time for a new edition.

The day after Mueller killed the Russia smear dead, President Trump spoke to President Volodymyr Zelensky of the Ukraine. And the Democrats immediately slotted it in as the new Steele Report. A few weeks into August, the complaint was filed. And by August’s end, it was passed along to Rep. Adam Schiff through the connivance of an intel oversight official who made sure it ended up in Adam’s sweaty hands.

That’s the same scheme which took a product of the Clinton campaign and routed it through the DOJ, FBI and intelligence agencies in order to give the Steele Report a veneer of official legitimacy. This time around the key players fixed the problem that came up when the Steele Report was traced to its source, who turned out to not only be an FBI informant, but was being paid to smear Trump by Hillary Clinton.

Now they did a slightly better job of making their smear look like it originated within the government.

The latest incarnation of the Steele Report, like it, is a tangled mess of hearsay. Its author claims that “more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts”. That’s a very fancy way of saying that seven dwarves told him where to find their diamond mine.

And of conceding that this isn’t a whistleblower, but a gossip.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described,” he concedes.

Steele was passing along dubious material from sources that may or may not have existed. His new American counterpart is doing the same thing. Whistleblowers are supposed to report on what they actually saw. Not on what they claim somebody told them at the watercooler or the donut counter.

Had the Trump administration and its allies not immediately moved to make all this material public as quickly as possible, Rep. Schiff and the Washington Post could have spent months making things up.

Instead, Rep. Schiff’s efforts to push a false recreation of the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian leader fell flat because the transcript and the complaint had already been made public.

And that’s the biggest challenge for Democrats.

The Mueller investigation and the media’s conspiracies theories were able to drag out the Russia hoax for years because so much of the information remained under lock and key, classified either by the government, or hidden by the Mueller team which doled out tidbits to favorite reporters. But this time there’s nothing to hide. And that leaves Rep. Schiff inventing his own imaginary transcripts.

And then claiming that it’s satire.

That’s an act of desperation from the Democrat point man on impeachment. And desperation at the very beginning of the process does not bode well for Team Coup. The Russia hoax was a bruising few years for Trump and his people, but they appeared to have learned a few lessons from it. Rep. Schiff and the Democrats are going into impeachment assuming that they can run the same plays all over again.

That’s not going to work anymore.

After their Russian scam fell apart, they decided to pivot to Ukraine a day later. The Russians and the Ukrainians don’t actually get along. But the average Democrat who, unlike the Biden clan, doesn’t have financial interests in the Ukraine, doesn’t know that and doesn’t care. After spending years accusing Trump of being in bed with the Russians, they’re now accusing Trump of misconduct with their worst enemies. And if neither Russia nor Ukraine pan out, they’ll throw another dart at a map of the world.

The third scandal may involve a French Surete agent revealing that someone once told him in a dream that Trump was secretly working with the Hungarians against Cory Booker. Or someone from NZSIS (New Zealand Security Intelligence Service) announcing that a note slipped under his door proves that Trump is trying to undermine Pete Buttigieg on behalf of Burundi. And Rep. Schiff will make up the rest.

The two elements of the story that remain the same, even as the minor details shift, are not accidental.

The Democrats and their media allies are lazy. And the laziness conveys their contempt for the public. But there’s a reason that they maintained the two key elements, the foreign country and the claim of election sabotage, in both their scams. The reason goes to the heart of the real crime committed here.

The foreign country, especially a former Soviet bloc nation, is a crucial element because it allows the Democrats to tap into counterintelligence resources in targeting the political opposition. The Soviets accused political dissidents of working for the CIA or MI6 for the same reason. The goal is to criminalize the political opposition and to unleash the resources of the intelligence agencies in going after them.

The election sabotage is the second crucial element because it undermines the legitimacy of elections.

After Hillary Clinton lost, the Russian scam was used to reject the legitimacy of President Trump. The Ukraine scam will be used to similarly claim that Biden might have won if it wasn’t for the Ukraine.

Impeachment can’t actually succeed. But it’s a preemptive excuse for claiming Trump didn’t really win.

In 2016, the Democrats rejected President Trump’s first term with a Russian conspiracy theory. In 2020, they intend to reject his second term with a Ukraine conspiracy theory. And if the Ukraine doesn’t work out, there’s always Poland, Hungary, Latvia and Estonia. And all the rest of the old Soviet empire.

There were 7 Warsaw Pact countries and 15 countries that were part of the former Soviet Union. There are 20 Democrats still running for the 2020 nomination. Pick a candidate, pick a country and make up your own scandal. Match up Andrew Yang and Estonia. Or Wayne Messam and Kyrgyzstan.

You too can make up your own case for impeachment. Just like Rep. Adam Schiff.

11. Climate Activists Use Kids to Fuel Hysteria

How the Left exploits terrified children to push its destructive agenda.

Leftists are telling children that climate change is going to kill them and everyone they know—and then place those terrified kids in front of cameras to beg for their lives. Want some “propaganda”?


Islam’s Negative Influence on Pre-Modern European Behavior

They’re telling us only half the story.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Citing history—or, as shall be seen, pseudohistory—is one of the main ways Islam’s apologists try to ennoble Muhammad’s creed and its adherents. As a sort of counterbalance to purportedly noble Muslims, premodern Christians are in this regard regularly presented as the epitome of hypocrisy, intolerance, and greed. Commonly leading the pack are Vlad the Impaler, Ivan “the Terrible,” and Tomas Torquemada (all featured in the 2002 book, The Most Evil Men and Women in History).

In reality, however, these three men—and the culture they lived in—were significantly influenced by Islam; all three were surrounded by and fought against Muslims their entire lives.  This inconvenient fact is rarely cited.

The historic figure of Vlad III (1430-1476)—whom the fictional, bloodsucking character of Dracula is based on—is portrayed in the West as a sadistic monster who loved nothing better than to impale his own people and drink their blood—often while listening to monks sing hymns, no less. CNN even claims that the Islamic State learned its sadistic methods of torture and execution from Vlad.

Reality tells a different story: the Romanian prince’s “beastly little habit” of impaling his enemies, as one historian characterizes it, was picked up from and almost exclusively used against the Turks and their agents.  During his youth, Vlad was hostage to one of history’s most depraved sultans—Muhammad (or “Mehmet”) II, who also kept Vlad’s younger brother as a catamite.  Vlad was first introduced to the “art” of impalement from this Ottoman sultan, who regularly employed it.

Eventually, and as part of his strategy to break away from Muslim rule, Vlad resorted to impalement as a sort of tit for tat—to show the Ottomans that he and his people could give as good as they got. Hence the irony: if Vlad is seen as a blood drinking monster in the West, he is a national hero in Romania, for fighting and resisting Islam for as long as he did.

Then there’s Tomas Torquemada (1420-1498), Catholic Spain’s grand inquisitor, and face of the apparently much misunderstood Spanish Inquisition.  As historian Thomas Madden explains, “The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly.”  The popular view that Torquemada was an evil fanatic who was determined to force non-Christians to convert, or else, is almost always presented in a vacuum.

For starters, one of the primary reasons that prompted the Spanish crown to institute the Inquisition and appoint Torquemada in the first place is rarely acknowledged: the last bastion of Islam in Granada had been brought under Christian rule as the Reconquista came to a close; the half million Muslim citizenry were given lenient terms, including the right to travel abroad and practice Islam freely.  But they abused them, including by launching many hard-to-quell uprisings—several “involving the stoning, dismembering, beheading, impaling, and burning alive of Christians”—and regularly colluded with foreign, mostly Muslim, powers.

When push came to shove, and to ward off suspicion, half-a-million Muslims feigned conversion to Christianity, regularly attended church, baptized their children, and learned all the ins-and-outs of Christian culture, while clandestinely working to subvert Spain, or at least Granada, back to Muslim rule.  “With the permission and license that their accursed sect accorded them,” one frustrated Spaniard remarked in reference to the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, “they could feign any religion outwardly and without sinning, as long as they kept their hearts nevertheless devoted to their false impostor of a prophet. We saw so many of them who died while worshipping the Cross and speaking well of our Catholic Religion yet who were inwardly excellent Muslims” (Sword and Scimitar, p.201-202).

The Inquisition, spearheaded by Torquemada, became the only way to determine, not so much if they were “good” Catholics, but if they were clandestine and subversive Muslims (contrary to popular belief, significantly more Muslims than Jews were tried).  Moreover, just as neighboring Muslims had influenced Vlad’s penchant for impalement, so neighboring Muslims influenced Spain’s penchant for inquisitions and deportations.  In the preceding centuries, Muslims—particularly the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties—tried countless Spanish converts to Islam by torture, deported them to African slavery, or killed them outright, on the belief that they were not true Muslims but fifth columnists aiding their Christian coreligionists of northern Spain.

Finally, Ivan IV (“the Terrible,” 1530-1584) is another oft cited example of a Medieval Christian—a piously observant Orthodox one this time—who was a bloodthirsty monster, the quintessential tyrant.  Left unsaid is that some two centuries earlier, beginning around 1300, Russia had been under—and heavily influenced by—the yoke of Islamic Tatars, who brutally treated and enslaved the Russians in the name of jihad.

Even after 1480, when the Russians formally overthrew the Tatar Yoke, and all throughout Ivan’s reign, the Crimean khanate launched numerous devastating slave raids into Russia; during Ivan’s rein alone, hundreds of thousands of Slavs were abducted and sold into Islamic slavery.  “Centuries of tyranny and brutality at the hands of the Islamicized Mongols and their Turkish agents rendered Russia a land where despotism came to be seen as normal and where human life was cheap,” observes one historian.  “It is perhaps no coincidence that these things insinuated themselves into the Russian character”—including Ivan’s.

Such is the rarely acknowledged backdrop of Ivan the Terrible, this “monster” whose behavior—like that of Vlad III, Torquemada, and many others—is often presented in a vacuum, and meant to be a commentary on the hypocrisy and intolerance supposedly innate to premodern Christians.  (As a side note, and due to their long and intimate history with Islam, Eastern Europeans—Russians, Romanians, Poles, Hungarians, etc.—remain wary of Islam and resist Muslim immigration.)

Not only did Islam influence the personal behavior of individual Europeans; it had a molding impact on entire cultures (including mafia culture).  For example, during the Crusades, it was not uncommon for the Franks to decapitate Muslims (and hurl their heads by catapult onto Muslim fortifications).  The contemporary historian Guibert of Nogent (d. 1124) wrote that they “learned” this uncharacteristic tactic from their enemies—that it was a sort of tit for tat, to show Muslim fighters that the Crusaders could give as good as they could get.  Similarly, it is impossible to understand the brutality and fanaticism of the Spanish Conquistadors vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the Americas without tracing it back to Spain’s existential struggle with Islam, which necessitated the creation of a piously militant culture to resist and eventually turn the tables on jihad.  Once Islam was gone, Spain’s holy warrior mentality—forged as it was over nearly eight centuries of warfare—could not simply disappear overnight and found new outlets under the old context of Christian versus infidel.

None of the aforementioned is meant to “exonerate” Medieval Christians from their own actions—in the end, individuals are responsible for their behavior—but rather place them in context.  After all, it is a staple for Middle East Studies, and by extension media and “experts” of all sorts, to present Western influence—from the crusades to colonialism—as fundamentally responsible for the Islamic world’s modern day problems.  As such, surely exploring the question from a vice-versa standpoint is warranted.

The very least takeaway from all this is that the pseudohistory of barbarous Christians and noble Muslims needs to undergo serious reconsideration.

* Note: For more instances of Islam’s subtle—and not so subtle—impact on the West, see author’s book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, which CAIR did everything it could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

13. The Disturbing Reason Why the Dems Really Want to Impeach Trump

Why they want to impeach even if it means losing in 2020.

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

Like two rabid dogs fighting over the same rotten bone, the Democrats are in the middle of a civil war over impeachment. The Democrat leadership wants to defeat President Trump by winning an election, but its leftist hard core will settle for nothing less than impeachment even if it means four more years.

Speaker Pelosi opposes impeachment because she’s seen the numbers. Impeachment polls badly with independents, would increase turnout among Republicans, and doesn’t even score well with Democrats. The impeachment obsession has led to the perception among a majority of voters that the House is focused on going after President Trump to the exclusion of all else. Like actual bread-and-butter issues.

Unlike the average ActBlue donor and San Francisco billionaire, the average voter doesn’t actually want his elected officials spending all their time holding three hundred hearings about Trump every week.

So why the unpopular impeachment push that can’t succeed because of the composition of the Senate?

Voters don’t like impeachment because they want to be the ones to remove politicians from office. Pelosi is asking the Left to let the voters do that just in 2020. But for the Left, that’s exactly the point.

Impeachment isn’t about punishing whatever imaginary crime involving whatever country was hit by a dart thrown at a world atlas this week in the offices of the New York Times and the Washington Post. The same media operatives who claimed that President Trump was a Russian spy are now insisting that he’s working with the Ukrainians, whose country was invaded and partially annexed by Russia. By next month, Trump may be accused of secretly colluding with the Netherlands, Burundi or Australia.

The purpose of Random Treason Accusation #17 has always been justifying the use of surveillance, espionage and secret evidence against the political opposition. Or Watergate to the power of ten.

The Russia election hacking accusation and the current Ukraine smear have the common purpose of delegitimizing an election. The Russia lie was about delegitimizing 2016. The Ukraine lie is a preemptive effort at delegitimizing the 2020 election in case Biden is the nominee and Trump is the winner.

Impeachment plugs into the same narrative which is not just about winning, but delegitimizing.

Democrats want to win elections. Radicals want to delegitimize the entire idea of elections. Pelosi wants to win an election. The radicals don’t want to win elections. They want to destroy them. Their real goal is to use blind hatred of Republicans to convince Democrats that elections are inherently illegitimate. All their arguments, whether about Russian Facebook bots or the Electoral College circle back to that.

The choosing of governments, it follows, is too important an issue to be left to mere voters whose voting machines and brains are all too easily hacked by disinformation campaigns and FOX News.

And the removal of President Trump from office is also too important to be left to those same voters.

Lefties have made it very clear that they would rather, practically or symbolically, reverse the results of the 2016 election than focus on winning in 2020 because of the larger principle at stake. The second part of the principle appears in every media piece pushing impeachment. It hinges on President Trump’s alleged unfitness for office. The first part of the principle is the unfitness of the voters to choose leaders.

Elections are a humiliating process that force lefties to lie to voters, hide their agendas, and appeal to the people they despise to be allowed to rule them. Even when they win, a sour taste lingers afterward.

The Left desperately wants impeachment proceedings because it wants to exercise direct power.

People wonder what the Left really wants? Post-gender bathrooms, banning cows, and paying reparations to drug dealers are just random policies. They’re not the endgame.

Unless the Democrats take the Senate, impeachment would be a meaningless show trial. But Marxist regimes love show trials of political opponents. The Marxist element in the House desperately wants a show trial of President Trump because such a proceeding is an explicit rejection of our political system.

The push to impeach President Trump did not begin organically with a crime allegedly committed in office, but began before he even took office and, in some elements of the media, before he even won. The premise of impeachment has always been an inherent unfitness. The actual basis for impeachment has always been a corollary to that claim of an inherent unfitness that preceded even the election.

Inherent unfitness expresses the idea that the voters never had any right to elect President Trump.

Impeachment is not just meant to be a trial of President Trump, but of the voters who chose him. Its outcome, whatever the composition of the Senate, is meant to be an argument for remaking the system of elections, whether by abolishing the Electoral College or tampering with the judiciary, that would take the power further out of the hands of the voters and concentrate them with the right sorts of people.

The right sorts of people usually being wealthy and influential lefties in California and New York.

But the real appeal of impeachment is more emotional than strategic. President Trump’s victory threatened lefties by suggesting that, despite the Obama era, they are not actually in control.

“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship,” O’Brien tells the hapless Winston Smith in the novel 1984. “The object of power is power.”

Marxist regimes love show trials because they allow them to destroy and humiliate their enemies.

“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?” O’Brien asks.

“By making him suffer,” Winston replies.

Outside the media and social media, where the purges of cancel culture are a daily event, the Left lacks the power to regularly drag its political enemies before its bar, to put them on trial and break them. And yet it craves that terrible power above all else. All its obsessions, political correctness, cancel culture, political protests, demonization and impeachment bend toward that consuming evil obsession.

The Mueller investigation enraptured lefties with its spectacle of police state tactics, night raids, prolonged interrogations, eavesdropping, and then finally trials that bankrupted their opponents.

Nothing else, not even winning in 2020, excites the Left as much as the prospect of more show trials.

That’s why it must have impeachment even if attaining it will destroy its chances of victory.

Impeaching Trump isn’t about him. It’s a Rorschach test that reveals the ugly inkblot of the leftist soul. Its real purpose is for an ugly totalitarian movement to live out its fantasy of casting aside the vestiges of democracy, divesting itself of the illusions of representative government and holding a show trial.

Leftists speak less about equality these days than about justice. This is the justice they have in mind.

Their vision of utopia isn’t equality or progress, it’s trial after trial, an endless series of proceedings against Trump and you and me, and Bob next door, who votes Democrat, but once used the term “illegal alien” in a conversation. The nightmares of the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, Communist China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia weren’t accidental misfires: they’re the essential truth of what the Left is.

Terror is in the political DNA of every radical movement. And the arc of the Left is always radical.

“Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever,” 1984’s O’Brien rhapsodizes.

Impeachment is a feverish effort by the Left to live out this evil fantasy. It’s one of a million show trials that the radicals who are taking over the Democrats envision, not just for Trump, but for America.

14. Trump Delivers Hard Truths to UN General Assembly

U.S. president defends the original vision of the UN — based on respect for national sovereignty.


United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ speech to the 74th annual High-Level General Assembly meeting on September 24th was full of generalities about world problems the UN is purporting to deal with, in contrast to President Trump’s honest discussion of hard truths.

“We are here to advance the common good while upholding our shared humanity and values,” the secretary general said. “That vision united the founders of our Organization.” However, Secretary General Guterres’ concept of the UN “vision” today is of a globalist institution, which was not the founders’ original vision at all. The founders’ vision for a new United Nations was much closer to the one that President Trump has articulated. The United Nations was founded to bring sovereign nations together for the purpose of cooperating in the solution of common problems and taking collective action where warranted against aggressors’ threats to international peace and security. The United Nations Charter specifically recognizes the sovereign status of the member states. It stipulates that the United Nations does not have the authority “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

President Trump sought to remind the world leaders he addressed in his own General Assembly speech of the UN founders’ original understanding of the relationship between the world organization and its sovereign member states.

“The future does not belong to globalists,” the president said. “The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.”

