And springlike. Except I missed it in the spring when the pandemic started in Europe. I only found it when searching YouTube after the death of Spencer Davis last week. This is Steve Winwood. the former vocalist of the Spencer Davis Group, singing one of my favourite hymns, Now the Green Blade Riseth. He did it as an Easter/spring tribute in April, but it's just as hopeful in autumn.
In France, Macron Claims That ‘Fear is About to Change Sides’
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Will the murder of Samuel Paty at long last lead France to do what it must to meet the Islamic threat within? Or will there be rhetorical resolution, a laying of flowers, marches of solidarity in major cities, a series of well-publicized roundups and then, again, a relaxing of resolve and of raids, as happened after the Charlie Hebdo murders? The story of what’s going on in France in the wake of that murder is here: “4 students detained after French teacher’s beheading,” by Alexandre Hielard and Clare Byrne, AFP, October 19, 2020:
French police on Monday [Oct.19] launched a series of raids targeting Islamist networks three days after the beheading of a history teacher who had shown his students a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.
Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin vowed there would be “not a minute’s respite for enemies of the Republic,” after tens of thousands took part in rallies countrywide on Sunday to honor history teacher Samuel Paty, and defend freedom of expression.
Fifteen people were in custody on Monday, according to a judicial source, including four students who may have helped the killer identify the teacher in return for payment.
This is disturbing. Did these students not notice that the suspect was carrying a large knife, that he was agitated, that he might have murder and mayhem on his mind? They might have replied that “he’s not here” or “he went home.” They might have warned Mr. Paty himself, or the principal. Did any of them think of that, or were they – “just for a handful of silver” – willing to betray their teacher? Or were these four students Muslims who may have been happy to have Mr. Paty appropriately punished for his blasphemy by a fellow Believer?
Those detained also included four members of the killer’s family, as well as a known Islamist radical and the father of one of Paty’s students, who had launched an online campaign against the teacher.
That “known Islamist radical” is Abdelhakim Sefrioui — a Moroccan-born Islamist described by one prominent French Muslim leader as “dangerous.” On Thursday — the day before Paty’s killing — Sefrioui arrived at the school, where he filmed an interview with a female Muslim student who claimed that Paty had told her she might want to “leave the class,” before showing students an image of a “naked man” who supposedly represented Muhammad. After meeting with members of the school management, Sefrioui issued a statement asserting that Muslim children “had been attacked and humiliated in front of their classmates.” He then demanded the immediate suspension of Paty, whom he referred to as “this thug.”
Of course no Muslim children had been either attacked or humiliated in Paty’s class. He had been solicitous of their feelings, telling them they could leave the room during this particular discussion of caricatures of Muhammad. All but one did; that one – who claims she remained “by accident” in the classroom (or did she remain so as to deliberately witness something offensive to Muslims, that she then might later complain about, showing what a good Muslim girl she was?) — told her father. He was enraged, made a video about the class , and that started the sinister ball rolling that ended in the decapitation of Mr. Paty. “French Arrest Antisemitic, Pro Hamas Imam in Connection to Beheading of Teacher,” StopAntisemitism.org, October 19, 2020:
Sefrioui is well-known to French intelligence, whose agents have monitored his statements and activities for nearly 20 years, according to Bernard Godard, an expert on Islam and former adviser to France’s Interior Ministry, in an interview with the news outlet Marianne.
Much of Sefrioui’s activism has revolved around solidarity with the Palestinians, expressed through virulent anti-Zionism and antisemitism. In 2006, he campaigned on behalf of the presidential campaign of the comedian Dieudonné — who was recently banned across a host of social media platforms for his Holocaust denial and his crude antisemitism.
In 2014, as head of a collective of pro-Palestinian organizations named in honor of the late Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Sefrioui was a key organizer of demonstrations in Paris against Israel’s incursion into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, furiously asserting at one rally that the coastal enclave was “the worst concentration camp mankind has ever known.”
Here is what puzzles me. The French police have been watching Sefrioui for “nearly 20 years.” 20 years! They know he has made death threats to the moderate imam of Drancy, Hassen Chalgoumi. They know that he has been guilty of hate speech against Israelis, accusing them of running “the worst concentration camp mankind has ever known.” They know that he has supported the Holocaust denier and antisemite Dieudonné. What else do they need to know to expel Sefrioui back to Morocco as a threat to public order and to the safety of Infidels, especially Jews? Why have they been so lax? It is only now they will at long last do something about Abdelhakim Sefrioui – or at least that is what one hopes. It’s a little late for Samuel Paty. Again from AFP:
Darmanin accused the two men [the father of the student, and Sefrioui] of having issued a “fatwa” against Paty.
That’s exactly what they did: they issued a threat on social media, to be carried out by any good Muslim willing to defend the honor of the Prophet and to punish the blaspheming Infidel. Abdoullakh Anzarov, 60 miles away, saw the video online and answered the call. The father and Sefrioui are both accessories before the fact.
Sources in the interior ministry said there had been a total of 40 raids across France on Monday, mostly around Paris, and 20 per day were planned going forward.
These raids are being carried out with such alacrity that the list of potentially dangerous Jihadis must have been prepared long ago. All it took to set off the series of raids was the murder of Mr. Paty. But why did it take anything at all for the round-the-clock raids on these Jihadis, of whom the French government admits there are “thousands” in France? Why is dramatic action taken only after an atrocity, as with Charlie Hebdo or Samuel Paty? Why the stern warnings issued about how the French forces of order this time will come down very hard, as happened after the killings by Muhammad Merah? It’s always the same script. An atrocity, a show of resolve, raids, and then those police actions inevitably die down, until the next horror is committed by Muslims. Shouldn’t the French state be carrying out dozens of raids each day, hundreds of raids every week, never letting up, in saecula saeculorum? Why are the French police not conducting dragnets in no-go neighborhoods, picking up Muslims for crimes large and small – setting fire to cars, drug dealing, street robberies, house break-ins, rapes, murders — keeping them off-balance? Why does the French state not insist on putting informants in every mosque to record the sermons, that can then be examined for the slightest hint of a call to hate or hurt the Infidels, in which case, the imam in question should be charged with hate speech, fined and imprisoned if found guilty, and upon release, if not a citizen, sent back to his country of origin.