The president spoke in measured but resolute terms. He issued no military threats. Indeed, he declared that “America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.” However, the president expressed his first allegiance to America and its citizens. “The United States does not seek conflict with any other nation. We desire peace, cooperation, and mutual gain with all. But I will never fail to defend America’s interests,” he said.

President Trump pointed to international trade under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an example of a  global initiative that has taken the wrong turn, particularly as relates to China. He criticized world leaders for looking the other way too long as China broke its promises to reform its trade policies. “Not only has China declined to adopt promised reforms,” President Trump said, “it has embraced an economic model, dependent on massive market barriers, heavy state subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, forced technology transfers and the theft of intellectual property and also trade secrets on a grand scale.” The U.S. has led the way in trying to uphold the rule of law in multilateral trade, but President Trump made it clear that the United States would no longer be suckered by China’s disregard for the rule of law. President Trump also brought up Hong Kong, declaring that the U.S. would be “carefully monitoring the situation.”  He added, “The world fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty made with the British and registered with the United Nations in which China commits to protect Hong Kong’s freedom, legal system and democratic ways of life.” These are the kinds of hard truths that the world leaders who assembled at the UN’s annual talk fest needed to hear, especially China. President Trump delivered them. Secretary General Guterres did not.

Iran provided another opportunity for President Trump to lay down some hard truths. He called the Iranian regime one of the “greatest security threats facing peace-loving nations,” whose “bloodlust” should not be subsidized by other nations. “The regime is squandering the nation’s wealth and future in a fanatical quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them,” President Trump said. He defended his decision to withdraw the United States from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), because of such fundamental flaws as failing to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile program and not allowing unfettered international inspections at significant sites. “As long as Iran’s menacing behavior continues, sanctions will not be lifted, they will be tightened,” President Trump said, referring by way of example to the recent attacks against Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities for which credible evidence points to the Iranian regime’s complicity.

Secretary General Guterres, by contrast, praised the JCPOA and hoped it would remain in effect, even without any improvements. He raised an alarm about growing tensions in the Middle East Gulf region, including the recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, without once noting Iran’s and its terrorist proxies’ pattern of aggressive activities and credible evidence that Iran was involved in the Saudi Arabia attack.

President Trump had little to say about North Korea, except to express a hope for a diplomatic path towards North Korea’s denuclearization. “I’ve told Kim Jong-un, what I truly believe, that like Iran, his country is full of untapped potential,” President Trump said. “To realize that promise, North Korea must denuclearize.”

President Trump made no mention of climate change in his speech, which was the theme of the UN Climate Action Summit held with much ballyhoo on September 23rd. However, the president did have much to say about illegal immigration and the need for sovereign nations to be able to protect their own borders. He derided the open border activists “who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice.” He warned of the dangers of human trafficking that open border policies encourage. He framed effective border security as a human rights issue in that it discourages people from taking a long, often futile journey that puts their lives and the lives of their children in danger. “To anyone conducting crossings of our border illegally,” the president said, “please hear these words: Do not pay the smugglers. Do not pay the coyotes. Do not put yourself in danger. Do not put your children in danger. Because if you make it here, you will not be allowed in. You will be promptly returned home.”

President Trump provided examples of his administration’s initiatives that are harmonious with policies pursued by the UN system. To the naysayers who regularly accuse President Trump of bigotry and disregard of human rights, for example, the president pointed to his administration’s accomplishments in “working with other nations to stop criminalizing homosexuality” and standing “in solidarity with LGBTQ people who live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based upon sexual orientation.”  President Trump noted that his administration launched “the first ever government-wide approach to women’s economic empowerment working to ensure that women, all over the planet, have the legal right to own and inherit property, work in the same industries as men, travel freely and access credit and institutions.” He also spoke of his administration’s leadership in championing religious freedom around the world, which is consistent with the UN’s professed values of religious tolerance. However, President Trump declared that his administration’s commitment to protecting Americans’ constitutional right to bear and keep arms in self-defense and to protecting the lives of the unborn would not waver in the face of UN initiatives to the contrary. “Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life,” he said. “There is no circumstance under which the United States will allow international interests to trample on the rights of our citizens, including the right to self-defense.”

President Trump concluded his remarks by pointing to America’s founding documents as the source of the “core rights and values America defends today.” He said that America’s “founders understood that there will always be those who believe they are entitled to wield power and control over others. Our founders gave us a system designed to restrain this dangerous impulse.”

President Trump did not throw the United Nations under the bus in his speech as some have charged. But he did raise a red flag. Americans are a “proud and fiercely independent people,” he said, who will not take directions from an unaccountable globalist bureaucracy. While the United Nations Charter and the United States Constitution can operate compatibly with each other if the UN Charter is interpreted and implemented according to its founding principles and UN bureaucrats stay in their proper lanes, globalist impulses are leading the UN astray. Despite its origins as an organization of sovereign member states brought together to cooperate on solving common problems when they can, the United Nations is approaching its 75th anniversary next year on a path that potentially puts the United Nations on an unacceptable collision course with the self-government of the American people. This may be the hardest truth of all that President Trump delivered to his largely unreceptive audience at the General Assembly.

15. Trump: ‘I Defeated the Caliphate’

The good news and the bad.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

On September 20, Donald Trump asserted that “I defeated the caliphate.  Now, when I came, the caliphate was all over the place.  I defeated the caliphate — ISIS. ”

Is this true?  Considering that Trump can passingly say that the sky is blue before the media and various “experts” rush to insist otherwise, it should be no surprise that various elements deny his latest claim as well.

The facts, however, speak for themselves.  According to a March 23 Independent report:

The Isis caliphate, which once stretched for thousands of miles across Iraq and Syria, has been declared defeated.

The Syrian Democratic Forces, a US-backed group of Kurdish and Arab fighters, announced on Saturday that it had captured the last territory held by the group.

“Syrian Democratic Forces declare total elimination of so-called caliphate and 100 percent territorial defeat of ISIS,” said Mustafa Bali, a spokesman for group.

“On this unique day, we commemorate thousands of martyrs whose efforts made the victory possible,” he added.

Such a depiction is certainly a far cry from the status of ISIS under Trump’s predecessor; the caliphate both declared itself and reached its strongest point during Obama’s eight year tenure (which is unsurprising as all sorts of Islamists—in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen—came to power under Obama).  As Trump says, “when I came, the caliphate was all over the place.” This was also in part because Obama had supported a nebulous array of “freedom fighters” and “rebels”—many of whom turned out to be “Islamic terrorists,” some arguably worse than ISIS—in the Syrian war.

Even so, it must be remembered that the caliphate has only been defeated in a temporal sense; it remains very much alive as a pivotal idea in Islam.

The word “caliphate” (from Arabic khalifa) means “succession,” and refers to the successors or “caliphs” of Muhammad.  As successors or stewards of the prophet, they were to uphold and enforce the mode of governance captured by his Sunna and Koran—in a word, Sharia.

From the death of Muhammad in 632 to 1924—for 1,292 years—much of the Muslim world was ruled by at least one caliphate (sometimes more than one in competition, e.g., Shia Fatimids vs Sunni Abbasids).

A Muslim historian underscores the importance of the caliphate:

All pious Muslims well-read in the Hadith (the compiled sayings of the Prophet) firmly believe in the need to establish an Islamic State headed by a Muslim Caliph. This is mentioned twice in the Holy Quran and it’s central to the Islamic faith. No Muslim scholar would debate an Islamic state and the caliphate. Muslim Sunnis claim that the caliph should hail from Meccan notability. Shiite Muslims add that he must be from Ahl al-Bayt; a member of the prophet’s family.

Not only is the caliphate what Islam requires and an integral part of Muslim history; it’s what millions of modern day Muslims desire.  According to a 2013 Pew report, “Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center.” Citing the same report, the authors of a book on Sharia conclude that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Sharia is God’s [Allah’s] divine revelation.”  Even larger numbers “favored the establishment of Sharia as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.

Here the pivotal question arises: Are the things that ISIS was notorious for doing—massacring and beheading “infidels,” giving non-Muslims three choices (Islam, jizya, or death), enslaving and sexually abusing infidel women and children, randomly destroying churches—things a legitimate caliphate would do?

The answer is an emphatic YES.  Every caliphate, from 632 to 1924, Sunni or Shia, engaged in all the same and worse atrocities—and always on the logic that Sharia allows if not requires it.

So we end with a good news/bad news scenario: yes, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that declared itself in 2014 as the latest caliphate has been defeated; however, the very idea of what ISIS represented—a Sharia-compliant caliphate—is still in the hearts and minds of millions of pious Muslims.

16. Palestinian Rejectionism And The Two-State Solution

A death cult continues bowing to the legacy of Al-Husseini.

A recent Palestinian Liberation Organization position paper titled “The PLO Committee for Interaction With Israeli Society,” has refused to recognize Israel as the Jewish people’s state. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority (PA) President, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking at a November 2014 emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo declared, “We will never recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel.” These are the latest “no’s” coming out of the mouths of Palestinian leaders.

To reasonable people, facts do matter, and documented historical facts matter a lot. While we are still awaiting the materialization of the two-state solution in 2019, Arab-Palestinian rejectionism is still holding sway 82-years after the first “no” in 1937. Since the 1930’s, the leadership of the Arab-Palestinian community has rejected all efforts at a compromise with the Jewish community in Palestine, and subsequently with the State of Israel. This Palestinian attitude of a zero-sum game, in which the Palestinians take all, has been the pattern of behavior by those who have led the Palestinian cause.

The Arab community in Palestine did not consider themselves as residents of Palestine (they saw themselves as Southern Syrian) until the 1920’s, when the prospects of an Arab nation in Greater Syria, led by the Emir Feisal (son of the Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca) was dashed by the League of Nations giving the French a Mandate over the Levant (today’s Syria and Lebanon). Arabs, including those living in Palestine, considered themselves Ottoman (Turkish) subjects. The political term “Palestinian” did not exist until the 1960’s.

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Nazi Germany’s ally during WWII, disillusioned with the prospect of greater Arab Syria, focused his attention on Arab Palestine. It is his initial rejectionism and uncompromising attitude, as well as his pursuit of violence that enshrined the Palestinians pattern of behavior. Ironically, Herbert Samuel, the first appointed British High Commissioner for Palestine, who was also Jewish, appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem. Fearing accusation of partiality, Sir Samuel appointed a notorious anti-Semite, and Nazi sympathizer.

It was Al-Husseini who encouraged and led the “Arab” Revolt (not Palestinian) in 1936-1939, aimed against the British Mandatory rule in Palestine. In the process, the Mufti murderous gangs butchered fellow Arabs, Jews, and Brits. The British government, intimidated by the violence, responded by establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry to Palestine, chaired by Lord William Peel, hence it became known as the Peel Commission of 1937. The Zionist leadership accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, albeit, dissatisfied with the land size allotted to the Jewish state. The Peel Commission recommended that about three-quarters of Palestine be allotted to the Arabs and a bit over a quarter of the land apportioned to the Jews of Palestine.

The Peel Commission report resolved that the British Mandate for Palestine was unworkable because Jewish and Arab objectives in Palestine were incompatible, and it proposed that Palestine be partitioned into three zones: An Arab state, a Jewish state, and an international zone encompassing Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Al-Husseini and the Arab High Committee rejected the offer, demanding that there be no Jewish state. Husseini continued the revolt that was finally crushed by the British. To appease the Arab aggressors (just as Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler’s aggression), in 1939, the British government established the “White Paper” policy, which closed the gates of Palestine to Jews, just when Jews in Europe needed a refuge from the impending Nazi genocide we recognize today as the Holocaust.Thus, the first opportunity for a two-state solution and an independent Arab-Palestinian state was rejected by Arab leaders.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, with hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors holed up in Displacement Camps throughout Germany, and the gates to Palestine still locked, public opinion in the West turned against Britain’s White Paper policy. London, being exhausted economically from WWII, and the expense of colonial holdings, decided to turnover its Palestine Mandate to the United Nations. In 1947, the UN established the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The Committee arrived at the same conclusion as the Peel Commission: irreconcilable aspiration of the two groups.  It recommended partition. The Jews of Palestine happily accepted it. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to approve the partition plan. Otto Preminger’s film “Exodus,”conveys the joy in which the Jewish community greeted the vote. Al-Husseini, the Arab High Committee, and the Arab League adamantly rejected the plan, and immedicably began their attack on Palestinian-Jews. Once again, Palestinian-Arab self-determination and a two-state solution was discarded by the would-be Palestinians.

Following the June, 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli cabinet, intent on using the victory as leverage to make peace with the Arab world and the Palestinians,offered territory for peace. Egypt made peace with Israel 12 years later, with Jordan following 27-years later. The Palestinians however, refused to deal with Israel as did the rest of the Arab world. In fact, in response to Israel’s offer of peace, the Arab League,meeting in Khartoum, Sudan in August, 1967, responded with the infamous “Three No’s”: No to peace with Israel, no to negotiations with Israel, and no to recognition of Israel. The Palestinians, now under the PLO leadership, chose armed struggle with the aim of replacing the Jewish state with an Arab Muslim state. The PLO charter made it clear that it aimed to destroy the Jewish state, and most of its people. The opportunity for a solution was dashed again by the Arab countries, and the Arab-Palestinians.

Following the 1993 Oslo Accords signing on the White House lawn, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, evermore the terrorist leader, in Arabic, incited his fellow Palestinians to commit terror, and continue the armed struggle until victory. To the West, in English,he “spoke of peace.” The Oslo Accords produced horrific suicide bombing in Israel, committed by Palestinians. Ehud Barak, who replaced Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in 1999, campaigned with the message of peace-making, and furthering the Oslo Accords. In July 2000, President Clinton hosted Arafat and Barak at Camp David. Barak, without the approval of the people of Israel, agreed to the “Clinton Parameters,” which offered Arafat far-reaching concessions, including 94% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, an additional 3% of Israeli territory, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the “Clinton Parameters.” He refused to commit to “ending the conflict.” He chose instead to launch the second Intifada (uprising) that claimed over 1,000 Israeli lives, mostly from terror attacks. Another opportunity for Palestinian self-determination and a two-state solution was rejected by the Palestinian leadership.

Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Arafat as chairman of the PA, capped off Palestinian rejectionism when he refused to accept even PM Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer that went even beyond Barak’s. He added a limited number of Palestinian refugees to be admitted to Israel and exchanging practically kilometer for kilometer West Bank territory with Israeli territory.Abbas, knowing that an assassin’s bullet awaited him should he sign such a peace accord, walked away.

Efraim Karsh, in his 2010 book Palestine Betrayed,cited Haj Amin al-Husseini’s 1936 statement, saying that, “There is no place in Palestine for two races. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago. Let them go to other parts of the world where there are wide vacant places.” The Palestinian leadership is unfortunately still committed to al-Husseini’s rejectionism, and will not accept the two-state solution under any circumstance.

17. Did We Learn Anything From 9/11?

Or are we still sleeping?

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

Two things happened in 2001.

Islamic terrorists carried out their most successful attack on America with the murder of 2,977 people. And the number of immigrants obtaining permanent residency passed a million for the first time in a decade. Before 2001, a million plus was a streak that might linger for a few years before falling back.

These days it’s the new normal. Aside from one blip, we’ve been riding the million plus train for over a decade. The resistance to that trend is currently the one thing we seem to have learned from 9/11.

After decades of being massacred by terrorists who have come here as tourists, refugees and immigrants, we are finally trying to close the door on travelers from Islamic terrorist states.

And it only took 16 years.

That’s because learning nothing from the past has been our specialty.

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah,” The New York Times reported in 1997.

Four years earlier, Muslim terrorists had bombed the World Trade Center in an unsuccessful effort to bring down the towers. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh at the center of the terror plot, had urged, “We . . . have been ordered with terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize the enemy of Allah and your enemy. The Koran says ‘to strike terror.’”

Mohammed T. Mehdi, the Muslim activist responsible for the flag of Islam flying at what would become Ground Zero, had been an adviser to Rahman. The U.S. Attorney’s Office had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the blind terror sheikh. And nevertheless, the flag flew.

Imam Sirraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the bombing, who had testified as a character witness for Rahman, had already become the first Muslim cleric to present an invocation prayer to the House of Representatives. He was introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall who had proposed the idea. The invocation included a Koranic curse aimed at Christians and Jews.

That same year, President George H.W. Bush had taped his own Eid message for Muslims.

In 1996, Hillary Clinton inaugurated the first Eid event at the White House. Capitol Hill politicos held their own Iftar event that year. Regular Islamic prayers began to be held on Capitol Hill in 1998. The State Department hosted its first Iftar event in 1999. So did the Pentagon. All of this is still going on.

Not only haven’t things gotten better since then, they’ve gotten much worse.

The height of our counterterrorism efforts took place after September 11 with Operation Green Quest. That was our last serious effort at cracking the infrastructure of Islamist terrorism in this country. These days counterterrorism mainly consists of informants and undercover operatives catching lone ISIS supporters before they carry out an attack. Going beyond that was unacceptable even before Obama.

Under Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the White House and Hezbollah had a free hand.

The War on Terror also reached its height in the creative and relentless attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11. But, before long, that campaign degenerated into nation-building, endless legal proceedings for captured terrorists in the Bush era, and feeding thousands of soldiers into a meat-grinder with restrictive rules of engagement and negotiations with the Taliban in the Obama era.

By 2003, our response to Islamic terrorism had reached its peak. It’s been downhill from there.

It took 4 years for the lessons of the World Trade Center bombing to be so thoroughly forgotten that an unindicted co-conspirator was able to get the flag of Islam flown at the site of the twin skyscrapers.

It took even less time for the lessons of 9/11 to fly away leaving behind hollow memorials.

After Qari Yasin, a top Al Qaeda terrorist, whose terror plots had killed U.S. Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez and Navy Cryptologic Technician Third Class Petty Officer Matthew J. O’Bryant, was taken out in an airstrike, there was no mention of the fallen American military personnel killed by his attacks.

Instead Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, the point man for the tough bombing campaign against ISIS, declared, “The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice.”

That was in 2017.

20 years after the flag of Islam flew at the World Trade Center, we were no longer killing Islamic terrorists to avenge our dead or even to defend ourselves, but to punish those who “defame Islam.”

Meanwhile, Kris Bauman, who had argued that, “the Obama Administration must find creative (but legal) ways to include Hamas in a solution” held down the position of Senior Director for Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian Affairs from 2017 to 2018 until John Bolton took over the National Security Council. These days, Bauman heads the Eisenhower Center at the Air Force Academy.

The problem is structural.

Our national security infrastructure and our entire strategic apparatus is run by people who think like Mattis and Bauman. It’s run by them under Democrat and Republican administrations. Their views represent the consensus that terrorism can’t be defeated, it can only be defused or appeased.

There’s been some debate over whether we should be negotiating with the Taliban.

We’ve been officially negotiating with the Taliban since at least 2013. That’s a long time to be holding talks when there’s nothing to actually talk about. We will eventually withdraw from Afghanistan. The Taliban will eventually take over Afghanistan. What then is there to talk to the Taliban about?

And yet our foreign policy apparatus insists that we can’t pull out until we get the Taliban to commit to respecting Afghanistan’s constitution. Why do we care about the Afghan constitution anyway? Did thousands of Americans really die in Afghanistan to uphold a constitution that upholds Islamic law?

Or did we begin this war to avenge our dead and to punish the perpetrators and their allies?

The debate over interventionism and appeasement has left September 11 behind. The interventionists insist that we have an obligation to spread democracy and the appeasers claim that we’re warmongers

Neither side likes this country very much. And neither side cares about what happened on this day.

If we are to have a meaningful strategy, it has to begin on a fall Tuesday. It has to start in the cockpit of one of the hijacked planes. It has to start with a prayer from a terrorist and from one of his victims.

“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” a terrorist declares on the Flight 93 cockpit recording. That’s followed by the sounds of the terrorists assaulting a passenger.

“Please don’t hurt me,” he pleads. “Oh God.”

Flight 93 is a reminder that we are a brave and courageous people. But that we have to wake up first.

And to wake up, we have to understand what it is we’re facing. On September 11, 2001, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and eventually millions of Americans were forced to wake up.

Some died. Most went back to sleep. And some still remember.

9/11 was neither a beginning nor an ending. The war we are in has gone on for over a thousand years. It might go on for another thousand making a mockery of the appeasers who lecture about “endless war.”

Wars go on for as long as one side is willing to fight them. The nightmarish reality is that the other side is willing to fight forever. That is a truth too troubling for most people to come to terms with.

But until we understand that, we will have learned absolutely nothing from September 11, 2001.

This is not WW2. It’s not the Cold War. It’s a clash of civilizations. Technology, jet planes and the internet, have allowed our civilizations to overlap each other. War is the inevitable result.

Immigration, not bullets and bombs, is the main weapon of a clash not between armies, but civilizations.

16 years later, we have only begun, not to fight, but to defend ourselves against a clash of civilizations.

18. John Bolton Out as National Security Adviser

Too hawkish for the president?

John Bolton is out as President Trump’s national security adviser. The president tweeted Tuesday morning that “I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning.” Bolton had a different take on what happened, claiming that he had offered his resignation Monday night on his own initiative and decided to go ahead with his resignation on Tuesday morning.

In any case, the parting of the ways has been a long time coming. Bolton is an unabashed hawk, willing to beat the drums of war to bring about regime change. President Trump, who has long criticized the Iraq war championed by Bolton, prefers using strong economic pressure as a weapon to move adversaries towards making meaningful concessions in negotiations. Differences between President Trump and Bolton steadily increased during Bolton’s roughly 18-month tenure. The president has been willing to negotiate with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, for example, while maintaining tough economic sanctions to exert “maximum” pressure without having to go to war. Bolton was more inclined to risk military confrontation to achieve his own more far-reaching objective of regime change. The president has focused on a favorable outcome in trade negotiations with China, using tariffs as his stick, while Bolton reportedly would have been willing to use military pressure to bring China into line.

The national security adviser’s job is in the title – to advise the president in making foreign policy decisions with national security implications. He or she presents information and options, and coordinates with impacted government departments. The national security adviser neither implements — nor is the public face of — the president’s foreign policy. That is the job of the Secretary of State, something Bolton may have forgotten at times as he crossed paths with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on multiple issues. Ultimately, Bolton lost the confidence of President Trump and had to go.

Back in April 2018, shortly after Bolton assumed his post, the South China Morning Post noted that “while Bolton is seen as a military hawk,” President Trump “is believed to oppose the idea of hostilities with another nation. Those opposing views would tend to set the stage for a potentially contentious relationship between Bolton and Trump on certain US foreign policy and security matters.” The prediction came to pass. President Trump sent a signal of his concern last May when he said that Bolton wanted to get him “into a war,” according to the Washington Post, referring to the efforts to oust Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

On another occasion, as Bolton was making belligerent statements about escalating military pressure on Iran, President Trump said, “I actually temper John.” Earlier this summer, President Trump said during a Meet the Press interview that “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay?” At that time, however, the president downplayed Bolton’s hawkishness “because I want both sides.” Now the president no longer wants to hear Bolton’s side, at least as presented by Bolton himself.

The contentious relationship finally resulted in Tuesday’s complete rupture. The last straw may have been differences over President Trump’s decision to invite the Taliban to Camp David to conclude a peace agreement leading to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. One official was quoted as saying that Afghanistan “broke open the bottom of the bag.” Bolton disagreed with President Trump’s initiative to open peace talks with the Taliban, let alone to invite them to Camp David. Secretary Pompeo supported the president’s decision. The invitation was ultimately withdrawn because of the Taliban’s suicide attack last week that took the life of an American serviceman, and President Trump declared the talks with the Taliban to be “dead.” But as the president has shown in the past, he will reverse himself and renew negotiations if he feels the time is right. Secretary Pompeo held the door open for just such a possibility of resumed talks. With Bolton expressing his firm opposition to any talks with the Taliban under any circumstances, his fate was sealed. No doubt after enough complaints by Secretary Pompeo, President Trump decided it was time for Bolton to go.

Whatever criticism Bolton might deserve for his aggressiveness, he is right about the Taliban. The president could have begun to withdraw troops in stages without engaging with the Taliban and agreeing to any fixed timetable acceptable to the Taliban. Any “assurances” the Taliban offered that they would cut ties with outside terrorist organizations such as al Qaida were complete lies. They hold a pen with which to sign a phony agreement in one hand while killing innocent civilians and American soldiers with the other.

Sirajuddin Haqqani is the deputy leader under the Taliban supreme commander, Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, and is closely associated with al Qaida. According to the UN ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and Taliban Monitoring Team, quoted in a blog post by a former strategic adviser to the commander of International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan,

There is no evidence that the Taliban have broken or will in future break their intrinsic relationship with the Haqqani Network and Al-Qaida. Recent reporting would suggest that these connections are actually stronger than at any time in the past 18 years. Calculations over withdrawal from Afghanistan should take account of the risk of undermining prospects for a durable peace by empowering and emboldening these groups.

On the one hand, Bolton’s preference for accomplishing regime change through military force arguably could have mired the U.S. in more open-ended wars with dangerous unintended consequences. At the same time, Bolton was not wrong to be skeptical about papering over fundamental differences with our arch enemies in agreements that they have no intention to honor.

The president, naturally, has every right to dismiss the messenger conveying such skepticism, but the message itself should not be disregarded.

19. ‘Tomorrow We Are Coming to Kill You All!’

The horrors Christian minorities were subjected to in June, 2019 alone.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow; this article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

The following are some of the abuses, categorized by theme, that Muslims inflicted on Christians throughout the month of June, 2019:

Slaughter of Christians

Mali: On June 9, Islamic Fulani gunmen massacred 95 Christians—including women and children—during their rampage of a Christian village, which they set ablaze before leaving;  several of the slain were burned alive.  “About 50 heavily armed men arrived on motorbikes and pickups,” a survivor recalled. “They first surrounded the village and then attacked—anyone who tried to escape was killed….  No one was spared—women, children, elderly people.”  Security sources confirmed that the raiders also randomly killed domestic animals in the village which was “virtually wiped out.”

Burkina Faso:  Islamic terrorists slaughtered another 29 Christians over the course of two separate raids.  The first occurred on Sunday, June 9, in the town of Arbinda; 19 Christians were butchered.  On the next day, another ten Christians were murdered in a nearby town.  An additional eleven thousand Christians fled the region and were left displaced, as they feared they would be next if they were to remain in their villages.  “There is no Christian anymore in this town [Arbinda],” said a local contact; he added that “It’s proven that they [terrorists] were looking for Christians. Families who hide Christians are [also] killed. Arbinda had now lost in total no less than 100 people within six months.”  These June attacks follow a string of Islamic terror attacks in the West African nation over the preceding six weeks that left at least another 20 Christians dead.

Nigeria:  Muslim Fulani herdsmen killed at least 24 Christians in three separate raids.  On June 17, the herdsmen slaughtered 13 Christians—three of whom were children, one reportedly only eight years old—in Kaduna and Plateau States.  Two churches, over 200 Christian homes, and crops were also torched to the ground.   On the same day in Tarabu State, “Muslim Fulanis riding Bajaj motorcycles” raided another Christian village, where they  butchered another 11 Christians. “They burned houses and shot us as we fled,” a contact said.  Discussing these incidents, human rights activist John Eibner elaborates, “Like Boko Haram, they [Fulani] are inspired by the jihad and caliphate of their Fulani kinsman Usman dan Fodio.  The extensive death and destruction caused by Fulani terrorists rarely makes major headlines in the West. But, according to the Global Terrorism Index, ‘In 2018 alone, deaths attributed to Fulani extremists are estimated to be six times greater than the number committed by Boko Haram.’”

Morocco:  According to the ringleader of an Islamic terror cell, the sole reason that he and his men slaughtered two female Scandinavian students—a Dane, 24, and a Norwegian, 28—who were hiking through the North African nation’s Atlas Mountains, was because they were Christian (many Muslims assume that all Europeans are practicing Christians).  Abdessamad Ejoud, 25, confessed to this motivation during his and two other terrorists’ court trial over the slaughters that occurred last December.  Ejoud, who professed his “love” for ISIS in court, personally beheaded one of the two women because, as Christians, they are Allah’s “enemies,” he said, and are responsible for “killing Muslims.”

Pakistan:  Three Muslim men and one woman robbed, beat, and poisoned Sagheer Masih, a 35-year-old Christian auto rickshaw driver.   According to the report,  he “was targeted because of religious hatred, prejudice and apparent jealously of his success”:

Sagheer Masih’s work ethic and personality drew several customers to him. He was well-mannered, polite and very friendly. Knowing he had the responsibility of taking care of three younger siblings after the death of his father, he ensured that he always got to work early and left late in order to gather as much money as he could to care for them. At work, he experienced discrimination because of his faith. Several of the other drivers called him “Choora” which is a derogatory word for a Christian in Pakistan, but he never saw his death coming.  On the night of the incident, he stayed at work later than usual to drive for people he thought were customers. The group requested that he take them on a longer route than usual and made it clear to him that they were willing to pay an extra fee. After moments of driving, they directed him to a remote location and, at knife-point, demanded that he give them all his money. Sagheer, being scared for his life and concerned for his siblings, gave all he had, but begged that they spare his life. Instead of killing him in on the spot, they forced him to drink poison and acid and left him there to die. Sagheer Masih spent that night on laying on the street unconscious. When he was finally found, he was unable to eat or drink anything and he consistently vomited blood for almost a week.

He died a week later.

Sri Lanka: The Islamic suicide bombing of churches and hotels on Easter Sunday, April 21, that claimed more than 250 lives claimed another life in June: Arun Prashanth, who heroically helped others after his church was bombed, had been struggling between life and death in an intensive care unit for 40 days, when he finally succumbed to death on June 4. According to the report, “Arun, [30,] the sole family breadwinner who cared for his widowed mother, was very active in Christian ministry and known as someone who was always available to help out anyone in need.”

Attacks on Churches and Christian Institutions

Niger: On June 15 and in response to the arrest of a popular Muslim imam who had accused proposed legislation of being “anti-Islamic,” a Muslim mob of more than 150 people set the Assembly of God Church in Maradi ablaze; they also intentionally torched the pastor’s car and raided another neighboring church.  A senior official of Niger’s Ministry of Interior later said that there is “nothing anti-Islamic” in the proposed legislation, which is intended to counter measures advocated by “obscurantist terrorist organizations.”  The Imam, Sheikh Rayadoune, was released the day after his arrest, at which point he announced that “all my supporters must stop making trouble in the town. Islam does not recommend that.”

United States of America:  A Muslim man from Syria, who in August 2016 was admitted into the U.S. as a “refugee,” was “arrested on terrorism charges in relation to a plan to attack a church in Pittsburgh, according to the Justice Department,”  a report dated June 19 notes:

Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, 21, was arrested based on a federal complaint charging him with one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to the self-described Islamic State, also known as ISIS, according to the U.S. Justice Department. He’s also charged with two counts of distributing information relating to an explosive, destructive device or weapon of mass destruction in relation to a plan to attack the Legacy International Worship Center on the city’s north side.  The complaint states that Alowemer in May gave “multiple instructional documents” detailing how to build and use explosives, including improvised explosive devices, to an undercover FBI agent he believed was an ISIS supporter. Federal prosecutors allege that the man handed over these documents intending for them to be used in assembling a weapon to conduct an attack.

Alowemer had purchased several items—including  nails, batteries and consumer products containing hazardous chemicals—to be used in his improvised explosive device.

Ethiopia:  Authorities ordered an evangelical church congregation to vacate the building it had been using for the last decade.   Complaints from neighbors of loud noises were cited in the eviction letter, which gave the congregation 30 days to vacate premises.  “This decision is nothing other than a display of animosity towards Protestant churches in the region,” explained one local.  “Similar tensions are bubbling under the surface in other parts of Oromia.  We have even heard of places where Muslims had asked Christians to vacate the area. And though this call is veiled as ethnic rivalry by some media and observers, it is at its very core a religious matter.”  According to the report,

There is concern that these measures are part of a concerted effort to discourage Christian activity in Oromia state, the birthplace of [Muslim] President Abiye Ahmed. Leaders say they also fear that if these government actions are successful, it might encourage Muslims in other communities in Oromia to initiate similar complaints. As of the 2007 census, the state was about 51 percent Christian (17.7% protestant, 30.4 orthodox) and 47.6% Muslim….  It’s not only the state’s Protestant churches that face problems. Some Ethiopian Orthodox churches have reported an increase in difficulties…

Lebanon:  Security agents arrested a Syrian national and ISIS-sympathizer, aged 20, for plotting a series of attacks against the nation’s Christian churches and Shia mosques.   He was inspired by the April 21 Sri Lanka terror attacks on Christian churches and tourist designations that left 250 dead.  According to the report,

Within the Middle East context, Lebanon is considered a comparatively safe country for Christians. It is the only country with a Christian president. Even so, challenges persist. The Iranian backed terrorist group, Hezbollah, has a strong political influence in the country. Lebanon is home to over a million refugees and asylum seekers. Lebanese Christians are well-aware of how this combination could place them into situations which make them more vulnerable to attacks.

Uganda: A Christian primary school, which takes in Muslim children kicked out by their parents for converting to Christianity, was unexpectedly demolished by authorities after local Muslims complained that the school was conducting loud and disruptive worship services in the evening. One written compliant was sent directly to the school and threatened that “If you do not stop night prayers, we are going to take tough action against the school.”  Soon thereafter, the school was demolished at 2 am on June 2 and without previous notification.

Attacks on Apostates, Blasphemers, and Preachers

Uganda:  Local authorities banned open air evangelical church events after some Muslims converted to Christianity—while others, angered by such apostasy, threatened church leaders with text messages such as   “Tomorrow we are coming to kill all of you during the open air crusade.” Several of the Christians who spoke at the event were former Muslims and openly discussed what they deemed problematic Islamic doctrines that prompted them to embrace Christianity. “We cannot allow the Christians to use the Koran in their meetings or to allege that Jesus is the Son of God,” explained one mosque leader; “this [is] a serious blasphemy to Muslims.”  Another sheikh openly threatened the apostates with death:  “We cannot watch the Christians changing our faithful members to Christianity. If those who have joined Christianity will not return back to Islam, then we are going to treat them as infidels, hence deserving death according to the teaching of Islam.”  “I am very afraid for my life,” said a former Muslim cleric turned Christian. “I have received threatening messages in my phone that the Muslims want my head.”  Local authorities responded to these threats by shutting down the evangelical events.

Egypt: A Sudanese Muslim cleric who on converting to Christianity fled his persecutors in Sudan and came to Egypt continues to be threatened.  Most recently, a phone caller told Al Hadi Izzalden Shareef Osman that he is “an infidel and fuel for hell.”  It was the voice of a cleric who a week earlier came to Osman’s Cairo apartment with five other Muslim sheikhs demanding that the apostate renounce Christ and re-embrace Islam or prepare to face the consequences.   “They kept telling me to go mosque, but I refused,” Osman said. “I was afraid and had to relocate from the apartment to another location….  Egypt is no longer safe for me. I want to relocate elsewhere, I am tired of these threats.”

Separately, on June 10, an angry Muslim mob attacked Christians in the village of Ishnin, in Upper Egypt, following the Islamic call to prayer, portions of which announced that a young Christian had made a post on Facebook deemed offensive to Islam.  Fadi Yousef, 25, the accused, says his account was hacked;  he deleted the post once he saw it—posting in its place an explanatory apology.  “He is apologizing because he respects your feelings,” his sister later explained. “He is not a child to do such a thing…”  Regardless, a mob gathered around and barged into his family home and the homes of two other relatives; they destroyed furniture and tore out the electrical wiring. According to a local, “The extremists were roaming the village saying, ‘There is no god but Allah.’ We were very afraid in that time….  All of us are now in our homes.” “This is a village which is full of many Muslim Brotherhood members,” said another Christian woman. “I’m sure that unless the police had entered the village, the extremists would have killed every Christian, one by one. Now there are many armored police in the village.”  The young Christian, his wife and small daughter barely managed to escape “minutes before the Muslim extremists broke in and destroyed the refrigerator, television set, mattresses, furniture and windows,” a statement from the local bishopric indicated; it adds that the mob was “shouting against the Christian religion and the Copts of the village.”

On the next day, police arrested the accused on the charge that he insulted Islam, which in Egypt is punishable by as many as five years in prison.

Pakistan:  Apparently angered at the success of and eager to prevent a Christian pastor’s fruitful ministry, a Muslim mob consisting of about 35 men attacked him and his family at their home.  Thanks to a police officer who was passing by and saw the attack in progress, “Pastor Aziz, his wife, and their daughter escaped with minor injuries, though they only have the clothes on their backs,” says the report.  “They are now homeless as the attackers seized Pastor Aziz’s property.”  According to a Western source, who knows him, “Pastor Aziz, who himself had come out of a Muslim background, has been evangelizing and church planting…  These Muslim militants want to see that stopped. But we are very glad that he is alive and he is determined to continue his ministry, even though he now has no home.”  This attack—the third since Aziz became Christian—has also stirred up traumatic memories: “More than 15 years ago, he has a son who was five-years-old who was kidnapped, again, because of the family’s faith in Jesus Christ. And Aziz and Ruhab have never seen him since.”