“We want to harass and destabilize this movement in a very determined way,” one ministry source said.
Why didn’t the Interior Ministry want to “harass and destabilize this [Muslim] movement” last month, last year, two or three or five years ago? Why are the police in France always reacting to some Muslim atrocity with asseverations that this time it will be different, that the roundup is on, that no Muslim malefactor will escape, and so on – and in the end, so disappointingly forth?
Darmanin said the government would also tighten its grip on NGOs with suspected links to Islamist networks, including the Anti-Islamophobia Collective, a group that claims to monitor attacks against Muslims in France.
How unsurprising to discover that a group calling itself the “Anti-Islamophobia Collective” is in fact part of an Islamist network. If anyone needed further evidence of the meretriciousness of that word “Islamophobia” that was invented in order to shut down all criticism of Islam, by labeling it, preposterously, as a “phobia” — that is, “an irrational fear or hatred of Islam” – here it is. What Muslims and their willing collaborators label and libel as “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a most rational judgment as to both the immutable contents of the Qur’an and to the observable behavior of Muslims.
“Fear is about to change sides,” President Emmanuel Macron told a meeting of key ministers Sunday [October 18]to discuss a response to the attack….
This latest atrocity by a Muslim, in this case an angry Chechen who, to defend the honor of his Prophet, decapitated a quiet middle-school teacher, appears to have jolted the French government into action, with dozens of raids daily on Muslims suspected of terrorist links, and a promise by the Minister of the Interior, Gerald Darmanin, that there will be no letup in the police raids. We can hope, but warily, for we have hoped before.
A photo of the teacher [that is, the teacher’s severed head] and a message confessing to his murder was found on the mobile phone of his killer, 18-year-old Chechen Abdullakh Anzorov, who was shot dead by police….
Anzorov’s family arrived in France from the predominantly Muslim Russian republic of Chechnya more than a decade ago….
What persuaded the French authorities to let the Anzorov family in? Did they claim to be refugees? If so, from what? Chechens in Russia are not mistreated, and some reports claim that Anzorov and his family had been living in Moscow before they left for France. Chechens in Moscow are on the low end of the socioeconomic scale, but that is not the same thing as being persecuted.
Did they perhaps claim that Moscow was only a stopover, and that they were in fact residents of Chechnya? But in Chechnya, the only people who are now persecuted are homosexuals. Surely neither Abdoulakh Anzorov, who was eight years old when he came to France, nor his seven-year-old brother, nor his parents, nor his grandfather, were being persecuted in Chechnya as homosexuals. These were, like so many Muslims who have managed to make it into Europe, or the United States (one thinks of the Tsarnaev family), economic migrants pretending to be refugees in need of asylum.
One education expert warned Monday that the murder might deter teachers from tackling touchy topics in future….
Far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen called for “wartime legislation” to combat the terror threat.
Le Pen, who has announced she will make a third bid for the French presidency in 2022, called for an “immediate” moratorium on immigration and for all foreigners on terror watch lists to be deported.
Le Pen’s suggestion is overbroad. Not all immigrants, just Muslim immigrants, need to be banned. There should be no apologies for such a Muslim ban. It is Muslims who are committing all of these murders – of Jews, of Catholic priests, of people who dared, as cartoonists or teachers, to exercise or discuss the right of free speech – and no one else. Of course with such a ban some inoffensive Muslims will be kept out, but that is the nature of the law; it applies to whole categories of people. There is no sure way to determine which Muslims might engage in violence and which would not. But we know that the Qur’an instructs them to “fight” and to “kill” and to “smite at the necks of” and to “strike terror in the hearts of” Infidels. That being the case, it is only prudent to assume that some will, if given a chance, fulfill those commands.
But Marine Le Pen is right to call for all foreigners on terror watch lists to be deported. What possible argument can there be for not doing so? And why did it take the murder of Samuel Paty to spur the French government to do what it ought always to be doing, around the clock? If suddenly the forces of order have now swung into motion, and rounded up hundreds of people whose names and terrorist sympathies have long been well-known to the authorities (“on lists”), the obvious question is why are they being rounded up only now, and why not when they were first put on the list. Once a foreigner is on a terror watch list, that ought to be enough of a reason to have them expelled from the country. If the existing law does not currently allow someone’s appearance on that list to be sufficient reason for expulsion, then the French need to pass legislation that does allow it.
After the murder of Samuel Paty, the French offered – following the post-Charlie Hebdo template — a national display of sympathy for the victim, with marches and flowers and candlelight vigils and signs saying “Je suis enseignant” (“I am a teacher”) from a populace touched to the quick. There was the posthumous awarding of the Legion d’Honneur to Paty. And there were – again as after the Charlie Hebdo killings — stern declarations by government officials that the fight against the Islamic terrorists will not let up, but from now on will be relentlessly taken to them. The “Islamists” will be shown no quarter by the forces of order, so that, as President Macron said, “fear is about to change sides.”
It is pleasant to think so, but a decade of disappointment makes one wonder. Here are some things the French state could do in order to regain the public’s confidence:
First, the French government could expel all non-French imams who are found to be preaching hatred of Infidels, or contempt for the French state, or the flouting of its laws.
Second, the government could encourage local authorities to refuse to approve the building of any new mosques.
Third, the government could prohibit any foreign funds from being used to pay salaries of imams or for the upkeep of mosques. Local Muslims will from now on have to pay for both. No French government money should be used to support mosques, madrasas, or other Islamic institutions.
Fourth, the French state could insist on recording every Friday sermon delivered in every mosque, to be subsequently checked for content by the police, and if that content proves disturbing enough, there should be prompt expulsion of imams who are not citizens[see the First Point above], and fines and jail terms for offending imams who are French citizens.
Fifth, the government could establish teams of French hackers, employed to disrupt any Islamic sites deemed dangerous to individuals (such as the late Paty), or to groups targeted by Muslims (Jews), or to the French state itself.
Sixth, there should be genetic testing of those Muslims who entered France under the policy of “family reunification” to see if, in fact, those who did so are truly related to the original “anchor relative.” When DNA testing was put in place in the United States, the extensive family reunification claims by Muslims turned out to be largely fraudulent. Why would it be any different in France?
Seventh, Muslim immigration should be halted, in the interests of both public safety and national security. Such a measure, once unthinkable, I suspect will now be enormously popular with the French people who, save for those on the delusional far left, have been forced by grim circumstances to come round to the view that the large-scale Muslim presence in France has created a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous French, as well as for other, non-Muslim immigrants, than would be the case without that large-scale presence.
Eighth, President Macron should follow the lead of Germany and the U.K., and ban both the “political” and the “military” wings of Hezbollah, as inseparable parts of one terror organism. This will be a major blow to the terror group’s ability both to recruit and to raise money in Europe.
We shall soon see, in the next few months, what steps — possibly including some of those suggested just above — are taken by the French government, not just in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Samuel Paty, but in the long term, to uproot the Jihadist threat and put Muslims on notice that the mixture as before will no longer be tolerated. One hopes that this time there will be no relapsing or lessening of the pressure on Muslims and that, as President Macron promised, “fear is about to change sides.”
After final debate, Biden’s campaign is left hanging on the ‘character’ of a high-stakes influence peddler
by Michael Rectenwald
Trump scored a decisive win in the final debate, as Biden, although lobbed softballs, teetered. The former VP rested his case on “character,” despite recent exposures of a global influence-peddling scheme undertaken in his name.
In the second and last 2020 presidential debate, held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, Joe Biden and President Donald Trump answered questions about fighting Covid-19, American families, race in America, climate change, national security and leadership. As skewed as most topics were toward Democratic wheelhouses, Trump managed to do well in nearly all of the segments, securing what can only be seen as a victory, especially considering the odds against him.
Amid growing allegations about Biden’s involvement in an international graft scheme fronted by his son Hunter Biden, Trump nevertheless had long odds in a debate moderated by Kristen Welker, an ardent Democrat. Trump not only faced a political opponent, he also faced the narratives of a mainstream media that has been an unabashed accomplice intent on destroying his presidency for the last four years, and is now hell-bent on foiling his re-election bid. In the end, Trump managed to pull a rabbit out of his hat by posting a solid performance and shaking Biden with the allegations of corruption, while holding his own or outright winning on most topics.
On Covid-19, while Biden demagogued by pointing to 220,000 American deaths, Trump pointed to Biden’s handling of H1N1 (swine flu) and contrasted that with his own management of a pandemic that has affected most of the world. After the president said that “we’re learning to live with it,” Biden turned to the camera, addressing the American public, and said, “people are learning to die with it.” Trump pointed to the misery caused by lockdowns in Democratic-run cities and states, while claiming that Biden would lock down the country if one person among the massive bureaucracy recommended it. In all, on a topic cherry-picked by his opposition, Trump emerged unscathed and thus strengthened his standing.
For the second topic, national security, the questions revolved almost exclusively around “foreign interference” in US elections. It was at this point that Trump first invoked the brewing Biden scandal. The story of Hunter Biden’s laptop, emails and business contacts, and their connection to his father, has made the rounds on Trump-friendly media for many weeks. But the major media establishment has worked to memory-hole the story, or otherwise to ascribe the revelations to a “Russian misinformation campaign.” Yet, Trump managed to air Biden’s dirty laundry with frequent allusions to his family’s business deals in Ukraine, Russia, China and Iraq.
The topic of immigration worked to Trump’s favor as he repeatedly asked Biden, “who built the cages, Joe?” He was referring to the cages immigrant children were placed in at the border – that were built under the Obama-Biden administration – which were turned into a Democratic talking point against Trump’s policies on fighting illegal immigration. And the president won when he referred to the “catch and release” policy that kept criminal immigrants in American communities, until he abolished it.
The topic of race should have played to Biden’s strengths, given that Trump has been called a racist by the media and the Democratic Party since embarking on his 2016 presidential bid. But Trump pointed to Biden’s passing of the 1994 crime bill that led to the disproportionate imprisonment of blacks for drug use. Notably, Biden was forced to admit that the bill was a “mistake.” Trump then highlighted his own record on black and Hispanic employment, his development of “opportunity zones” and his investment in historically black colleges and universities. When Biden tried to underscore his superior “character,” Trump again raised the specter of Hunter Biden’s multiple international business deals and the former vice president’s alleged involvement in them.
Finally, when it came to climate change, Trump claimed there were record drops in CO2 emissions in the US under his administration and underscored the supposed $100 trillion cost of Biden’s energy plan. Neither is exactly true – emissions declined under Trump, but slower than before, and the $100 trillion cost refers to the Green New Deal from which Biden had sought to distance himself despite calling it a “crucial framework.” But Trump played well around these issues, turning the tables and forcing Biden to admit that his energy plan included the elimination of fossil fuels. Trump then appealed to voters in states like Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas, where workers rely on jobs in oil and natural gas. The veracity of climate change never surfaced.
In the end, Biden’s campaign and the Democratic platform, including the New Green Deal, now rest on his “character.” Biden’s last call to character was more than a little ironic in light of allegations regarding the apparent use of his office to enrich his family and himself, potentially at the expense of national interests and security.