Hate for and General Abuse of Christians

Kuwait: Islamic cleric Othman al-Khamis was again accused of  “stoking sectarian tension,” against Christians.  In June  he issued a fatwa, an Islamic ruling, comparing the Christian crucifix to Satan, adding that “Muslims cannot wear clothes bearing images of the cross or the devil unless it is in an insulting place such as socks.”  Earlier this year he issued another fatwa  encouraging his followers to kill those who apostatize from Islam.

United Kingdom:   Muslim jail gangs are threatening and beating non-Muslim prisoners, the majority of whom identify with Christianity,  into converting to Islam.  According to a new Ministry of Justice report:  “The tactic they use is to befriend someone when they come in,” a non-Muslim inmate was quoted as saying. “If they don’t convert, they will then start spreading rumours about them, that the person is a snitch (informer), so that they will be ostracised. Then the beatings follow.”  Another prisoner summarized the gang leaders as follows:

This will be someone whose offence has validity. It could be for high profile terrorism… They will either be born to the [Islamic] religion or converted a long time ago, before they came into prison. Prison converts wouldn’t have the legitimacy to become leaders. Nothing will happen without the say so of the leader. If you can speak Arabic or learn passages of the Koran, this will allow you to get up the ranks. The leaders will be very polite to the faces of staff and won’t do anything to get into trouble with the authorities themselves… It’s all done though their footsoldiers.

“If I said I didn’t want to be a Muslim, I’d need to watch out just in case someone stabbed me,” said another prisoner.  According to Christian prison pastor Paul Song—who was fired after a Muslim imam who disapproved of the Christian’s approach took over as head chaplain—non-Muslim prisoners who “want to lead a peaceful life in prison … need to become Muslim. That way they are protected….   Some people have been forced to convert with violence. How do I know? Because three or four people come up to me and tell me.”

Libya:  An internal UN report states that Libyan authorities are not burying the dead bodies of those Christians who died in the overcrowded Zintan detention center, which houses migrants and refugees, “because the local community insists the cemetery is only for Muslims,” the Irish Times reported.

Egypt:  On June 5, anti-Christian mob violence erupted in a majority-Muslim village after a former Christian woman who had run away with a Muslim man returned married, converted to Islam, and pregnant.   During her absence, her now Muslim-in-laws regularly harassed and threatened her former Christian family, who live across the street.  As part of the triumphant celebrations of her return as a Muslim, area Muslims began attacking and pelting the Christian household and others with stones, and reportedly to the encouragement and support of the police. “We live in a state of terror now,” the woman’s Christian brother last reported, “and the village has become chaotic as a result of the celebrations.”

Separately, and in response to an ISIS attack in Sinai that left eight Egypt security officers dead, the government responded by honoring the slain—except for one, a Christian.  Seven schools were named after the seven slain Muslim officers, but the Christian, Abanoub Nageh, was denied this honor, until his family protested.   Authorities initially responded by saying that a school would also be named after the Christian, but then reneged, saying “this could not be done because of severe objections by the village Muslims that a school would bear such a flagrantly Coptic name as ‘Abanoub.’”  Instead, a rarely used canal bridge was named after him.

Pakistan:  Eyewitnesses saw two Muslim men abduct Sania Lateef, a 15 year old Christian girl, as she was taking out garbage from her family home. Her distraught parents went to the local police, but they refused to open an investigation.   An activist acquainted with the case said the girl is believed to have been coerced into converting to Islam and marrying one of her abductors.   The report adds that “the case of the Christian girl is the latest in a long series of abductions for the purpose of forced conversion and marriage in Pakistan…. In Pakistan the victims of kidnapping and forced conversion are almost always girls from religious minorities, whose members lack the power and

20. Islam: The West’s “Most Formidable and Persistent Enemy”

Exposing ugly truths that have long been suppressed in the West.

At the height of Western dominance over Islam in the early twentieth century, the European historian Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) made a remarkably prescient observation that may have seemed exaggerated at the time:

Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past (from Belloc’s The Great Heresies, 1938, emphasis added).

Anyone who doubts that Islam has been “the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had,” should familiarize themselves with Islam’s long offensive record vis-à-vis the West.   A succinct summary follows:

According to Islamic history, in 628, the Arabian founder of Islam, Muhammad, called on the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius—the symbolic head of Christendom—to recant Christianity and embrace Islam.  The emperor refused, jihad was declared, and the Arabs invaded Christian Syria, defeating the imperial army at the pivotal Battle of Yarmuk in 636.

This victory enabled the Muslims to swarm in all directions, so that, less than a century later, they had conquered the greater, older, and richer part of Christendom, including Syria, Egypt, and North Africa.

Their drive into Europe from the east was repeatedly frustrated by the Walls of Constantinople; after the spectacularly failed siege of 717-718, many centuries would pass before any Muslim power thought to capture the imperial city. The Arabs did manage to invade Europe proper through and conquered Spain but were stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732 and eventually driven back south of the Pyrenees.

For more than two centuries thereafter, Europe continued to be pummeled by land and sea—untold thousands of Christians were enslaved and every Mediterranean island sacked—in the ongoing Muslim quest for booty and slaves, as what historians have dubbed “the Dark Ages” descended on the continent.

The vicissitudes of war ebbed and flowed—the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”) made a major comeback against Islam in the tenth century—though the border largely remained the same.  This changed when the Turks, under the leadership of the Seljuk tribe, became the new standard bearers of jihad.  They nearly annihilated eastern Anatolia, particularly Armenia and Georgia in the eleventh century and, after the Battle of Manzikert, 1071, overran Asia Minor.

By now, however, Western Europe’s military might had so matured that when the Pope called on the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of the Christian East, the First Crusade was born.  Western Christians, led by the Franks, marched into the beast’s lair, defeated their adversaries in several encounters and managed to establish a firm presence in the Levant, including in Jerusalem, which they recaptured in 1099—only to lose it less than one hundred years later, in 1187, after the fateful Battle of Hattin.  By 1297, the Crusader presence was eliminated from the Middle East.

But if it failed in the East, the Crusade succeeded in the West.  A handful of years after the Muslim invasion and conquest of Spain around 711, fugitive Christians holed in the northern mountains of Asturia began the Reconquista; by 1085 it had proven effective enough to prompt two new Muslim invasions from Africa to counter it.  Again, the ebb and flow of war dominated the landscape, but by 1212, at Las Navas de Tolosa, Spain’s indigenous Christians gave Islam its death-stroke, so that by 1252 it was confined to Granada at the southernmost tip of Iberia.

Around that same time, a violent but relatively short-lived Mongolian storm overwhelmed much of the east; both Christians (notably Russians) and Muslims were pummeled.  A new Turkish dynasty arose from the Seljuk ashes: the Ottomans—whose identity revolved around the concept of jihad more than any of their predecessors—renewed Islam’s perennial war on Christendom.  They managed to enter Eastern Europe, defeated a combined army of Crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, took much of the Balkans, and crowned their achievement by fulfilling Muhammad’s desire of conquering Constantinople—and enslaving and raping thousands of its inhabitants in ways that ISIS tries to mimic—in 1453.

But mourning was soon tempered by joy: to the west, Spain finally conquered Granada in 1492, thereby snuffing out Islam as a political power; to the east, the most overlooked chapter of Muslim-Christian conflict was also coming to an end.  The Russians, who had lived under distinctly Islamic rule for nearly two centuries, finally cast off the “Tatar Yoke” in 1480.

Even so, the Ottomans continued to be the scourge of Christendom; they continued making inroads into Europe—reaching but failing to capture Vienna in 1529—and sponsored the seaborne jihad originating from North Africa.  While the Muslims largely failed to capture new European lands, Barbary pirates and Crimean slavers captured and sold approximately five million Europeans.

In 1683, over 200,000 Ottoman jihadis attempted to take Vienna again.  Even though their failure marked the Ottoman Empire’s slow decline, Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa continued to wreak havoc all along the coasts of Europe—reaching even Iceland.

The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers.  When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”

Europe’s final triumph over the Barbary States in the early 1800s ushered in the colonial era.  By 1900, most of the Muslim world was under European control; by 1924, the more than 600 year-old Ottoman caliphate was abolished—not by Europeans but Muslim Turks,  as the latter sought to emulate the successful ways of the former.  Islam was viewed as a spent force and virtually forgotten, until recent times when it reemerged again.

Such has been the true and most “general” history between the Islamic and Western worlds.

The above map (© Sword and Scimitar) should give an idea of how far reaching and multi-tentacled the perennial jihad was. The darkest green shading represents Western/Christian nations that were permanently conquered by Islam; the lighter green shading represents those Western/Christian nations that were temporarily conquered by Islam (sometimes for many centuries, as in Spain, Russia, and the Balkans); green stripes represent areas that were raided, often repeatedly, though not necessarily annexed by Islam; the crossed swords mark the sites of the eight most landmark battles between Islam and the West.

From a macrocosmic perspective, the consequences of the historic jihad are even more profound than first appears.  After writing, “For almost a thousand years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain [711] to the second Turkish siege of Vienna [1683], Europe was under constant threat from Islam,” Bernard Lewis elaborates:

All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers…  North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe.  Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe.

The “loss” of North Africa and the Middle East “was sorely felt” by premodern Europeans because they thought more along religious and civilizational lines than nationalist ones.   And before Islam burst onto the scene, most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East were part of the same religio-civilizational block.  As such, Islam did not merely invade and eventually get repulsed from Europe; rather, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters [or 75 percent] of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden.

Thus what is now called “the West” is actually the westernmost remnant of what was a much more extensive civilizational block that Islam permanently severed, thereby altering the course of “Western” history.   And, once Muslims overran Africa and the Middle East, most of its Christian subjects, to evade fiscal and social oppression and join the winning team, converted to Islam, thereby perpetuating the cycle, as they became the new standard bearers of jihad against their former coreligionists north and west of the Mediterranean.

Such are the rarely noted ironies of history.

Returning to Hilaire Belloc, one can also see how an accurate understanding of true history—as opposed to the widespread indoctrination in “alternate” histories that prevails throughout American schools—leads to an accurate prognosis of the future.   For Belloc was not only correct about the past but the future as well:

It [Islam] is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past….  The whole spiritual strength of Islam is still present in the masses of Syria and Anatolia, of the East Asian mountains, of Arabia, Egypt and North Africa. The final fruit of this tenacity, the second period of Islamic power, may be delayed —but I doubt whether it can be permanently postponed (emphasis added).

Note: The historical portion of this article follows the outline of Ibrahim’s recent Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West— a book that CAIR did everything it could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

21. The Iran-Turkey Threat

America and Israel are the targets.

The United States and Israel must pay close attention to the two actors in the Middle East region who are increasingly challenging the West, and particularly American and Israeli interests. The two nations (actors) are Iran and Turkey. Both are Muslim states, and fundamentalist in nature. Iran is the core state of Shiite Islam, while Turkey seeks the leadership of Sunni-Islam, which is the dominant branch of Islam (about 87-90% of world Muslims are Sunni). The Islamic Republic of Iran has shown its deadly hostility toward the U.S. from its very beginning in 1979, following the Islamic revolution, which overthrew the Shah of Iran. The Islamist revolutionaries invaded the U.S. embassy and kept 52 U.S. diplomats as hostages for 444 days. Subsequently, in a murderous campaign to gain exclusive power, the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fanatical followers murdered all opposition.

In April, 1983, Iran’s chief proxy, the Lebanese-Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah, on orders from the Ayatollahs in Tehran, bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans. In October of the same year, two truck bombs used by Hezbollah against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killed 241 U.S. Marine peacekeepers. Iran, through its proxies, continued to strike at American people, and American interests in the region. Iran, in violation of international law, mined the Persian Gulf in 1988. One such mine struck the USS Samuel Roberts, injuring 10 U.S sailors. In 1996, Hezbollah, with Iranian backing, truck bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American military personnel and wounding 372. Iran helped al-Qaeda, including the 9/11, hijackers, transit through Iran to their training ground in Afghanistan. Following the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Iranian regime backed Shiite militias in killing Americans. It provided training, arms and material support, including improvised explosive devises (IED) that killed and maimed countless U.S. military personnel. Africa and Latin America, as well as in Europe, Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeted American interests.

The list of attacks and attempted assassinations on U.S. soil and in Europe deserve a separate article. Fast forward to here and now…since May, 2019, when the U.S. administration warned Iran that its provocations would lead to the U.S. using “unrelenting force,” the Iranians have continued to harass U.S. and British interests with impunity. Tehran sabotaged four tankers in May and attacked two more on June 13th. In mid-June, Iraqi Shiite militias, loyal to Iran, fired rockets on U.S. bases in Iraq. They have apparently figured out that with a year away from elections in the U.S., the Trump administration won’t consider getting into a major war with Iran. They are therefore testing the limits of U.S. patience.

Mohammad Ali Jafari, former commander of the IRGC, reacting to the spike in tension with the U.S. threatened that Iran is able to draw upon its network of militant proxies. He implied that the upside of the recent conflict (with the U.S.) has been the “mobilization of nearly 200,000 armed youth in different countries in the region…” This might be sheer bluster, but the U.S. must be prepared.

In the meantime, Iran is brazenly increasing its nuclear activities. The U.S. Institute of Peace, in an article by Kelsey Davenport on July 8, 2019, reported that, “Since July 1 (2019), Iran has engaged in two breaches of the 2015 nuclear deal. On July 1, (2019) it increased its stockpile of low-enriched uranium above the 300-kilogram limit. On July 8, (2019) it increased enrichment (of uranium) from the limit of 3.67 percent to 4.5 percent.”

Iran’s threat to Israel is far more immediate and serious. Israel, however, is prepared to respond to Iran with overwhelming force if needed. Iran used Hamas last May to fire 700 rockets from Gaza into Israel. It is also planning a coordinated missile attack on Israel, involving Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, and Iraqi Shiite militias from western Iraq. The lesson from the Holocaust is clear, never ignore a demagogue’s threat. Hitler materialized his threat and murdered two-thirds of Europe’s Jewry. Now, the Iranian leaders are making similar genocidal threats against the Jewish state, including Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani, who proclaimed last November that, “Israel is a ‘cancerous tumor,’ and a ‘fake regime,’ set up by western countries.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went even farther, calling Israel, “A cancer in the region that must be removed.” Mojtaba Zolnour, chairman of the Iranian Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission threatened that, “If the U.S. attacks us, only half an hour will remain of Israel’s lifespan,”  Given the Iranian regime’s apocalyptic beliefs about the coming of the Mahdi, (Shiite messiah), and its quest for nuclear bombs, Iran poses a global threat.

Turkey, once a NATO bulwark against Soviet adventurism, is now a serious concern to the West. Most of it has to do with Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an arrogant, and dictatorial leader, who consolidated his power by appealing to Islamism, with dreams of leading the Sunni Muslim world. He has whittled away at the secular republic built by Ataturk (The founder of Modern Turkey), and in recent years he has moved away from the West while embracing the Muslim world, including Iran. He is cooperating with Iran and Russia in Syria, while confronting the U.S. with threats to destroy Washington’s allies, the Rojave Kurds, who helped the U.S. defeat ISIS.

It seems increasingly clear that should hostilities between the U.S. and Iran turn into war, Erdogan’s Turkey may not honor its mutual-defense pledge under article 5 of the NATO charter. Erdogan has become one of the most vocal opponents of the U.S. sanctions against Iran. Erdogan’s decision to buy the Russian S-400 missile defense system has further alienated him from the U.S. and NATO.

In Syria, Turkish and Iranian interests converge, both rejecting Kurdish assertion of self-determination, and as Russia takes a more global view on the issues, Turkey and Iran have gotten closer.  Iran, Russia, and Turkey have launched the Astana peace process (shaping the future of Syria), excluding the U.S. and its allies. Russia’s sympathetic view on Israel’s security concerns regarding Iranian and Hezbollah’s creeping encroachment toward the Israeli border in the Golan, is another reason for the anti-Semitic Erdogan to find common ground with the anti-Semitic regime in Tehran.

According to Israel Hayom (July 9, 2019), “Turkish organizations teach Arab kids from East Jerusalem that Israel is theirs.” Turkish authorities have allowed the military wing of Hamas to operate an office in Istanbul that plans terror attacks, as well as transferring funds to Hamas activists in the West Bank.  Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party shares common ground with Hamas in that both are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Three years ago, Erdogan appealed to the Muslim world to defend the Palestinians against Israel, and when Israel reacted to Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, he called Netanyahu a “terrorist,” and labelled Israel a “terrorist state.”

The Jerusalem Post quoted Erdogan as telling young Turks at an Istanbul meeting of the Turkey Youth Foundation, that “The Jews in Israel kick people laying on the ground. In fact, Jews don’t kick (just) men but also women and children when they fall on the ground.”

Erdogan’s blatant antisemitism, and his recurrent tirades against Israel, makes him as much a future threat to Israel as the mullahs of Iran. The anti-American, and anti-Israel venom coming out Ankara and Tehran cannot and must not be ignored.

22. America Is Drowning in the Left’s Lies About Trump

A media driven by hatred of our president.

The president of the United States, Donald Trump, never said there were “fine” Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen.

This is one of the two great lies of our time — the other being that all Trump supporters are racists — and perhaps in all of American history. I cannot think of a lie of such significance that was held as truth by so many Americans, by every leading politician of one of the two major political parties and disseminated by virtually the entire media.

The major news media need to understand these are important reasons that half of America considers them frauds. And we get no pleasure from this fact. The reason we don’t recoil when the president labels the mainstream media “fake news” is that we know the charge is true. Has one major media news outlet yet apologized to the American people for preoccupying them for nearly two years with the lie of “Trump collusion” with Russia? Has one Democrat? Of course not. Because with regard to the Trump-Russia collusion issue, the news media were never driven by a pursuit of truth; they were driven by a pursuit of Trump.

In my last column, I offered a way of proving Trump supporters are not racists. The timing was, unfortunately, perfect. I could not anticipate how two horrific mass shootings would enable the left — the press, the Democrats, academics and Hollywood — to scream even louder than before that Trump and his supporters are racists and that their racism is why such shootings are taking place.

This is all predicated on what may be the most glaring lie of all: that, after the Charlottesville demonstrations, President Trump said Nazis are “fine people.”

The president never said there were fine Nazis. The left-wing assertion that the president of the United States said there were fine Nazis will long endure as an example of something that has been true since Lenin: Truth is not a left-wing value. Truth is a liberal value, and it is a conservative value. But it is not left-wing value. A leftist says whatever is necessary to gain power.

By remarkable coincidence, this week’s PragerU video is titled “The Charlottesville Lie.” It proves the president never said Nazis were fine people. When Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides,” he was referring to people demonstrating in Charlottesville for and against tearing down a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, not to Nazis and antifa.