Soon, the U.S. election will be over, and whatever the result, the rationale for the Democratic anti-Trump press (faithfully parroted by the Canadian media) to incite public hysteria will be over
by Conrad Black
One more time, I inflict upon readers my grievous reservations about the response of this and many other countries to the coronavirus. The basic facts are that the coronavirus is not fatal to 99.997 per cent of people under the age of 65, and not fatal to 94.6 per cent of people above the age of 65. The vast majority of people of all ages, including the elderly, have zero or minimal symptoms when afflicted by it. The approximately 98 per cent of people who do contract the coronavirus and survive it appear to be thereafter largely immune to it, at least for a time. It is of the nature of this virus that it cannot be prevented from spreading; the only durable cure for a whole society is a vaccine, and as many as seven largely effective vaccines are in the final stages of development and some will likely be available by the end of this year. New Zealand triumphantly announced a couple of months ago that there were no remaining coronavirus cases in the country and, accordingly, its restrictive measures were being relaxed. Parliamentarians threw order papers in the air and there were street parties and nationwide festivities, but within a couple of weeks, and despite screening processes for arriving people, the coronavirus had returned. The process for discovering, testing and distributing a coronavirus vaccine has been the subject of such intense and universal interest that the normal time required has been reduced by over a year. Vaccines are rarely 100 per cent effective, but they do drastically reduce the incidence of the illness, and they strengthen the morale of afflicted populations.
Research also shows that over 80 per cent of fatalities attributed to the coronavirus in advanced countries that test comprehensively and report accurately are people who also suffer from other significant illnesses or vulnerabilities. The extent to which the coronavirus is the effective cause of death varies in each case and is sometimes nearly impossible to determine. But the underlying point is illustrated by the fact that the average age of people deemed to die from, or at least with, the coronavirus is within a few months of the actuarial life expectancy in each country; for example, the average age of Americans deemed to have died from the coronavirus and the average life expectancy of the American public are both 78. Almost all deaths are sad events, but the media has been irresponsible in its complicity in the maintenance of a higher degree of public anxiety than is justified by this illness. Our entire species has largely fallen into an excessive state of fear, evasion and defeatism.
There is also ample evidence to demonstrate the negative consequences of economic and societal shutdowns. Not only is the unemployment rate multiplied by between five and 10, a great many businesses including most aspects of the travel, hospitality and entertainment industries, are effectively strangled. Education is severely reduced in all respects by being conducted at home in many cases, even if supported by schools and universities. And many people suffer some degree of morose or depressive feelings, and develop substance dependencies as a result of prolonged solitude.
Persevering readers will recall that from the beginning, I opposed an economic shutdown. Instead, I recommended thinning groups and requiring masks in confined public areas and drastic protective measures for elderly or otherwise immunity reduced people. It was always a mistake to shut schools and universities; the students as well as the faculty and administrators beneath the age of 65 all have a very slight risk of suffering serious consequences from the coronavirus, and there is evidence to suggest that children do not transmit the virus as easily as they do simpler ailments like the measles, flu or cold viruses. Parents of school-age children are relatively invulnerable to the coronavirus.
But our whole society went cock-a-hoop for the shutdown and are now edging back toward it in Canada and Europe because of increasing incidences of the virus, generally unaccompanied either by increased fatalities or overloading of hospitals. Because those prevented from working by the pandemic are blameless in their fate, we have correctly adopted a generous method of compensating them. This is not fiscally sustainable indefinitely, however. We are effectively disincentivizing people from work at the same time that we prevent them from working and we are experimenting with an impossibly generous imposition of a guaranteed annual income. We are simply sending a salary drawn from borrowed money to unsustainably large numbers of adult citizens. We will be paying for it for a long time.
It has also been my contention that in Canada we have been too much influenced by aspects of the coronavirus crisis in the United States that have been driven by political tactics in the election campaign in that country. The incumbent administration was practically certain of re-election prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis. The Democratic opposition saw a path to victory by agitating for a gigantic economic shutdown, which would lead to an economic recession that could then be portrayed as a needless depression generated by incompetent public-health management on the part of the Trump administration, even though the administration was following its opponents’ advice in shutting down, and is bringing the nation back to work more quickly than had been thought possible. The U.S. economic growth rate was 32 per cent in the third quarter and the United States has vastly outperformed all other advanced countries in the world since coming out of lockdown.
But in Canada, we have been sluggishly and doggedly attached to a shutdown policy based on infection rates, even though our fatality rate has been comparatively good. I know that the motives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor John Tory and other Canadian leaders are in these matters sincere and commendable, but the policy has been mistaken from the beginning, and the longer it continues, the more damage it will cause. We are fundamentally shutting down the normal lives of up to 60 per cent of the population and the leisure time of 90 per cent of the population out of an exaggerated concern for only two per cent of the population who are in fact seriously vulnerable to this illness. It is not too late for Canada to show some leadership, even though we have been long preceded by Sweden, which wisely never imposed a general shutdown. But in around 10 days, the U.S. election will be over, and whatever the result, the rationale for the Democratic anti-Trump press (faithfully parroted by the Canadian media) to incite public hysteria will be over. The American media will cease to hammer public sensibilities with gruesome formulations about “grim milestones,” and other sombre fatuities. Canada will, as usual, plod along behind the Americans, without the excuse of an election, and continental unease will subside. We could have done so much better.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” - George Orwell
(What follows here is the text of a letter sent to the C-Span Politburo in the wake of the Steve Scully affair. Scully, is a Biden foot soldier and erstwhile network moderator of the second 2020 Trump/Biden presidential debate. Scully was caught seeking pre-debate advice from a never-Trump operative prior to the network debate that was cancelled anyway by Covid-19 fears. Scully lied to the American people and C-span brass about his per-debate e-mails and was subsequently “suspended indefinitely” which probably means we haven’t seen the last of Scully.)
To: Brian Lamb
I address this letter to the three of you because it appears the C-Span is run by some kind of anti-Trump management collective these days.
My first question is generic. When did C-Span become CNN?
More specifically, how does a partisan shill like Steve Scully get to be your front man in a presidential debate? How is he a “moderator” of any sort? Scully is cut from the same political cloth as Jeffery Toobin, except Scully has yet to be immortalized on a Zoom conference call.
You can’t possibly believe that his Biden bias is a one-off. Was Scully really the best impartial arbiter that you and the Presidential Debate Commission could find?
Commercial networks and urban fish wraps have always been partisan.
Many independents, myself included, relied on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and C-Span to provide verbatim, if not objective, reporting without spin. Alas, PBS has become another BBC where hard left politics dominate the Newshour, Amanpour, Washington Week, and The firing Line
The last vestiges of broadcast objectivity are cut adrift in America at PBS - and now C-Span.
Where do reasonable folks go to find impartial reporting these days? Your non-profit Kevlar is predicated on a public interest, balanced and fair reporting. Your tax-exempt status also is predicated on providing a public “service.”
Democrat Party spin is not service.
With Scully, like CNN, you have forfeited your integrity and reputation to a political pimp. And you now tell us that he is suspended! What does that mean? Does it mean Scully comes back dressed in another frock on another day.
Let me review your public mandate, your public promise, because apparently you don’t read or believe your own boiler plate:
“To provide elected and appointed officials and others who would influence public policy a direct conduit to the audience without filtering or otherwise distorting their points of view…. all without editing, commentary or analysis and with a balanced presentation of points of view.”
How do political hacks like Scully fill that bill?
The consequences of your tepid reaction to the Scully skullduggery are threefold: you validate the fake news shibboleth, you exacerbate the national divide, and you aggravate the Orwellian drift of American broadcast and print media.
In short, you undermine your status as a “charity” or “public service.”
What you need, lady and gentlemen, is a swift kick in your cooperate wallet. When you take sides, C-Span; you don’t just forfeit taxpayer trust, you put your tax-exempt fig leaf in jeopardy.
Your pronounced objectivity deficit, should be the objective evidence for revoking your tax exempt burka.
The author writes about the politics of national security.
Sudan Will Be Next to Normalize Relations with Israel
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sudan will soon be taken off the American list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has first to agree to pay $335 million dollars to the families of victims of Sudan-sponsored terrorism. And the next step, which is not being made explicit but that everyone understands is coming, will be for Sudan to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The full report is here.
President Donald Trump announced on Monday [October 19] the United States would remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism as soon as Khartoum sets aside $335 million for payments for American victims and their families.
The deal could also set in motion steps by Sudan toward establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, an American official told Reuters, following similar US-brokered moves in recent weeks by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The details and timing were still being worked out, the source said.
Though Trump made no mention of Israel in his tweet announcing the breakthrough with Sudan, rapprochement between Israel and another Arab country would give Trump a new diplomatic achievement as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3.
Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism dates to its toppled ruler Omar al-Bashir and makes it difficult for its transitional government to access urgently-needed debt relief and foreign financing.
Many in Sudan say the designation, imposed in 1993 because the United States believed Bashir’s government was supporting militant groups, is now undeserved since Bashir was removed last year and Sudan has long cooperated with the United States on counter-terrorism.
This is correct. Omar al-Bashir, the dictator of the Sudan who was removed from office in 2019, was for many years a supporter of Hamas, for which Sudan was both a base and a refuge. He also supported Al Qaeda, and even invited Osama bin Laden to stay in Sudan; Bin Laden bought a house on El Meshtal Street in Khartoum and lived there for four years. But ever since Al-Bashir was deposed in a palace coup in April 2019, the military men who now run Sudan have stopped support for Islamic terrorists. The Trump Administration is not bending its rules to now accommodate Sudan in order to have it establish relations with Israel; it is recognizing that the country has earned the right to be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
“S-Sudanese negotiations have focused on funds that Washington wants Khartoum to deposit in escrow for victims of al-Qaeda attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, U.S. government sources said.
“GREAT news! New government of Sudan, which is making great progress, agreed to pay $335 MILLION to U.S. terror victims and families,” Trump tweeted. “Once deposited, I will lift Sudan from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. At long last, JUSTICE for the American people and BIG step for Sudan!”
A Sudanese government source said Khartoum was ready to pay compensation to US embassy bombing victims….
A key sticking point in the negotiations was Sudan’s insistence that any announcement of Khartoum’s de-listing not be explicitly linked to normalization with Israel. Differences remain between Sudanese political and military officials on how far and how fast to go in warming of relations with Israel….
The $335 million that the Sudanese government is now prepared to pay the American victims of Sudan-sponsored terrorists (responsible for the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998) will wipe that financial slate clean. Following the first step — Sudan’s putting into escrow that $335 million – the second step will be the de-listing, by President Trump, of Sudan as a state sponsor of terror. The third step is for Congress to then restore Sudan’s sovereign immunity, which means that Sudan can no longer be sued in terrorism-related claims for past attacks. In the end, Sudan will come out way ahead financially. For once it is de-listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, it will be eligible for IMF and other loans, and for American and other Western aid, which is likely to be generous, in order to ensure that the current Western-leaning regime in Khartoum remains stable. Furthermore, the de-listing of Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism will make it a much more attractive prospect for Western investment, both public and private.
In this diplomatic dance, given that Khartoum has asked Washington not to explicitly link to its de-listing, will be the Sudan’s establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. A country that once hosted Osama bin Laden for four years will now be welcoming an Israeli ambassador. That will be one more astonishing achievement for the Trump Administration’s Middle Eastern diplomacy.
And like Washington, Israel has a stake in having the new Sudanese government succeed. The Israelis will no doubt be eager to share their agricultural know-how with Sudanese farmers, including the latest advances in drip irrigation, desalinization, and Israel’s astonishing advances in waste water management. Sudan is water-poor, and this is exactly where it most needs help for its agricultural base. Israel is also a world leader in solar energy, which could benefit Sudanese farmers; it is energy that can be produced and consumed in the same area, without the need of distant transmission through pipelines. And Sudanese oil that is now being used domestically could be replaced by solar energy, allowing the country’s oil to be sold abroad in its entirety, to obtain much-needed hard currency.