The video is presented by CNN political commentator Steve Cortes, a voice of courage in the herd known as the mainstream American media. At this moment, of PragerU’s 325 videos, Cortes’s “The Charlottesville Lie” is the one I most want Americans to watch. The harm that the media and others on the left have done and continue to do to this country by charging the president with praising Nazis and other white supremacists is incalculable. It has only served to inflame and divide Americans: the tens of millions who believe the lie and the tens of millions who know the truth.

Typical of the former is author Wajahat Ali, whose attack on supporters of the president recently appeared in The Atlantic, which identifies Ali as “the lead author of … Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.” Ali has the audacity to write: “I feel compelled to ask Trump supporters: Is it worth it? How many have to suffer for you to feel great again?” The Atlantic is proud to publish such hate-inducing mendacity.

And the left accuses conservatives of hate.

Aside from the clear evidence that the president never called Nazis “very fine people,” isn’t the very idea preposterous? Trump has a Jewish daughter, a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren. Nazis want Jews dead. How do all the New York Times columnists, CNN anchors and correspondents and Democratic officeholders who say the president called Nazis fine people and who believe the president is a white supremacist reconcile those two facts?

They don’t — because they can’t, and because they can get away with saying anything they want. When a nation’s media and one of the two dominant parties are in lockstep, they can lie all they want.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said, referring to El Paso: “(Trump) has created a national emergency of rampant white nationalism across the country. … I think we need to blame President Trump and the rhetoric he’s used since he got elected.”

Beto O’Rourke, in an obscenity-laced statement against the president the day after El Paso:

“He’s not tolerating racism, he’s promoting racism. He’s not tolerating violence, he’s inciting racism and violence in this country. We shouldn’t be asking if … he’s responsible for this when we know the answer.”

Meanwhile, half a day later, there was another mass shooting at a popular nightspot in Dayton, Ohio, resulting in nine deaths, including the shooter’s sister. Not much political hay against the president is being made of that one because, according to early reports, the shooter was a leftist, antifa-supporting Democrat who said he’d be happy to vote for Elizabeth Warren.

It is worth recalling that after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the American media blamed the assassination on right-wing bigotry that, they said, permeated Dallas. That Kennedy was murdered by a communist quickly disappeared from media descriptions of the assassination. Today, it is all but unknown to the American people.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. And President Trump is not a white supremacist. No matter what the press says.

P.S. I just learned that within hours of PragerU posting “The Charlottesville Lie,” Google placed it on YouTube’s restricted list — just two weeks after a Senate hearing at which a Google representative swore under oath that Google doesn’t censor on the basis of political views. The ease with which the left lies is breathtaking.

enate hearing at which a Google representative swore under oath that Google doesn’t censor on the basis of political views. The ease with which the Left lies is breathtaking.

23. Remembering the First and Forgotten Armenian Genocide of 1019

Its more popular modern counterpart is the tip of the iceberg.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Last April 24 was Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.  Millions of Armenians around the world recollected how the Islamic Ottoman Empire killed—often cruelly and out of religious hatred—some 1.5 million of their ancestors during World War I.

Ironically, most people, including most Armenians, are unaware that the first genocide of Christian Armenians at the hands of Muslim Turks did not occur in the twentieth century; it began in 1019—exactly one-thousand years ago this year—when Turks first began to pour into and transform a then much larger Armenia into what it is today, the eastern portion of modern day Turkey.

Thus, in 1019, “the first appearance of the bloodthirsty beasts … the savage nation of infidels called Turks entered Armenia … and mercilessly slaughtered the Christian faithful with the sword,” writes Matthew of Edessa (d.1144), a chief source for this period.  Three decades later the raids were virtually nonstop. In 1049, the founder of the Turkic Seljuk Empire himself, Sultan Tughril Bey (r. 1037–1063), reached the unwalled city of Arzden, west of Lake Van, and “put the whole town to the sword, causing severe slaughter, as many as one hundred and fifty thousand persons.”

After thoroughly plundering the city—which reportedly contained eight hundred churches—he ordered it set ablaze and turned into a desert. Arzden was “filled with bodies” and none “could count the number of those who perished in the flames.” The invaders “burned priests whom they seized in the churches and massacred those whom they found outside. They put great chunks of pork in the hands of the undead to insult us”—Muslims deem the pig unclean—“and made them objects of mockery to all who saw them.”

Eight hundred oxen and forty camels were required to cart out the vast plunder, mostly taken from Arzden’s churches. “How to relate here, with a voice stifled by tears, the death of nobles and clergy whose bodies, left without graves, became the prey of carrion beasts, the exodus of women … led with their children into Persian slavery and condemned to an eternal servitude! That was the beginning of the misfortunes of Armenia,” laments Matthew, “So, lend an ear to this melancholy recital.”

Other contemporaries confirm the devastation visited upon Arzden. “Like famished dogs,” writes Aristakes (d.1080) an eye witness, “bands of infidels hurled themselves on our city, surrounded it and pushed inside, massacring the men and mowing everything down like reapers in the fields, making the city a desert. Without mercy, they incinerated those who had hidden themselves in houses and churches.

Similarly, during the Turkic siege of Sebastia (modern-day Sivas) in 1060, six hundred churches were destroyed and “many [more] maidens, brides, and distinguished ladies were led into captivity to Persia.” Another raid on Armenian territory saw “many and innumerable people who were burned [to death].” The atrocities are too many for Matthew to recount, and he frequently ends in resignation:

Who is able to relate the happenings and ruinous events which befell the Armenians, for everything was covered with blood. . . . Because of the great number of corpses, the land stank, and all of Persia was filled with innumerable captives; thus this whole nation of beasts became drunk with blood. All human beings of Christian faith were in tears and in sorrowful affliction, because God our creator had turned away His benevolent face from us.

Nor was there much doubt concerning what fueled the Turks’ animus: “This nation of infidels comes against us because of our Christian faith and they are intent on destroying the ordinances of the worshippers of the cross and on exterminating the Christian faithful,” one David, head of an Armenian region, explained to his countrymen. Therefore, “it is fitting and right for all the faithful to go forth with their swords and to die for the Christian faith.” Many were of the same mind; records tell of monks and priests, fathers, wives, and children, all shabbily armed but zealous to protect their way of life, coming out to face the invaders—to little avail.

Anecdotes of faith-driven courage also permeate the chronicles. During the first Turkic siege of Manzikert in 1054, when a massive catapult pummeled and caused its walls to quake, a Catholic Frank holed up in with the Orthodox Armenians volunteered to sacrifice himself: “I will go forth and burn down that catapult, and today my blood shall be shed for all the Christians, for I have neither wife nor children to weep over me.” The Frank succeeded and returned to gratitude and honors. Adding insult to injury, the defenders catapulted a pig into the Muslim camp while shouting, “O sultan [Tughril], take that pig for your wife, and we will give you Manzikert as a dowry!” “Filled with anger, Tughril had all Christian prisoners in his camp ritually decapitated.”

Between 1064 and 1065, Tughril’s successor, Sultan Muhammad bin Dawud Chaghri—known to posterity as Alp Arslan, a Turkish honorific meaning “Heroic Lion”—“going forth full of rage and with a formidable army,” laid siege to Ani, the fortified capital of Armenia, then a great and populous city. The thunderous bombardment of Muhammad’s siege engines caused the entire city to quake, and Matthew describes countless terror-stricken families huddled together and weeping.

Once inside, the Islamic Turks—reportedly armed with two knives in each hand and another between their teeth—“began to mercilessly slaughter the inhabitants of the entire city . . . and piling up their bodies one on top of the other. . . . Beautiful and respectable ladies of high birth were led into captivity into Persia. Innumerable and countless boys with bright faces and pretty girls were carried off together with their mothers.”

The most savage treatment was always reserved for those visibly proclaiming their Christianity: clergy and monks “were burned to death, while others were flayed alive from head to toe.” Every monastery and church—before this, Ani was known as “the City of 1001 Churches”—was pillaged, desecrated, and set aflame.  A zealous jihadi climbed atop the city’s main cathedral “and pulled down the very heavy cross which was on the dome, throwing it to the ground,” before entering and defiling the church. Made of pure silver and the “size of a man”—and now symbolic of Islam’s might over Christianity—the broken crucifix was sent as a trophy to adorn a mosque in modern-day Azerbaijan.

Not only do several Christian sources document the sack of Armenia’s capital—one contemporary succinctly notes that Muhammad “rendered Ani a desert by massacres and fire”—but so do Muslim sources, often in apocalyptic terms: “I wanted to enter the city and see it with my own eyes,” one Arab explained. “I tried to find a street without having to walk over the corpses. But that was impossible.”

Such is an idea of what Muslim Turks did to Christian Armenians—not during the Armenian Genocide of a century ago but exactly one thousand years ago, starting in 1019, when the Turkic invasion and subsequent colonization of Armenia began.

Even so, and as an example of surreal denial, Turkey’s foreign minister, capturing popular Turkish sentiment, recently announced that “We [Turks] are proud of our history because our history has never had any genocides. And no colonialism exists in our history.”

Note: The above account is excerpted from Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West — a book that CAIR did everything it could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

24. New Evidence Unveils Disturbing Facts About Hillary’s Email Scandal

FBI is implicated in destroying evidence to benefit Clinton.

In breaking news, the American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow’s organization, not related to his role as the President’s attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.

In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal.  Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton’s personal attorneys during the email scandal.

The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over.  Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator.

The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren’t turning over “custody and control”. This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies’ “custody and control”. Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA’d. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their “custody or control.” Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency “custody and control” over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold “custody and control” by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted.  It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA — in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption.

Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before. Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each.

After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it’s that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn’t be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety.

Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails.  As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence.  In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.

Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence.

To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not “grossly negligent”, even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged.

Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams.  But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this — and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope.


Not only a great technological breakthrough, but a critical component in Israel’s defense.

The Start-Up nation that has become a technological powerhouse has once again displayed its inventive capacity to provide protection for the people of Israel. Earlier last month, in Alaska’s air space, Israel successfully tested the Arrow 3 interceptor, its latest anti-ballistic missile-missile. The testing of the Arrow 3 system in Alaska proved that it is able to intercept and destroy an incoming ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead in the outer atmosphere before it dangerously splits and flies toward its target. The test, conducted at the Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, was a joint effort between the Israel Missile Defense organization of the Directorate of Defense Research and Development, and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. Israel’s Aerospace Industries and Boeing jointly developed the Arrow. The Arrow system became operational in 2017 and has been deployed to counter Iranian and Syrian missiles.

The Arrow 3 interceptor successfully demonstrated its capability against the exo-atmospheric target.  Vice Admiral Jon Hill, the director of the Missile Defense Agency said, “These successful tests mark a major milestone in the development of the Arrow weapon system.” He added, “it provides confidence in the future capabilities to defeat the developing threats in the region.” As for the State of Israel, the successful testing of the Arrow 3 interceptor is particularly encouraging for Israeli civilians. They now know that Arrow 3 provides the Jewish state with a security net against an Iranian attack with ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Then again, it is essential for Israel to produce an appreciable quantity of the Arrow 3 launcher and interceptor missiles to forestall an Iranian or possibly a Hezbollah attack with multiple missiles launched at once.

At the July 28, 2019 cabinet meeting, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “Our innovative tests in Alaska took part in collaboration with our ally, the United States. The tests outside the atmosphere went perfectly: each target was a bulls-eye! Israel has the ability to send ballistic missiles to Iran, a huge gain for Israel’s security.” The successful Israeli testing of the Arrow 3 exposes Iran’s vulnerability to an Israeli missile attack. Iran lacks the weapon system that is capable of intercepting incoming ballistic missiles. It is now noteworthy to recall PM Netanyahu’s warning to Iran that Israel would destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities should Tehran become an imminent nuclear threat to Israel. The inclusion of the Arrow 3 in Israel’s arsenal makes Netanyahu’s warning much more credible. Israel, however, is unlikely to initiate a war with Iran unless the Islamic Republic is close to producing a nuclear bomb or invades Israeli territory.

Another reason why the Arrow 3 is critical to Israel’s security is that when it hits an enemy missile with a nuclear payload, the explosion and the radioactive material it spreads will remain in space rather than contaminate Israeli soil or its neighbors.

Iran is seeking to develop ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads that can split when they re-enter the atmosphere. Insofar as western and Israeli intelligence services would reveal, Iran does not yet have the capabilities to produce a small enough nuclear warhead that can fit into a Shihab 3 ballistic missile the Iranians have or similar missiles that might be able to reach Israel. Iran might also be working on another viable option, namely, a cruise-missile that can carry a nuclear warhead. Using aircrafts or ships that would carry a nuclear devise would be too risky for the Iranians since it could be intercepted and destroyed before they reached their destination.

Israel’s technological contributions to the world have been immense considering its lack of natural resources and its smallness. In facing its Arab and now Iranian enemies, with far greater manpower and natural resources (or arms in the early years in particular), Israelis resolved to survive with the famous Hebrew expression of ‘Ein Breira’ (there is no choice, we must use our brains to overcome or perish).  With the Holocaust always in the background and motivated by the need to defend itself against its hostile neighbors, even in the earliest days of the State, companies such as Israel Aviation industries (IAI), Rafael, Elbit, and Tadiran, produced advanced technologies for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), eventually growing into an international export industry.

In the 1970’s, Israel’s technological know-how began to be applied far beyond the military and spread into the civilian market. Simultaneously, international corporate giants established research and development centers in Israel, including such companies as Motorola, IBM, National Semiconductors, and especially Intel. Israeli ingenuity contributed in a significant way to Intel’s world dominance, which is based on its continuing ability to innovate. The world’s largest chip maker relies on Israeli talent for many of its breakthroughs created in Intel’s R&D centers in Haifa and Petach Tikvah, where the Pentium M chip was created. Pentium M lies at the heart of the Centrino-, which enables Wi-Fi to operate. World renowned companies such as Cisco and Microsoft rely heavily on Israeli R&D facilities. Most of the Window NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

Israeli technological innovations are not limited to the computer, they go into homes and improve personal lives. More importantly, Israeli technology saves lives. One such example is the PillCam, the first ever ingestible video camera, which helps doctors diagnose gastrointestinal diseases likes Crohn’s and Celiac. There are too many lifesaving devises and cures to include in one article.

Israel’s lifesaving Military related technology includes the Emergency Bandage (Israeli bandage), Visual-ICE, which provides a minimally invasive, easy to use system to precisely destroy solid cancer tumors of the kidney, lung, bone, liver, and prostate, and they enable nerve ablation for pain management. Visual-ICE, developed by Galil Medical, took its innovative cryotherapy, based on the cooling technologies taken from the tip of the Rafael missiles. Cardiac Catheterization was developed by biosense Webster, which is an Israeli company. It is a computer-vision tracking mechanism originally developed for the Israeli air force (IAF) by Elbit, leading to the miniaturized 3D cardiac mapping and navigation technology built inside the revolutionary Catheters. The IDF has served as an incubator for the Start-Ups that have sprung out of it.

The Arrow 3 Interceptor is not only a great technological breakthrough, it is an essential component that serves to complete Israel’s defense against an attack by enemy missiles. It is part of a multi-layered defense shield, providing a third layer of defense. Arrow 3 is designed to intercept long-range missiles that could strike Israel from thousands of miles away. The David’s Sling system provides protection from medium to long-range missiles or suicide drones. Finally, the more familiar Iron Dome is the third layer of defense. It has been used effectively to intercept short and medium range rockets, the kind Hamas has fired in recent years, targeting Israeli population centers.

Yaakov Katz, co-author of The Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower, wrote, “Israel is the only country in the world that has used missile defense systems in times of war.  These systems do more than just save lives. They also give the country’s leadership ‘diplomatic maneuverability,’ the opportunity to think and strategize before retaliating against rocket attacks.”

* * *

Photo by U.S. Missile Defense Agency

26. Jew-Hate from A to Z

Ahmed and Zahra Billoo explain it all for you.

Ahmed Billoo, an adjunct professor at the California Islamic University, recently visited the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. On the way home, as Martha Lee noted at the Daily Wire, the Muslim grew impatient with security measures at Ben Gurion Airport and posted a prayer to Twitter with the hashtag “Zionists”: “Oh God, reduce their numbers, exterminate them, and don’t leave a single one alive.”

The next day in Istanbul, Sam Westrop reported, Billoo wrote, “So good to be in a Muslim country” and “#TiredofSeeingZionists.” Those sentiments would make sense according to Billoo’s professional profile.

The California Islamic University explains that “Shaykh Ahmed” graduated from the Islamic University of Madinah, founded in 1381 to “convey the eternal message of Islam to the world.” The Islamic university aims “to be a beacon of distinct leading international Islamic knowledge in the sciences of Shariah, Arabic and other fields of knowledge.” Despite his degree in Shariah, Shaykh Ahmed is not the best known Billoo.

Ahmed’s sister Zahra Billoo directs the San Francisco branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A few hours after brother Ahmed prayed for the extermination of Jews, she posted on Facebook, “My brother makes me proud often,” in reference to his “speaking out against border harassment.”

Back in 2017, CAIR announced, “San Francisco Bay Area Director Zahra Billoo will be among the main speakers at the rally in Washington,” the vaunted Women’s March. The main speaker was Angela Davis, winner of the Lenin Peace Prize in 1979 and Communist Party candidate for vice president in 1980 and 1984 with white Stalinist Gus Hall. Zahra Billoo was thrilled to join her.

I march because as a Muslim, a woman and a person of color, the incoming administration has targeted my community in multiple and intersectional ways,” explained the San Francisco CAIR boss

The Haas Institute at UC Berkeley, dedicated to “a more inclusive, fair and just world,” hails Zahra Billoo as a “civil rights attorney” who “sued Donald Trump to challenge his ‘Muslim Ban’ executive orders,” and whose work has been highlighted in local and national media. In an interview with Haas, Billoo explained, “some people are angry that a significant portion of our country voted for a man who is openly racist and Islamophobic.”

On the other hand, “women, recipients of the Affordable Care Act, LGBT individuals, and many more, there are a lot of communities that stand to be harmed by this presidency and Trump’s supporters.” Still, Billoo said, “it’s important to keep in mind that the Trump campaign has already had an unprecedented affect on Islamophobia. The anti-Muslim sentiment, the attacks on mosques and organizations, and the targeting of individuals is higher today than it was in the months following 9/11, and much of it we attribute to the election cycles themselves.” According to the San Francisco CAIR boss, some of the anti-Muslim rhetoric “was coming from the Democratic campaign as well – in a way that was subtle—framing the Muslim community entirely from a security perspective.”

As Martha Lee noted, Zahra Billoo regularly expresses support for Hamas and justifies their attacks on Israeli civilians. She also supports Palestinian Islamic Jihad boss Sami Al Arian, an “incredible and law abiding Muslim leader.” For Zahra Billoo, “The Israeli Defense Forces, or the IDF, are no better than ISIS. They are both genocidal terrorist organizations.” And as Billoo tweets, “pro-Israel work is pro-terror, pro-violence, pro-land theft, and pro-apartheid.”