Sudan will find out soon enough just how much it can benefit from its economic ties with Israel. And that will encourage other Arab states to go and do likewise. Given all the mutually beneficial economic deals now being announced between Israel and the UAE, Israel and Bahrain, given that something of the sort may soon come to pass between Israel and Sudan, what Arab country will be next to hop on the juggernaut before it passes by?
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which is seeking to establish “what went wrong and why” in relation to past “institutional failure to protect children” from abuse, is investigating child sexual exploitation by “organised networks”.
Earlier parts of the inquiry, which have looked at institutions including the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, focused on many of the worst-known scandals involving such organisations. It was anticipated that the organised networks strand of the inquiry would examine the most infamous examples of group grooming and exploitation.
Sammy Woodhouse, a Rotherham victim, claimed that those running the statutory inquiry, which began in 2015 and has cost £143 million so far, “have not placed survivors at the forefront” and are “selective in what they decide to look at”. She added: “If you are going to get to the root of gang-related child sexual exploitation you need to go right to the heart of it. They are trying to bury what happened in places like Rotherham and Rochdale because they’re scared of being called racist.”
The article details the history of the grooming sex gang trials over this last 10 years, mentioning the most high profile; Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Peterborough, Halifax and Newcastle upon Tyne.
The IICSA held two weeks of public hearings for its “organised networks” investigation from late September, and a final day for closing submissions is due to take place on Thursday. It decided to hear no evidence from survivors or those with expert knowledge of the crime pattern.
The inquiry chose instead to select six areas of England and Wales: St Helens, Tower Hamlets in east London, Swansea, Durham, Bristol and Warwickshire “because they represent a range of sizes, demographics and institutional practices”. None of the six has witnessed a major prosecution of a south Asian sex-grooming gang. In all six areas, according to the 2011 national census, the proportion of the population that is of Pakistani origin is lower than the national average.
The Pakistani proportion of population in Tower Hamlets is pretty high if you were to define people of Bangladeshi origin as from East Pakistan, many arrived in London when the two countries were one, East and West Pakistan, the Muslim portion after the partition of India. The criminal activity in London has been small trials, 3 men abusing one girl is an example that springs to mind, or has been 'dealt with' without actual prosecutions. And in Bristol the abuse gang was Somali men, Muslims but from a different continent. So it isn't just a 'Pakistani' problem. It's a Muslim problem. Pakistani Christians are not involved. Sikhs are not involved as perpetrators, although Sikh girls have been victims. Jains and Buddhists and Tibetans are not involved.
Henrietta Hill, QC, lead counsel to the inquiry said that the inquiry decided not to focus on those area such as Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford which had received much public attention but tha it was more appropriate to focus on “different areas, not least because it was intended that this was a forward-looking investigation building on analysis that’s already been done”. Having my roots in that area I was quite looking forward to hear what Tower Hamlets had done about the incidents which reach public consiousness from time to time. The thwarted 'uck' parties over a kebab shop. The rumours of the goings on at Stratford MacDonalds (technically that is Newham, but I expect East London police divisions and councils to work together. Stratford and Mile End are one stop apart on the tube.) But I couldn't find it reported. That may be my lack of time to drill through the minutes.
One witness, Detective Chief Superintendent Daniel Richards of South Wales police, told the inquiry there was “no data” to support the suggestion that there were any incidents of child sexual exploitation related to gangs in the Swansea area.
Funny thing. The police in Barrow in Furness have been saying the same thing, and actually have a young woman in custody awaiting trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice because she insists that there is and she is a victim. Then lo! West Yorkshire police make arrests of men who have been abusing girls in Leeds and Cumbria, specifically Barrow in Furness. The trials are fixed for next year.
As chief crown prosecutor for northwest England, Mr Afzal led the groundbreaking 2012 prosecution of nine members of a sex-grooming network who took Rochdale girls across northern England to be sexually abused. He described the IICSA’s conduct of the investigation as “a nonsense”. “With the other strands of this inquiry it’s been about looking back at what went wrong to see what we can learn from those mistakes. This section decided it was going to look forward, but you can’t move forward without looking back at the failures.”
Ms Champion, who campaigns for the child victims of sexual exploitation, said the IICSA’s decision to exclude oral evidence of sex-grooming networks in northern England was extraordinary. “You have to question what they are trying to achieve. It’s more than a missed opportunity. So many survivors pinned their hopes on this inquiry getting to the truth.”
The inquiry’s final public hearings will take place in December. Reports will be published throughout next year with a final report due to be published in 2022.
President Jimmy Carterwas told that Ayatollah Khomeini was a man of God, who had promised that “American citizens and interests will be safe in his Islamic ruled Iran”. However, his anti-American rhetoric began, as soon as he arrived to Tehran. The take-over of the US embassy on November 7th of 1979, was proof that his regime can never be trusted or reformed. President Carter learned that Khomeini was not reliable, nor a man of God.
During the last 42 years the fake men of God have run a tyranny of mass killings and executions on the people of Iran. Despite their anti-America and anti-Israel rhetoric, their atrocities, regional terrorism and violations of all international rules and regulations, they have remained in power, under the diplomacy of preventing their access to nuclear bomb! However, history has proven that diplomacies have never prevented dictators’ access to nuclear bomb, they have just delayed them.
Obama Biden administration even rewarded Khamenei and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard, $143 Billion, and much more in cash, in the name of “diplomacy,” knowing well it will be all spent on purchasing arms to continue their terrorism, and expansion of their power in the region, to threaten Israel. Under the policies of diplomacy, countries have been decimated, millions have lost their homelands and become refugees, hundreds of thousands of humans have been killed by these fake men of God, who have been using the threat of making the forbidden Nuclear Bomb.