Despite such rhetoric, in June of 2018, the Bay Area interfaith group People Acting in Community Together (PACT), announced plans to honor Billoo with an award intended to “build a stronger relationship with the Muslim community.” PACT withdrew the award, as Billoo had it, “because of my vocal support of Palestinian human rights.” As she told reporters, “this was about their choosing to let bullies set their direction, policing the way in which I express anger over my brothers and sisters being killed, evidence of why Muslims hold back on interfaith work.” That drew media coverage, and a response from PACT.

“We, as PACT, sincerely apologize for our decision to rescind the award to honor Zahra Billoo for her leadership in the local community. In our efforts to be responsive to one set of leaders, we inadvertently participated in efforts to silence a faith leader and close partner expressing moral critique of an ongoing human rights crisis in Palestine.”

PACT met with Zahra Billoo, “to seek reconciliation. She has agreed to accept a reinstatement of the award and will speak at our 2018 luncheon.” Based on discussions with Zahra and PICO California, PACT committed to work with CAIR to “add Muslim congregations to our membership and have their representatives on our board.” CAIR and PACT would soon be one in the spirit.

Zahra Billoo tweeted, “today, Alhamdulillah, the award I wrote about two weeks ago, which had been previously rescinded was reinstated.” None of her angry tweets and support for Hamas appears to trouble leading Democrats.

Zahra Billoo has posed for photos with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Rashida Tlaib, who has been comparing Israel with Nazi Germany. To paraphrase the perceptive Louise in Being There, in the Democrat Party today, all you have to be is a leftist anti-Semite to get whatever you want.

27. Israeli Court Tells the Truth About Palestinian Authority and Terror

Sanctioned and paid to murder.

On July 9, an Israeli court ruled that the Palestinian Authority was responsible for several attacks by Palestinian terrorist organizations against Israel — a landmark decision that could, and should, have international implications.

The ruling by Jerusalem District Court Judge Moshe Drori – which he submitted as he went into retirement – regarded lawsuits submitted on behalf of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism against the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and senior PLO and PA leaders.

The main question that the lawsuits raised was whether or not the PA was directly responsible for Palestinian terrorist attacks carried out against Israelis. The lawsuits related to 17 different Palestinian terrorist attacks which cumulatively murdered 34Israelis. The attacks occurred in 1996 and between 2000 and 2002.
The question of the PLO/PA’s direct role in terrorism is one that Israeli and U.S. officials have shied away from since the PLO and Israel embarked on the so-called peace process in 1993. The PLO, which was founded in 1964, and its component organizations were the architects of modern terrorism.

The peace process between the PLO and Israel was predicated on the assumption that the PLO would abandon terrorism and advance the cause of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Only then could Israel recognize the legitimacy of the PLO as a peace partner, and begin transferring control over land in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza to the PLO and its leader, Yassir Arafat.

Yet from the moment the PA was first established in 1994, Israel suffered from a steep increase in terrorism. From 1993-2000, when the peace process was in full swing, Palestinians murdered 269 Israelis in terror attacks. That was higher than the number of Israelis murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the 15 years preceding the peace process.

In July 2000, the Clinton administration convened a peace conference at Camp David whose goal was to forge a final peace deal between Israel and the PLO/PA. Israel, led by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians statehood and full sovereign control over Gaza, and sovereign control over 96 percent of the West Bank. Barak’s offer also included massive Israeli concessions in Jerusalem that would have led to the redivision of the city and the transfer of sovereign control over the Temple Mount – Judaism’s most sacred site – to the would-be Palestinian state, led by the PLO.

Arafat rejected Barak’s offer. He returned to the West Bank and ordered the heads of his security services and his Fatah faction of the PLO to prepare for a massive terror campaign against Israel. That campaign began in late September 2000. Israel was only able to defeat the terror campaign in 2004-2005. During the course of the terror war, Palestinian terrorists murdered more than 1,100 Israelis. Some ten thousand Israelis were wounded.

Throughout this entire period and since, Israel, the United States, and (of course) the European Union avoided asking how responsible the Palestinian Authority was for the terrorism raging against Israel.

The reason for their avoidance was clear. If they acted on the evidence, which showed the PA was directly involved in much of the terrorist violence against Israel and its citizens, they would be compelled to accept that the PLO’s pledge to abjure terrorism was a lie.

The PLO remained a terrorist organization. And as its executive arm for controlling the areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that Israel transferred to PLO control, the PA itself was a terrorist organization.

The policy implications of this conclusion were dire. Both Israel and the U.S. would be required to reconsider their recognition of the PLO and the PA and move to designate both as terrorist organizations.

Not wanting to take this action, Israel and the U.S. limited the scope of their sanctions to specific Palestinian terror groups and avoided the elephant in the room. This policy was always problematic because the PLO/PA consistently expressed support for terrorists who attacked Israelis.

In 2002, it became untenable.

Following a massive escalation of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks that claimed hundreds of Israeli victims, in April 2002, Israel launched a counter-terror operation in the West Bank called Operation Defensive Shield. Its goal was to restore Israeli security control over the Palestinian cities and towns that the PA had transformed into launching grounds for suicide bombers. During the course of the operation, Israeli forces took control over Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah. IDF soldiers seized mountains of documents from the stronghold. Those documents showed Arafat directly ordering and paying for terrorist attacks against Israeli targets and signing off on requisitions for arms, ammunition and money to finance terror attacks and terror cells.

The Bush administration, like the government of then-Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, was unwilling to countenance the implications of the documents. So they ignored them. Indeed, then-President George W. Bush became the first U.S. president to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state almost immediately after Israel seized the documents proving the PA’s direct involvement in, and leadership of, the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

It took another 17 years, but in his ruling Drori acknowledged the significance of those documents, and the criminal implications of the PA’s consistent support for terrorists and glorification of their crimes.

Drori determined that the PA and the PLO were directly responsible for the attacks, both due to actions they took before the attacks were carried out, and due to actions they took in the aftermath of those attacks.

The judge also determined that the PA was directly responsible for several of the attacks because it financed them and ordered them to be carried out. He determined that the PA was responsible for other attacks because it glorified and financially rewarded the terrorists who carried them out, and paid pensions to the terrorists’ families.

As the Jerusalem Postreported, only some of the 17 attacks were carried out by groups like Fatah, that are part of the PLO. But while acknowledging that some of the attacks were carried out by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terror groups, which are outside the PLO, Drori ruled that the PA was ultimately responsible for the attacks “based on official PA statements inciting, taking credit for and supporting all terrorist attacks” during the terror war.

Drori noted that “the PA not only provided logistical and financial support to terrorists, but bankrolled terrorists and their families as well as naming streets, squares, schools and sporting events after so-called ‘martyrs’ [that is, terrorists] killed while carrying out attacks.”

Drori further noted that the PA’s so-called “pay to slay” policy, which devotes more than six percent of the PA’s overall annual budget to paying salaries to terrorists jailed by Israel for committing terrorist attacks against Israel, is a form of official sponsorship of terrorism. The PA’s pay scale is sliding: the more Israelis a terrorist kills, the more money he receives. If the terrorist is killed, then his family receives the payments.

From a financial perspective, Drori’s ruling leaves the PA and the PLO liable for damages to Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism. Due to Drori’s retirement, the level of damages will be determined by another judge. But they can reach as high as a billion shekels, or $279 million.

From a political perspective, the implications of Drori’s judgment are harder to predict.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner heads the Shurat HaDin organization, which is dedicated to seeking legal redress for victims of Palestinian terrorism. She filed several of the lawsuits on behalf of terror victims that led to Drori’s ruling.

Darshan-Leitner was firm regarding the implications of the ruling. In a statement to the Post, she said that the Palestinian terror war was an attempt to achieve political ends that the PLO was unable to extract at the negotiating table with Israel. Specifically, she explained, “The Palestinian cause was genocide against Jews in Israel.”

She added that the court’s ruling proved that the Palestinian terror war “was not a popular uprising, but a planned and deliberate war against the civilian population of Israel.”

It should be noted that little has changed since 2002. The Palestinian Authority continues to incite and indeed solicit terrorism against Israel.

The PA’s “pay to slay” policy remains in force today. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas prefers to forego both U.S. financial aid and Israeli financial transfers, which last year were conditioned on the PA ending the payments to terrorists.

Abbas insisted that the payments to terrorists must continue because “we actually sent them, so we are committed to them. We have to pay them.”

If the United States and Israel accept the evidence that led to Drori’s decision, the policy implications are clear. The PLO and the PA are terrorist organizations, not political actors. And they should be so designated and treated accordingly.

28. The Anti-Trump House Democrat Resolution

Democrats rally around the anti-American, Jew-hating squad.

House Democrats are rallying around the four far-left congresswomen who have collectively become known as the “squad.” The House Democrat majority has put aside legislative business to debate a resolution condemning President Trump for his allegedly “racist” tweets denouncing Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), nicknamed AOC, and Ilhan Omar (Minn.). Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who just last week was on the receiving end of the race card played so often by the squad, is now referring to these hate-mongers as “our sisters.” As President Trump tweeted Tuesday morning, “now they are forever wedded to the Democrat Party.”

Speaker Pelosi got so carried away defending her “sisters” and condemning the president’s tweets as “racist” that she broke House protocol and sparked a floor fight. Her fellow Democrats saved her from a ruling that would have barred her from speaking the rest of the day. They also kept her “racist” reference to the president’s tweets in the record. The final resolution, entitled “H. Res. 489 — Condemning President Trump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress,” passed along largely partisan lines by a vote of 240-187. All Democrats voted yes, along with only four Republicans.

The resolution begins by mythologizing the supposed unalloyed embrace of immigration by the founding fathers, citing Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison as examples. In truth, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison all expressed reservations about opening the door too widely to foreigners. The resolution then cherry picks pro-immigration quotes by past presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, without acknowledging the limitations they sought to impose on immigrant entry into this country. On FDR’s watch, the U.S. government turned away thousands of Jewish refugees, claiming they were a potential security risk. Ronald Reagan did sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which provided immigrants who had entered the country illegally the opportunity to apply for legal residence if they met certain conditions. However, the law also contained provisions intended to deter future illegal entry, including criminal penalties to be imposed against anyone who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” illegal aliens. The Trump administration has tried to enforce these provisions.

After the resolution’s build-up of the virtues of an open-door immigration policy, without acknowledging the challenges that even Barack Obama, the deporter in chief, recognized, the resolution proceeds to demonize President Trump with a series of gross distortions. The resolution falsely charges that “President Donald Trump’s racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color.” It twists the president’s actual words to caricature him as an unredeemable nativist bigot who detests all people of color and thinks that, according to the resolution, “our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should ‘go back’ to other countries.”

President Trump was addressing only the four radicals who he correctly believes want to drastically transform for the worse the political, economic and legal systems of this country. He took them to task for their rhetoric constantly denigrating America and blaming it for the world’s ills. As for his views on immigration, the president said during his last State of Union address that he wants “people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” He added, “Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways.” These are not the words of a bigoted nativist. Rather, they are the words of a president sworn to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, including its immigration laws.

By turning the resolution into a victim versus oppressor narrative on behalf of their “sisters,” the Democrats are letting the four radical squad leaders off the hook for their own hateful conduct. They should be held to account, as President Trump has tried to do, for fueling racial division, anti-Semitism, contempt for the rule of law in America, and incitement of hatred against immigration law enforcement agents that has put their lives in danger. The Democrats, on the other hand, are gutless in the face of real bigotry in their own ranks. Speaker Pelosi showed her cowardice, for example, by agreeing several months ago to water down a resolution intended originally to specifically condemn anti-Semitism in response to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic tropes.

The Democrat-controlled House has another chance if it wants to pass a useful resolution. It could focus its ire on the terrorist acts of violence committed by members of Antifa, instead of playing spiteful partisan games. One such act of domestic terror was the firebombing of an immigration detention center in Tacoma, Washington last weekend by an Antifa member who used AOC’s “concentration camps” canard in his manifesto. Another resulted in the brutal beating of a journalist,

Andy Ngo, whose parents came to this country from Vietnam by boat in 1978. Antifa, which claims to be fighting fascism, is in fact a fascist organization that glorifies violence against anyone or any institution it believes deserves to be punished. “Wake up wake up, it’s not too late. Burn down the masters house,” Chicago Antifa tweeted on July 13th.

Nancy Pelosi herself has condemned Antifa violence in the past. Back in 2017, following the outbreak of violence at Berkeley, she said, “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa [sic] in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.” All to no avail. Antifa has not gotten the message. The violence continues. Now, the Democrat leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, are looking the other way.

When asked by reporters whether they were willing to denounce the Antifa member’s attack on the Tacoma, Washington immigration detention center, AOC and Omar declined to answer. At the same time, AOC has no problem vilifying Republicans who choose not to condemn President Trump for his tweets against the squad.

“Until Republican officials denounce yesterday’s explicitly racist statements (which should be easy!), we sadly have no choice but to assume they condone it,” AOC tweeted. “It is extremely disturbing that the *entire* GOP caucus is silent. Is this their agenda?”

What’s your agenda, AOC?  Allowing violence against an immigration detention facility you believe is akin to a “concentration camp” to become an acceptable form of “resistance”? Apparently so.

29. Fake News Begins With Fake Language

Politically Correct” language is really Orwellian Newspeak.

Human beings think with words.  We express our thoughts with words.
What truly differentiates humans from all other creatures is our ability to use language and preserve our thoughts in writing, thereby enabling us to pass down our knowledge from one generation to the next.  This is why the study of history is so important, but it is not only history that is passed from generation to generation but knowledge in general.
We often say that “There is no need to reinvent the wheel.”  Consider that if not for written language, each generation would, in effect, be forced to reinvent the wheel and all other forms of technology.
The study of history can help keep us from making the same tragic mistakes, but only if history is accurately written.
As George Orwell sagely observed, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
The words that we use have real impact.
In 1974 an important psychological experiment was conducted that illustrated how altering words can not only have a significant impact on how the test subjects perceived the severity of a car crash but even ultimately impact how they remember the accident creating false memories.
The impact of word choice is not, however, limited to car accidents but applies virtually everywhere.
Two experiments are reported in which subjects viewed films of automobile accidents and then answered questions about events occurring in the films. The question, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” elicited higher estimates of speed than questions which used the verbs collided, bumped, contucted, or hit in place of smashed. On a retest one week later, those subjects who received the verb smashed were more likely to say “yes” to the question, “Did you see any broken glass?”, even though broken glass was not present in the film. These results are consistent with the view that the questions asked subsequent t o a n event can cause a reconstruction in one’s memory of that event.
    Not long after that experiment the Carter administration ordered that INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees stop using the term “illegal alien” to describe illegal aliens but use the term “undocumented immigrants.”&nbsp; There is no way to know if any one in the Carter administration had read the report I noted at the beginning of my commentary, but it certainly causes me to wonder if there is a connection.</div>


    In any event, years earlier George Orwell wrote an important novel, “1984,” that was required reading when I was a high school student, too many years ago.&nbsp; It must be considered “required reading” for all Americans today.</div>


    That novel about a fictitious totalitarian government included the creation of the ultimate form of propaganda known as “Newspeak” and an all-pervasive government known as “Big Brother.”</div>


    The “Ministry of Truth” was the arm of the government that administered Newspeak.</div>


    Today function of the Ministry of Truth is served by the Mainstream Media.</div>


    Though the internet, license plate readers, and a variety of other forms of surveillance, the control exerted by Big Brother in 1984 has been far surpassed by our society today.</div>


    I wrote about Newspeak and the efforts of those in political power as well as their allies in the mainstream media to alter public perceptions in my extensive article, <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_28_1/tsc-28-1-cutler.shtml&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1563137287463000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHodVkss9iLZHengS2QVYBBFhh1ig" href="https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_28_1/tsc-28-1-cutler.shtml" target="_blank"><strong>Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship</strong></a>.</div>


    In that article I noted that:&nbsp;</div>

A detailed explanation of Newspeak is found in this paragraph from the Appendix to Orwell’s novel, under the title The Principles of Newspeak:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialist Party) but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
Today, deceptive language is frequently written off as simply being “politically correct” language designed to not insult anyone while, the truth is far more treacherous.  The deceptive language is actually the manifestation of Orwellian Newspeak.
The term “Alien” has been all but expunged from the immigration vernacular, even though it is a term that is an integral element of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
In point of fact, 8 USC 1101 is a section of the INA that provides definitions for terminology that has a direct bearing on our immigration laws and defines the term “Alien” this way:
The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
There is no insult in that term, only clarity.  The sort of clarity the immigration con artists are determined to eliminate at all costs.
Therefore the radical left branded the term Alien “Hate Speech!”
Incredibly and hypocritically,, however, the supposedly despicable term “alien” was used to create the acronym DREAM Act. (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) pushed vigorously by the same radical leftists.
The media now uses more obfuscating terms to describe illegal aliens.  In addition to referring to them as immigrants (thereby insulting and impugning lawful immigrants) lately they refer to them as “asylum seekers” and “migrants.”
The term “migrant” is not unique to aliens.  Indeed Caesar Chavez who founded the United Farm Workers Union did so to protect the interests of American migrant farm workers and railed against illegal aliens who took the jobs of American migrant workers.  As for the notion that the aliens who run the U.S./Mexican border are “asylum seekers” while many will falsely claim “credible fear” only a very small percentage will actually qualify for asylum and many of these aliens don’t even show up for their hearings because they know that they won’t be approved.  They just make those bogus claims as a tactic to gain entry into the U.S. and make there way to cities across the United States where they easily hide in “plain sight,” knowing that ICE lacks the resources to look for them and Sanctuary Cities will help shield them from detection.
For many Americans, however, the term “asylum seeker” falsely engenders legitimacy and creates sympathy for illegal aliens.
“Sanctuary Cities” promise to protect “immigrants” from ICE.  Immigrants need no such protection.  Those jurisdiction protect illegal aliens including criminals, fugitives and potentially terrorists.
Americans are well-known for being compassionate and thus using such terminology is designed to generate empathy and obfuscate the truth.
Americans historically root for the “underdog.”  Today what many Americans don’t realize is that while they have been manipulated and conned into feeling sympathy for millions of illegal aliens, in reality, they and their fellow American citizens have become the true underdogs, suffering the greatest harm from rampant immigration anarchy at the hands of their own corrupt government.

30. The End of the Think Tank Era

Buried in a plethora of websites, internet links and tweets.

The era of powerful think tanks is pretty much over. Their glory days—when Brookings, AEI, the Institute for Policy Studies, Cato, along with Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim ones, blossomed all over the country—have been buried in a plethora of websites, internet links, and tweets.

To be sure, the scores of think tanks publish a lot, hold important meetings and seminars, and attract generous donors and consummate intellectuals and scholars. But it’s different now. When I first came to Washington in the late seventies, I started a new foreign policy magazine at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then the hardcore of the Republican establishment. Most of you are too young to remember names like David Abshire, Ray Cline and Anne Armstrong; they mattered a lot, and CSIS, along with the American Enterprise Institute, served as a counterbalance to the liberal think tanks, especially Brookings.

During the twenty years I spent at AEI, the scholars there would have made a brilliant faculty at any top university, but the schools weren’t interested. Like the think tanks, the university world was divvied up among political parties and factions. FDD, where I currently toil, boasts the most variegated staff, and is training a new generation of researchers centered on the key questions of terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela. As in the past, these men and women would add a lot to our higher education, but it’s not happening. Instead, political players and institutions fund those inclined to pursue narrowly defined missions.

The think tanks were a key part of the policy universe, but we don’t need them like we used to. There are so many outlets, so much internet, that anyone with plenty of cash can create a new vehicle, even when the old political categories disappear. This is obvious, as we see from the collaboration between George Soros (pictured above) and Charles Koch, a political mélange designed to bring down the Trump presidency and restore Obama’s strategic partnership with Iran. They’re opening a new foreign policy think tank in DC, to be headed by one of the nastiest pro-Iranians, Trita Parsi, who was found to be an Iranian agent by a U.S. court, and who set up the infamous Council on American-Iranian Relations.

This is an important development. A lot of money is going into the effort, and Parsi is unaccountably well-connected in the Washington policy community. It will be fascinating to see who gets hired.

I have long been baffled by those who think the Koch Brothers are somehow “conservative,” when their narcissistic self-promotion has long represented themselves, rather than any political worldview. Just ask yourself a straightforward question: who would be Charles Koch’s pet candidate in the upcoming presidential elections? Do they even have a standard-bearer? Somehow I don’t have an answer. So why has he crawled into bed with George Soros?

I can answer that one. Their anti-Trump passions are so strong that they are going all-out to defeat him, and they are taking aim at the most important national security issue, which is Iran. They’re joining the crowd that brought Barak Obama, our first anti-American president, to office, so we can view the new think tank as Chapter Two of the domestic war against the United States.

At least Soros has real political (read: leftist) convictions, and he’s found some nasty allies in his ongoing war. It’s an ugly business. Ugly for the country, ugly for Israel, ugly for the global struggle in which we are engaged. Call it a think tank if you insist. I view it as part of the global fight against America.

* * *

Photo by World Economic Forum at Wikimedia Commons


From a relatively poor country to one of the 25 richest in the world.

To many, Israel today is the Start Up nation, a wealthy, and a militarily powerful state. It did not become that overnight. Some radicals anti-Israel voices describe Israel erroneously as “white.” The facts however are different. There are over one hundred thousand immigrants from Ethiopia, African economic migrants in the thousands, and Mizrahi Jews from the Arab Middle East, who comprise about half the population. Israelis of all colors and creeds made the desert bloom, overcoming the hardships of wars, terror, and absorbing millions of Jewish refugees without any natural resources.

Known today for its unique entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, Israel started its independence in 1948 as a country bereft of natural and financial resources. A pervasive joke in the country went like this… “Moses made a mistake in direction. Instead of leading the Israelites from the Sinai to the Land of Milk and Honey northeast of the Sinai, he should have gone East across the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia. That way, we would have oil and wealth.”

Joking aside, the Jewish State in the early years had no monetary reserves, little economic infrastructure, and few public services. In the 1950’s the government instituted rations known as the “Tzena” (austerity) era. Families were allocated food stamps that allowed them to buy limited amounts of sugar, flour, and oil, as well as eggs a month. Meat was rationed as well, and red meat was rare and expensive to serve at the time. As a small child in the 1950’s and early teenager in the 1960’s, I remember the paucity of toys available for children. This reporter played with matchboxes which became imaginary Israeli tanks that liberated Auschwitz and saved the Jews. I grew up with families of Holocaust survivors including my own. Their ordeals shaped the minds of children, including this reporter.

Israel at that time had a quasi-socialist economy, lacking major private ownership of economic entities.  Banks, the national airline – El Al, Israel’s shipping fleet – ZIM, were government owned and run. And, what the government did not own, the trade unions or Histadrut owned. This was a critical period in the country’s history, which coincided with a massive inflow of immigrants from Europe, the Middle East, and the Maghreb (North Africa), who had to be housed, fed, clothed, and employed. Given the shortage of capital, the burden of dealing with these problems fell upon the public sector.

It should be noteworthy that in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, a full 1% of the Jewish population was killed, and the country’s infrastructure was in disarray. The U.S. and Britain imposed an embargo on the sale of arms during the war and afterward, while Israel’s enemies, Egypt, Jordan, (which was commanded by a British officer named Glubb Pasha) Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria were already established states, and could count on their existing large arsenals. The decades of the 1950’s and 1960’s were anything but peaceful. Fedayeen (terrorists) from Gaza crossed the Green Line into Israel with the aim to kill Israelis and destroy farmland and industrial facilities. Attacked were buses that killed many women and children. It eventually led to the 1956 Sinai Campaign, in which Israel defeated the Egyptian forces in the Sinai and reached the Suez Canal. The Six Day War, about a decade later, saw Israel performing a most stunning feat by defeating three major Arab armies in six days.

Following the war, the country’s narrow borders were now widened to provide more security for the small nation, erasing the previous narrow waistline of only 9 miles between the border and the Mediterranean Sea, where its main population centers and international airport were located. The euphoria of the Six Day War subsided as Israel faced 1969, the War of Attrition, in which this reporter’s cousin was killed. In that war, Israeli pilots tangled with their Soviet counterparts and shutdown a few dozen Soviet Mig’s in dogfights.

In the 1970’s, PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) terror dominated the decade, especially before the Yom Kippur War of 1973. A war in which Israel was attacked on its holiest day of the year, and fought back into victory, but at a very high cost in lives and materiel. At the end of the decade, in 1979, the miracle of peace with Egypt occurred. That same year also ushered the arrival of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s leading state-sponsored terrorist regime.

The 1980’s saw two major wars in the region, the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), which claimed the lives of over a million soldiers and civilians. By comparison, the Second Lebanon War of 1982, was somewhat insignificant on the scale of death and destruction.  Still, Israel removed the PLO menace from Lebanon. In 1981, Israel eliminated Iraq’s dictator’s (Saddam Hussein) nuclear ambitions by destroying the Osirak nuclear reactor in an operation codenamed “Operation Opera.”

In the economic sphere, the Israeli government Stabilization Plan of July 1985, reduced the government involvement in the economy, as well as public spending (from about 60% of the GDP to 43%).  Debt was reduced from 163% to 78%.  Additionally, defense expenditures were cut down from 20% of the GDP to 10%. U.S. loans to Israel for defense acquisitions were turned into grants. By the middle of 1986, inflation was brought down from three digits to double-digits of around 20%.

Beginning in 1990, the arrival of over a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union, dramatically increased domestic demand. This led to accelerated economic growth and a sharp increase in investments. The 1990’s witnessed the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, signed on the White House lawn in September 1993. A year later, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel. The Oslo Accords notwithstanding, Yasser Arafat, the PLO chairman, incited Palestinian terror, which including homicide bombing, souring Israelis on the possibility of having a peace partner.

The 21st Century began with Arafat’s initiated intifada which lasted until 2004. Peace overtures and significant concessions by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert in 2000 and 2008 did not lead to a breakthrough. The Palestinians rejected both opportunities. The Israeli economy, on the other hand, experienced a fantastic boom. Tyler Cowen, in a Bloomberg Opinion piece (June 6, 2019) wrote: “In the last half century or so, Israel went from being a relatively poor country to one of the 25 richest in the world, as measured by per capita income. Israel has done this largely by pursuing trade, integration into the global economy, liberalization of the economy, and heavy investments in the tech sector and in startups, often with government support.” In fact, Israel’s per capita income in 2018 stood at $41,581.119, its Gross Domestic Product at $392 billion, and its growth rate was an astonishing 4.4% in 2018. Israel has come a long way from exporting oranges and phosphates, to becoming a leading high-tech exporter, including water technology, medical devices, and sophisticated arms.

To get a perspective on how dramatically Israel has changed, on Capitol Hill, in a panel addressing Members of Congress and aides, this reporter pointed out that until recent decades a trip from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would have taken two- and one-half hours. Today, with non-rush-hour traffic, that trip would only take about 30-35 minutes. Israel’s infrastructure has undergone tremendous expansion, with four lane highways across the country, and a comfortable rail service. Israel has not only become rich, it is a comfortable country to live in and tour.

32. Open Border Demagogues Exploit the Border Crisis

No solutions – just lies and reckless nonsense.


The open border advocates are shamelessly exploiting the humanitarian crisis caused by the massive flood of illegal immigrants and would-be asylum seekers who have overwhelmed the resources available to detain and take care of them. The demagogues appeal to raw emotions with their crocodile tears. They offer no real solutions to the crisis, which for many months they denied even existed. Their mantra is: immediate release, amnesty, and a path to citizenship.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted her impressions of conditions at border detention centers. She insulted the memories of Holocaust survivors by comparing the border detention centers to “concentration camps.”  She also falsely charged that some detainees were being forced to drink toilet water. Always the consummate narcissist, she hurled insults at federal law enforcement agents while reportedly refusing to actually tour a border facility in El Paso, Texas when given the opportunity. This self-professed Democrat-Socialist hypocritically voted against humanitarian aid for the migrants, including even the bill proposed initially by her own Democrat House leadership.

Rep.  Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) secretly recorded selective conditions he witnessed during his own visit to a southwest Texas detention facility. Referring to the would-be asylum seekers, he declared, “They need to be moved out of these facilities as quickly as possible, they’re being held way too long, unnecessarily.” Rep. Castro decided that it was not worth his time to vote on the bipartisan Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act that passed the House on June 27th. He placed his partisan attacks against the Trump administration over doing something tangible to provide meaningful help immediately to the migrants, especially the children, whom he professes to care so much about.

Where is the compassion for the homeless veterans in the Democrats’ own backyards? Where is the compassion for the children in the inner city daycare centers in cities run by Democrat politicians? Where is the outrage at the smugglers who have profited off human trafficking of women and children from Central America, enticed by promises of asylum, free benefits and protection in sanctuary cities thanks to the open borders crowd? Where are the efforts from open borders elitists in sanctuary cities and states to press for using available community facilities in their neighborhoods, college dormitories and schools that are vacant during the summer, and vacant city or state-owned properties to house some of the migrants until a more permanent solution can be found?

Yes, conditions are subpar in some border detention facilities. A report just issued by the Homeland Security Office of Inspector General described the “serious overcrowding” and prolonged detention, including of children, it found at the Border Patrol facilities it visited in the Rio Grande Valley. “We are concerned that overcrowding and prolonged detention represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of DHS agents and officers, and to those detained,” the report said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security. The report acknowledged the “challenges” faced by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is supposed to be responsible only for short-term care, noting that “within DHS, long-term detention is ICE’s responsibility.” The problem, the report recognized, was lack of funds to provide more capacity for ICE to handle the responsibility for longer term detentions. Thus, already strained CBP facilities had to be used to house detainees beyond when they should have been turned over to ICE, because ICE could not handle the overflow.

“During the week of our visits, ICE had approximately 54,000 beds occupied nationwide,” the report observed, “but was only funded for 42,000 beds. In our discussions with ICE field management about this situation, they explained that their capacity to find additional bed space is strained. According to ICE field management, ICE has already increased capacity at its Port Isabel facility from 800 beds to an “emergency level” of 1,200, and then further increased capacity to 1,550 by adding plastic beds in some cells. However, the facility remains unable to accommodate most Border Patrol detainees. From Port Isabel and other detention facilities in the Rio Grande Valley, ICE can fly detainees to other ICE facilities, but officials said only limited beds are available nationwide. As a result, Border Patrol continues to hold detainees for more than 72 hours in overcrowded conditions while they await transfer.”

Democrats and other open border advocates used the report to highlight the overcrowded conditions – the symptom of the crisis – in order to savage the Trump administration. However, without sufficient funds to relieve overcrowding and provide more adequate facilities, the Trump administration could do little but engage in triage. Congress, as the Democrats have so often declared, is responsible for appropriating money needed to meet the challenges at the border. Democrats had to be dragged after months of delay to finally support a bipartisan measure to fund additional relief, although with no help from their more progressive contingent. This infusion of funding is already resulting in improved conditions.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) took no prisoners in condemning the Democrats’ reckless demagoguery during his appearance Tuesday evening on Fox News’ “The Story.” Referring to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez by her nickname AOC, he accused her of ratcheting up her lies. “People like AOC are operating off of a false premise, and it’s deliberately designed to misinform the American people for her political ends,” Rep. Crenshaw said. “First there was no crisis at all. Then it was a ‘manufactured crisis,’ then it was a crisis completely created by Trump, then there were ‘concentration camps,’ then people are Nazis.”

Commenting on the inflammatory remarks by both AOC and Castro, Rep. Crenshaw said, “I don’t see them offering up any space in their own homes. They are not offering a better solution… what they really want is ‘no enforcement’.” Speaking more generally about the open border Democrats, he added, “What they’re really doing is trying to stand on their moral high horse and sling arrows at everybody else while not offering a solution. They fought us tooth and nail against that $4.5 million in humanitarian aid the president needed, that DHS needed.”

Beyond dealing with the immediate crisis, there are push and pull forces at work that will perpetuate the problem unless they are appropriately confronted. The push forces come from the countries of origin. The president of El Salvador candidly admitted that people desperate for a better life were leaving his country to go to the United States because his country failed them. They were not fleeing government persecution, which would entitle them to seek asylum. They wanted jobs paying a living wage but could not find them in El Salvador.

“They fled El Salvador, they fled our country,” El Salvador’s president declared. “It is our fault. We can say President Trump’s policies are wrong. We can say Mexico’s policies are wrong. But what about our blame?” He added that “if people have an opportunity for a decent job, a decent education, a decent health care system and security, I know that forceful migration will be reduced to zero.”

We can provide El Salvador and the other Central American origin countries with financial assistance, but it will not reach the people who need it so long as the governments of these countries are corrupt and do not use their own resources to provide an adequate safety net. One step for the United States to take is to tax the billions of dollars in remittances sent every year by migrants in the U.S. to their home countries. The proceeds would then be directed to public social spending in the home countries that the U.S. should insist on monitoring.

The pull forces come in part from the transit country of Mexico, which does not do enough to protect its own borders and enforce its immigration laws against migrants entering from Central America. President Trump is doing what he can to pressure Mexico into correcting this problem and agreeing to host asylum seekers removed from the United States while their asylum hearings are pending. The pull forces also come from the porous border between the United States and Mexico and the lures of loophole-ridden immigration laws in the United States that allow anyone who manages to set foot on U.S. soil to claim asylum. Open border advocates further incentivize migrants to risk their lives on the long trek north from Central America by dangling free goodies, sanctuaries from law enforcement agents, and promises of amnesty and a path to citizenship. The open border advocates also run interference against any practical measures such as a border wall that the Trump administration tries to take to slow down the massive migrant influx.

The immigration problem can be fixed by reducing the push and pull forces in a humane manner. For example, change the immigration laws to have asylum seekers apply for asylum in their home countries and stay there until their applications are approved. Tax remittances and use the proceeds to help people in need in the home countries. Work with Mexico to enforce its laws at its southern border and reach an agreement to treat Mexico as a first country of asylum for those seeking asylum and entering Mexico from Central American countries. Hire more immigration judges to speed up the time it takes to conduct asylum hearings. Save lives by beefing up border security, including building barriers in vulnerable locations, which will deter individuals from risking the life-threatening dangers of the long trek north only to find that they cannot so easily enter the United States.

Too bad that Democrats and their open borders cohorts would rather see more migrant deaths, exploitation by human traffickers, and suffering women and children than work in good faith with the Trump administration to come up with a reasonable compromise solution.

33. Antifa Thugs Brutalize Journalist Andy Ngo

Leftist fascist mob finds meaning in terror.

Independent journalist Andy Ngo, known for documenting Antifa’s violence, was himself assaulted by members of the radical leftist group June 29 in Portland, Oregon.

The Quillette editor and photojournalist suffered a brain hemorrhage that required him to stay in a hospital overnight, Quillette reports.

The day before the assault, Ngo tweeted his anxieties about covering the June 29 demonstration.

“I am nervous about tomorrow’s Portland Antifa rally. They’re promising ‘physical confrontation’ & have singled me out to be assaulted. I went on Tucker Carlson last year to explain why I think they’re doing this: They’re seeking meaning through violence.”

According to Quillette, “[t]he scene was captured by local reporter Jim Ryan, whose video can be accessed at the link below.”

Quillette offered a warning to potential viewers of the video:

We caution readers that it is an unsettling spectacle—by which we mean not only the violence itself, but the unconstrained glee this pack of mostly young men exhibit as they brutalize a journalist whom they’d spent months demonizing on social media, and whom they’d explicitly singled out for attack.

The attack on Ngo is yet another reminder that the totalitarianism-loving domestic terrorists of Antifa, who call themselves anti-fascist activists, are the real fascists in today’s America because, among other things, they use violent tactics pioneered by the real-live fascist storm-troopers of Weimar Germany, the Sturmabteilung (SA). These Antifa goons opposed the Nazis but eagerly copied their tactics, using their fists to shut down political opponents and break up meetings and rallies. Some Antifa today even dress like Nazis, wearing black and red, the anarchist colors which traditionally have also been used by Nazis.

Antifa, which as a group has been warmly embraced by many Democrats, regained prominence in the post-Obama era by assaulting conservatives and Trump supporters. The hyper-violent anarchists and communists of the Antifa movement are notorious for promiscuously labeling those they target as fascists, Nazis, and racists, in the absence of evidence. Antifa routinely tag supporters of President Trump as fascists.

Ngo is one of those innocent people smeared as a fascist because he doesn’t toe the Antifa line and dares to report what these bad people really do. Even Ngo’s status as a minority (Asian) and a gay man, two golden stars in the Left’s victim hierarchy, didn’t save him from a savage attack.

A communications official at the left-wing group, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., mocked Ngo, saying not only that Ngo got what he deserved, but that he wanted the attack to happen.

“Violence is completely wrong, and I find it sad and weak to allow a sniveling weasel like Andy Ngo to get under one’s skin like this, but I’m also not going to pretend that this wasn’t Ngo’s goal from the start[,]” Charlotte Clymer tweeted.