Yet again; Mr. Joe Biden’s Iran policy is still: “I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy”. However, Iranian people look at this policy as the empowerment of an evil regime that has fomented more wars, destructions of the cities, countries, tribes, and killings of Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, women and children, not counting all the lives of American soldiers killed in Iraq.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic regime, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been putting Iran on the auction block for votes of support in the UN, EU, etc. The recent treaty that China is entering into with Khamenei will give them economic and political control of the world, at least for the next 99-year duration of this treaty. China needs energy as in Iranian oil and gas, but Xi Jinping wants the control of the Persian Gulf, not only to control its energy sources, but to take over the US control of the region. Russia took over the Caspian Sea and Central Asia many years ago. Between Putin and Xi Jinping the guardians of the fake men of God, how will Mr. Biden’s “Credible path to Diplomacy” prevent the collapse of the western economy in the world of East vs. West?
We, the people of Iran, have revolted against the Islamic regime, time and again. We asked President Obama not to empower the dictatorial rule, but we were ignored. We have been massacred and executed. According to the World Day Against the Death Penalty Annual Report on Executions in Iran: “Between October 10, 2019, and October 8, 2020, the death penalty and executions have been the focus of 264 HRANA reports. Over this time period, the Iranian authorities issued the death penalty sentence to 96 individuals and have already carried out 256 executions including the executions of 2 juveniles.”
Iranian children’s school provided by their villagers
We have a proud ancient civilization, rooted on respect for human rights, equality and dignity of all people. During the last 42 years we, the people of Iran, have been completely isolated from the International Community. We want to take back our place of respect in the world. We want to live as Iranians, free from discrimination against our fellow citizens. We want our children to attend schools not labor. We are against gender apartheid, religious discrimination, and dictatorial rule. We deserve the right to demonstrate against Khamenei on the streets, without being arrested, tortured and hung, like the champion wrestler Navid Afkari, and the rearrested like Giti Pourfazel, an attorney who dared to write a letter signed by 13 other brave women to ask Khamenei to resign and leave their country.
We assure Western democracies that the dictatorial regime of the fake men of God is not reformable. Their history has proven it. “We have the right to live in a “secular” democracy.
The Iranian people don’t want war, dictatorial rule, gender apartheid, hungry working children and jobless poor population. If peace is important to the Western democracies, if the United States wants an Iran without the danger of nuclear bomb, this is our proposal:
Please let Khamenei know that they no longer have our support. End appeasement policies.
End arms deals and trade relations with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp.
No more meetings and negotiations with Mr. Zarif. Call in Western ambassadors from Tehran.
We also invite the Western media to please stand by the freedom seeking people of Iran. Instead of giving Zarif a platform, speak to Iranian opposition leaders. Report the truths about the crimes that the fake men of God have been committing against humanity during the last 42 years.
Like a fly blasted with insecticide, Biden and his campaign will buzz around for a few days in insouciant denial, but their levitation should finally be over.
by Conrad Black
The fraudulent Biden campaign effectively blew up on Thursday night in Nashville.
After five days of intensive subterranean preparation, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was coherent and gaffe-free for the first hour and got to the end without any horrifying blunders, though he trailed off into grammatical chaos and jumbled articulation a couple of times. There were relatively few interruptions and no persistent interruptions and neither candidate was acoustically or behaviorally irritating.
The moderator, Kristen Welker, was fair and efficient. President Trump skillfully cast himself as an “outsider” who gets and has produced results, facing an insider who has accomplished precious little useful after 47 years paddling and wallowing in the public trough and moving steadily to the left.
Trump finally gave a spirited and plausible defense of his COVID leadership and gave voice to the national impatience with a policy of panic and defeatism. He exhorted the audience: “Learn to live with it,” and the former vice president, in what presumably he thought was a clever rejoinder, said that “We will have to learn to die with it.” Trump, in turn, referred effectively, but unhistrionically, to his own bout with the coronavirus.
Trump’s dismissal of his opponent as “a politician, you’re all talk and no action” was a direct hit, especially when followed by demands to know what had been preventing Biden in his previous 47 years in Washington from doing what he now promises to achieve.
Trump debunked most of the traditional Democratic smears against him. He pointed at the fraudulence of most of the claims of illegally entering families from Latin America being separated from their children when most of the children are just props used to facilitate their entry, and when separated the pretended parents vanish into America and are never seen again.
Biden declined to acknowledge that it was the Obama Administration that built the “cages” on the southern border, and Trump finally hung the vice president and his family’s dealings with Ukraine, Russia, and China around his opponent’s neck like a toilet seat.
About the “Laptop from Hell”
Biden was pushed into claiming that the laptop of his son retrieved from a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware was a plant created by the Russians.
Although it appears that the Bidens collected approximately $10 million from Russia, China, and Ukraine while Joe Biden was vice president, the Democratic nominee solemnly declared that there was “nothing unethical” in his son’s conduct.
Biden clung to the moth-eaten fraud that the allegations against his son were Russian disinformation (despite U.S. intelligence community denials), and the latest Democratic counter-charge about Trump having a Chinese bank account was dismissed by the president with statements that he had opened one for corporate purposes but closed it two years before he became president. He further noted that the $750 referred to as his taxes in one year were a filing fee and that he had in fact pre-paid tens of millions of dollars in taxes. He reminded viewers that the IRS and the Mueller investigation had gone meticulously through all of his records and tax returns and had not found or alleged one misdirected cent.
At different times in the course of the 90-minute debate, Biden denied that his medical plan consisted of “socialized medicine,” though in fact that is what his “public option” would be. He claimed that no one lost their medical plans or doctor relationships under Obamacare, when it is a notorious and indisputable fact that millions of people did. He denied that in the debate over the Crime Bill in 1994 he had ever referred to African Americans as “super predators,” and he denied that he had ever advocated the banning of fracking. There are countless videos of his calling for a ban on fracking and of his disparaging references to the “super predators.”
What the Frack?
At one point in the exchange, at Biden’s invitation, Trump promised to post video evidence of Biden promising to ban fracking. And Trump promptly did. More importantly, though, Biden pledged zero carbon emissions in the United States by 2035, which means the total elimination of the oil and gas industries in all forms by then. This statement in itself should have won Trump the election; it almost certainly delivers Pennsylvania to him.