“Andy Ngo intentionally provokes people on the left to drive his content[,]” Clymer continued. “Being attacked today on video taken an actual journalist (because Ngo is definitely not) is the greatest thing that could have happened to his career. You know it. I know it. He knows it. We all know it.”

According to reports, at least one Antifa activist punched Ngo in the face. A group of them then got close to him, kicking and throwing cups of a white liquid at him as he moves away from them. Portland Police said some of the “milkshakes” thrown by Antifa at the rally contained moistened quick-drying cement, which can inflict chemical burns on exposed skin. It was not clear at press time if any of the cement made contact with Ngo’s body.

In a video shot after the attack, a bleeding Ngo explains that his attackers made off with his camera. “I just got beat up by the crowd—no police at all—in the middle of the street and they stole my GoPro,” he said. “They punched me several times in my face and head. I’m bleeding.”

Fellow independent journalist Michelle Malkin organized a GoFundMe fundraising campaign to benefit Ngo.

“My friend, Portland, Oregon-based journalist Andy Ngo, was beaten and robbed today by Antifa while covering the latest paroxysms of left-wing violence,” she wrote at the GoFundMe page. “Andy has been singled out, doxxed, and targeted by SJW thugs while police stand by and do nothing.”

Quillette excoriated the Antifa thugs for their “base motivations” that “seem to consist of glorifying themselves as freedom fighters on social media, and shutting down anyone who challenges their vainglorious narrative.”

These people were so eager to pummel Ngo because he “has been relentless in exposing the true face of Antifa. They attacked him for the simple reason that he has challenged their ideological propaganda—an Antifa tactic that any true fascist would recognize and applaud.”

34. How Biden Booked Millions

Who needs to write a book when you’ve got access?

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

In the final years of the Obama administration, Joe Biden’s net worth was estimated at -$947,987. The minus sign was the most important part of that figure. The negative numbers weren’t implausible. After Obama won, Biden disclosed that he was carrying as much as a staggering $465,000 in debt.

But despite being a million in the hole, after his administration was done, he moved into a 12,000 foot estate that looks like a poor man’s replica of the White House with 5 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a wet bar, 2 kitchens, a sauna, 8 fireplaces, parking for 20 cars and a master bedroom on an entire floor.

The estimated rent is $20,000 a month.

That’s in addition to buying a $2.7 million vacation home in Delaware and his original lakeside home.

Where did all that money come from? As with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, part of the answer lies with some very lucrative book deals. The same year that Biden moved into his miniature White House, Macmillan offered Biden and his wife a multi-book contract worth unknown millions. That was quite a lot of money for a retired veep who hadn’t even announced that he was running for again.

Biden’s previous literary adventures hadn’t exactly set the publishing world on fire. On taking office, Random House had paid him a $9,563 advance to record an audio version of Promises to Keep. The campaign book sold some 49,000 copies and netted under $200 in royalties in 2009.

No, there are no missing zeroes there.

Promise Me, Dad, the first of the Macmillan haul, debuted in 2017. On Amazon, it sits at #39,101 in Books, far below Buttigieg’s book at #1,387, Kamala Harris’ at #12,556 or Elizabeth Warren’s at #22,40.

(Though doing far better than Cory Booker’s disastrous book, down in the basement at #205,437.)

Even Stacey Abrams is doing better than Biden at #14,018.

Biden’s book did debut at the top of the bestseller list. It may be performing badly on Amazon because people aren’t really buying the book to read it. They’re buying access to Joe Biden.

Joe had gotten better at selling books. Not because of what was inside them. But by selling himself.

When Marty Walsh, a good friend of Biden, won the election to run Boston, his 1,500 inaguration guests all got copies of Biden’s book. Mayor Walsh claimed that helping prop up Biden’s multi-million book contract so he could afford a 12,000 foot estate with 9 bathrooms was a way of spreading his message about “the importance of the middle class and bringing people together”.

The University of Utah hosted Biden as its keynote speaker. Instead of paying him, it bought 1,000 copies of his book to give out to students. Biden’s people pushed this story in the media as if it were a charitable act. The book purchase was funded by a grant from the O.C. Tanner Company.

O.C. Tanner spent $160,000 on lobbying in 2018.

Biden’s books hadn’t become more interesting a decade later. Promises to Keep had faltered because he had been a longshot candidate. Promise Me, Dad copies were moving, not so much because people were reading them, but because they were a vehicle for gaining access to the 2020 Dem nominee.

His book tour consisted of selling tickets to hear him discuss his book and get an autographed copy.

His American Promise tour included a copy of Promise Me with every ticket sold. At a D.C. bookstore, a VIP package of $448 got you a chance to meet Biden and a signed copy of the book. A VIP package in Austin, Texas, got you a signed copy and only went for $325.

Meanwhile, actually hosting Biden was a nightmare. The University of Buffalo paid Biden $200,000 to give a speech. CAA, one of Hollywood’s biggest talent agencies, which represents the likes of Robert Downey Jr, Sandra Bullock, and Johnny Depp, had the university sign a contract in which “the Artist” was to receive a “full-length mirror”, a meal of angel hair pomodoro, a fridge with 3 different kinds of sodas, and a ban on any “projectiles that can be thrown”. Excepting, apparently, copies of his book.

Because, booksellers would be selling copies of Promise Me, Dad on site.

Speakers using book giveaways as part of, or in place of, their honorarium, is nothing new. But Biden, like Hillary, appeared to be blurring the line between public speaking and monetizing a future candidacy.

Biden’s book sales promoted his candidacy, put millions in his pocket and allowed individuals, organizations and special interests to potentially trade access in exchange for buying his book. When a company with lobbying interests sponsors a 1,000 book buy, it’s indirectly providing a benefit to Biden. Would it be doing so if Biden hadn’t been a serious presidential prospect in 2020?

And would Macmillan have signed Biden to such a generous contract any other way?

Promise Me, Dad had sold 302,000 copies by the spring of 2019. The list price was $28 a book, but Walsh had only paid $12 a copy for his 1,500 copies. Bulk discounts probably applied to other sales.

Jill Biden’s follow-up, the second book in the multi-million contract series, Where the Light Enters: Building a Family, Discovering Myself, came out in May and sold some 7,000 copies.

It currently ranks at #1747 in memoirs.

Numbers like these are a long way from hits. Michelle Obama’s memoir, Becomingsold over 10 million copies. What Happened, Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theory post-election response, debuted with 300,000 copies. Multi-million-dollar deals can be justified with sales figures like these.

That’s a lot better than Biden is doing.

Biden’s third and final book is, in theory, still ahead, but election campaign books tend to flop. Hillary’s Stronger Together tanked. Nobody remembers Obama’s, Change We Can Believe In. We can guess two things about Biden’s campaign book. It’ll have the word “promise” in it and no one will actually buy it.

And, several memoirs in, what does Biden even have to write about?

Joe Biden has been around for 76 years. We’ve heard all his stories. Including the ones he made up. Especially those. Two memoirs seem like more than enough for a hack who spent his career in politics.

The real story isn’t in the words that, likely some ghostwriter, put together for Biden. Considering his history of plagiarism, that’s for the best. If Joe wrote a book, it would have begun with, “Call me, Ishmael”, “It was a dark and stormy night” or “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Biden’s true memoir is not in what he says, but what he does and how he does it.

The way he sold his memoir tells us far more about him than the words between the covers. How he made millions and turned a million in the hole into a multi-million vacation home and a miniature White House tells Biden’s story more evocatively than all the anecdotes meant to appeal to the working class.

Joe Biden isn’t working class or middle class. He’s part of a political class that works the system.

The real story of Promise Me, Dad, is how he once again made millions working the system and has gone from more debt than most Americans can imagine to a luxurious lifestyle they can’t even dream of.

35. Leftists Have Always Lied about Auschwitz

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetorical strategy descends from Stalin himself.

On Monday, June 17, and again on Tuesday, June 18, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that the “authoritarian and fascist” Trump administration “has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.” “Concentration camps are an institutionalized practice in the home of the free … a presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist.”

I was a teenager the first time I visited Auschwitz. I grew up with one foot in New Jersey, and with one foot, through my parents’ heartfelt stories, songs, recipes and reminiscences, in Poland and Slovakia. I met anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet resisters, victims of torture and rape, all members of my own family, when I was fifteen. I sat around the table and watched my strong, resilient, subsistence farmer aunts’ and uncles’ faces melt with shame and terror as they recounted Nazi, and then Soviet, occupation. I watched my mother, a monument to strength and stoicism, cry when she heard, firsthand, of the fate of her beloved Jewish neighbor who had saved her from drowning in the River Nitra. She had long known he was among the millions. She had read of his fate in letters. Now back in her village for the first time since her departure as a child, she just couldn’t take it when they told her to her face, as she stood in front of what used to be his home.

After the visit to Auschwitz, I met both survivors of the camp and Polish citizens who had hidden Jews in their homes. These rescuers radiated a quality I can’t quite capture in words but I can say that sitting in front of them and listening to them speak was comparable, for me, to sitting in front of Yosemite’s Half Dome. These Poles, senior citizens in Soviet-era rumpled clothing, who spoke few and humble words, not lush vocabulary out of any epic saga but rather monosyllabic words focused on how to dispose of human waste without detection or how to manage to cadge enough calories while living under a genocidal occupation, conveyed the aura of massive natural wonders. These rescuers’ souls seemed to have outgrown their human flesh and have already transcended to the ageless, the mythic.

It’s the hardest country I’ve ever visited, but I kept going back to Poland, both in the flesh and in my publications. Several people whose parents had been in concentration camps became part of my day-to-day life. Some of these children of camp survivors are Jews, some are Poles, and some are Ukrainian. Another close friend is the son of a Nazi soldier who fought in North Africa with Rommel as well as on the Eastern Front, winning two Iron Crosses. Please forgive what I am about to say. People whose parents were in concentration camps are not easy. There is a raft of symptoms that all these friends, including the son of the Nazi, display. Touchiness. Paranoia. Outrage. Tilting at windmills. Self-sabotage. A terrible loneliness that can never be slaked. I love these people, I owe them much, and my life would not be the same without them. But they are not easy people.

All the survivors, rescuers, witnesses and children of survivors I know care about the suffering of immigrants. They care because they were all immigrants, of one kind or another, themselves. They all know hunger, bruises, humiliations, frustrations, and exclusion. They all, also, know hope and working hard toward a better future for the next generation.

I grew up a child of immigrants, and, inevitably, I went on to be an immigrant myself, living and working in Africa, Asia, and Europe. I held my mother’s hand as she died, seventy-two years after her forced migration to America, and I can say that she never got over the trauma of that passage. She told me about walking to school along railroad ties because the ties hurt her bare feet less than the gravel between the tracks. She was barefoot so the “cardboard” shoes she received from the “Poor Board” would not disintegrate in her walk to school. She told me about being beaten by a nun who spoke Slovak but wouldn’t speak it to her because it was her job, as a child immigrant, to sink or swim. She told me about the first time she ate that most American of foods, peanut butter, out of a half empty jar encountered while foraging in a garbage dump.

“Get me a Hunky; I need a donkey,” was the refrain my father heard when showing up to be selected to tunnel his child’s body into the narrowest passages of coal mines. “Hunky” was the word for immigrants like him. Beatings? Discrimination? Abuse? Tuberculosis? Unjust incarceration? Yes, all of those were part of my father’s life, before he turned fifteen. Death? He witnessed death. His own father’s death. I won’t tell that story here; it’s too hard, and it belongs to my cousins as well as to me, and I don’t want to violate their memories. Let’s just say that things were so bad, and his family was so hungry, that he joined the Army under someone else’s papers when he was still underage. He fought in the Philippines and New Guinea and insisted that America was “the greatest country in the world.”

So, yes, those of us familiar, even though handed-down stories from our elders about the Nazis, are also familiar with the burdens of immigration. This much we know. A decent person does not steal the vocabulary of one horror to discuss the discomforts and inconveniences, or even the heartbreaks and tragedies, of the other. As horrific as the black lung, the police chases, the incarceration, and the death all were, they were not those horrors as lived in Auschwitz, which was an experience so cursed you don’t use the same vocabulary when speaking of the one about the other. You just do not do that.

The term “concentration camp” existed before the Holocaust, and pre-Holocaust governments have set up what were called, at the time, concentration camps. During the 1899-1902 Boer War between Boers, or Dutch-speaking South Africans and the British Empire, the Empire drove Boers into concentration camps. Approximately 28,000 Boers, that is 25%, of Boers in these camps, and 10% of the overall Boer population, died of hunger and disease. Twenty thousand black South Africans also died.

No one objects to the use of the term “concentration camp” for discussion of the Boer War, or other pre-Holocaust atrocities. Why, then, do we express such revulsion when Ocasio-Cortez claims “concentration camp” to discuss facilities to house illegal immigrants?

The answer is obvious. The answer is history. In the same way that the word “apple” is heard differently in the post-Steve-Jobs world, the term “concentration camp” is heard differently in the post-Auschwitz world. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And to pretend otherwise is to camouflage a very real leftist agenda.

The left itself has a doctrine that should, if followed, obviate this lie. It’s the doctrine of cultural appropriation. You do not take the cultural inheritance of another group and claim it as your own. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez knows about this doctrine. She was blasted for violating it on April 5, 2019, when giving a speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Ocasio-Cortez, in an attempt to curry favor with her mostly African American audience, adopted a faux Ebonics rhythm and syntax. All leftist cultural appropriation stories are ridiculous; it’s difficult to pick which is most exemplary of the trend. Perhaps Lena Dunham fretting over Oberlin college students’ sushi consumption. Perhaps the height, or depth of cultural appropriation sermonizing took place after Keziah Daum, a Utah high school student, wore a Chinese-style dress to her prom and posted the photo on social media. In a frequently retweeted twitter post, Jeremy Lam accused 18-year-old Keziah Daum of colonizing Asians.

Since leftists preach against cultural appropriation, why are leftists now trying to appropriate the term “concentration camp” to talk about immigration? One of the most disturbing, and obvious, trends in today’s Democratic Party is anti-Semitism. Not all Democrats are anti-Semites, but Congressional Democrats surrendered to the anti-Semites in their midst when, on March 7, 2019, they failed to sanction freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her frequent and egregious expressions of anti-Semitism. Ocasio-Cortez made it a point to support Omar in the midst of that controversy. Ocasio-Cortez was also happy to mouth anti-Semitic tropes, tropes she clearly did not understand and could not support when exposed to questioning. In a July 17, 2018 appearance on PBS’s Firing LineOcasio-Cortez said she objects to “the occupation of Palestine” and a “humanitarian crisis.” When questioned what she meant by these terms, she collapsed, laughing, acknowledging, “I am not the expert on geopolitics … Middle Eastern politics was not exactly at my kitchen table every night.” Why the Democratic Party is currying favor with anti-Semites is a topic for another piece, but that toadying is on display for all to see. Ocasio-Cortez’s attempt to claim the term “concentration camp” for her very own is part of that agenda.

And there’s more. Leftists have always lied about the Holocaust. I saw those lies firsthand, during my visit to Auschwitz. In those Soviet days, visitors were shown a film. I watched the Polish language version of the film. I listened for the word “Jew” – “Zyd.” I never heard it. What I do remember hearing, over and over, was the term “victims of fascism.” I recognized that I was being propagandized. I wondered how many viewing this film would not recognize that. “After the war internal politics led the Soviet leadership to erase the Holocaust from historical memory,” writes historian John Klier in “The Holocaust and the Soviet Union.” Soviet Russia and its satellite states systematically lied about the Holocaust from the end of the war till its toppling in 1989. Communists inflated the numbers of those killed at Auschwitz. They did so in order to minimize the number of Jews murdered there. Soviet Russians called Auschwitz “the ultimate capitalist factory where the workers were dispensable.” “One of the least appealing aspects of the Soviet analysis of Auschwitz, now and later, was the downplaying of the scale of suffering endured by Jews.” This downplaying constituted “a rift in historical interpretation between East and West concerning the operation of the camps that would not be resolved until the fall of Communism,” writes Laurence Rees in Auschwitz: A New HistoryThis downplaying of Jewish suffering occurred throughout the Soviet Empire. Thomas Haury writes that East Germany, “emphasized the workers, the party, and the Soviet population as having suffered most from National Socialism. The genocide of the European Jews was only one crime among many, to which the GDR hardly paid attention.” Jews were also accused of crimes said to be “just as bad as the Holocaust.” “Not only Holocaust deniers but also communists used Holocaust Equivalence early, aiming at Jews. In 1953, the Soviet Union’s daily Pravda published alleged information about a conspiracy of mainly Jewish doctors to kill communist leaders through wrong diagnoses and sabotage in treatment,” writes Georg von Rauch. Romanian textbooks emphasized Romanian suffering and downplayed Jewish deaths. People often criticize Poles for their apparent lack of awareness of Holocaust history. After all, Poland was the site of many concentration and death camps. But Poles, too, were taught a Holocaust history consciously distorted by Communism, and it is only post-1989 that Polish historians have been able to tell their own country’s story without that distortion dominating their work. When perusing a Soviet-era history book about WW II, or watching a Soviet-era film about the liberation of Auschwitz, or listening to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s justifications for using the term “concentration camp,” one must remember this core principle: “The truth is that which serves the party.”

Czeslawa (ches WAV ah) Kwoka was a 14 year old Polish Catholic girl. She was murdered in Auschwitz. Wilhelm Brasse, as his name suggests, had some Germanic ancestry. But he was born in Poland and he self-identified as Polish. After the Nazis invaded, the SS “invited” Brasse to identify as German. He declined, and he was sent to Auschwitz, where he was forced to photograph prisoners. Later he was ordered to destroy those photos. Through subterfuge, he saved many of the photos.

Brasse took the photograph we have of Czeslawa Kwoka. He described the process to an interviewer, who said that Brasse trembled while speaking. “She was so young and so terrified. The girl didn’t understand why she was there and she couldn’t understand what was being said to her. So this woman Kapo took a stick and beat her about the face. This German woman was just taking out her anger on the girl. Such a beautiful young girl, so innocent. She cried but she could do nothing. To tell you the truth, I felt as if I was being hit myself but I couldn’t interfere. It would have been fatal for me. You could never say anything.”

I do not begrudge anyone the compassion they feel for immigrants. I do not begrudge anyone for actually extending aid to immigrants. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her leftist allies are not expression compassion, and they are not helping anyone, by appropriating the term “concentration camp.” Rather, they are appropriating cultural material that does not belong to them, and that no decent person would want. They are doing this as part of the left’s current and growing anti-Semitic program. Stalin, we are told, said that one death was a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. If the deaths of the eleven million leave Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies cold, I ask them to look into the face of Czeslawa Kwoka, who was murdered at 14 because she was the wrong ethnicity.