Biden foolishly returned to the charge of Trump being a “racist,” for which his only authority was the allegation that he had attempted to ban all Muslims from the country (Muslims are not a race and the charge is not true—he was banning anyone from terrorist-infested countries, most of which, it turns out, were majority Muslim countries), and the old canard that Trump had once dismissed all Mexicans who would come to the United States illegally as “rapists” and murderers. He had no reply to Trump’s statement that there could not be anyone in that room less racist than himself. (Biden only uttered the ghastly fiction “systemic racism” once.)
Biden had no reply when Trump pointed out that he had been firmer in dealing with Russia than had the Obama Administration or any president since Reagan, and the accusation of being too friendly with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un was easily rebutted by Trump’s remarks that the provocations from North Korea had ceased and that there was nothing in itself wrong with having civil relations with a politically distasteful foreign leader.
Biden dismissed this as nonsense and then went on to claim that we had “good relations with Hitler before the war.” (In fact relations with Hitler were frosty virtually from the moment he came into office a few weeks before Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Roosevelt withdrew the American ambassador after the infamous ”Kristallnacht” pogroms in November 1938 and neither country had an ambassador in the other’s capital again until the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949.)
At different times Biden said that he would “transition out of fracking” and “capture the emissions of fracking,” but none of it hit the right notes or sounded sincere, and instead constituted an unmistakable declaration of war against the entire oil industry. Biden’s attempt to justify his enthusiasm for the Paris Climate Accord was the usual feeble invocation of the “existential threat to humanity of global warming—the world will be at the point of no return in 10 years”; the supposedly unanimous scientists spouting that nonsense have passed through many points of no return in the last 40 years.
The entire Biden campaign, conducted by the media, not by the spavined candidate, has been Trump-hate and false allegations of COVID incompetence. On this night, there were no grounds for which to hate Trump, and his defense of his record in dealing with the pandemic was quite plausible. Trump did much better in his representation of his opponent as a shabby politician, a tool of both Wall Street and the extremists in his party, a “corrupt failure,” and someone in no position to be lecturing America about “morality and integrity.”
Biden has been caught red-handed monetizing the vice presidency and has been exposed as having no serious argument to make against the reelection of this president. Unless the rabidly dishonest partisan media manage an unheard-of paroxysm of Goebbelsesque misinformation, this debate should have been a turning point.
A snap Chicago Tribune-WGN poll showed 74 percent of people canvassed thought Trump won the debate; Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) declared that Trump had won the election. Like a fly blasted with insecticide, Biden and his campaign will buzz around for a few days in insouciant denial, but their levitation should finally be over.
Antisemitic Attack In Paris, WZO Head Yaakov Hagoel Wants to Find ‘Source of Antisemitism Worldwide’
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Antisemitic graffiti – 20 Swastikas – were spray-painted on October 9 in Paris, in the very poshest part of the city, right near the Louvre, along the Rue de Rivoli and the Place de la Concorde. The story is here.
Swastikas were spray-painted on walls and columns near the Louvre Museum in Paris’s first district on Saturday night.
A 31-year-old man was arrested at the scene and is suspected of spray-painting the 20 red swastikas on walls and columns in Place de la Concorde and Rue de Rivoli, according to French police.
Antisemitism continues to rage and raises its head without fear. This incitement is dangerous and could lead to bloodshed,” said Vice Chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the Head of the Department for Israel & Countering Antisemitism Yaakov Hagoel.
“I congratulate the authorities in Paris for arresting the despicable criminal. But unfortunately, it does not stop here. We must take a hard line and uproot the source of antisemitic hatred that is raging all over the world,” Hagoel went on to say….
The police have not released the name of the antisemitic dauber, but I’m sure they would have done so had he been a white Frenchman; they would be reluctant to identify him, however, if he’s a Muslim, which leads me to conclude that he must be. Paris, and France – and for that matter all of Europe – have seen a sharp increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish property by Muslim immigrants in the last few years. Most dramatic has been what has happened in Malmö, Sweden, once a center for Swedish Jewry. But the city is now one-third Muslim, and Jews there have endured so much harassment and physical attacks by Muslims that they have fled the city en masse, so that only 200 Jews are left in what was once the center of Jewish life in Sweden. Jews in major European cities are now fearful of wearing identifying Jewish garb – kippahs, or Star-of-David pendants – in public, and many no longer do so. Some who have worn kippahs have been set upon in the street by Muslims in German, British, and Belgian cities.
France has seen the worst examples of antisemitic violence by Muslims. There were the murders of four Jews in a kosher market in 2015. There was Ilan Halimi, the young Jewish man who was kidnapped by a Muslim gang and tortured over a period of three weeks, until he finally died of his injuries. There was the murder outside a Jewish school in Toulouse of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, and three children, including his two tiny sons Gabriel and Arieh, aged four and five, by Mohammed Merah.
There was Sarah Halimi, the 65-year-old Jewish woman attacked by a Muslim neighbor whom she had known since his childhood. He beat her almost to death, then threw her out of a third-floor window to finish the job. There was Mireille Knoll, the 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, who was stabbed and then set on fire by her Muslim attacker, Yacine Minoub. And there have been others, Jews harassed, beaten, forced to live in fear, by the Muslim migrants whom unthinking European governments have allowed into their countries in the dreamy belief that, as Pope Francis says, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.” Meanwhile, during Al Quds day, and on many other occasions, Muslims and their willing local leftist collaborators march through the streets of European cities, openly calling for the killing of Israelis, denouncing “Zionist conspiracies,” and chanting “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” Flags of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are on display, and imams regularly preach antisemitic verses from the Quran to the crowd in Farsi and Arabic. And having allowed millions of Muslim migrants into their midst, those same European governments do not dare admit either to their own people, or to themselves, the historic folly of what they have done.
Antisemitism continues to rage and raises its head without fear. This incitement is dangerous and could lead to bloodshed,” said Vice Chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the Head of the Department for Israel & Countering Antisemitism Yaakov Hagoel.
Yaakov Hagoel’s response leaves much to be desired. The “incitement” to which he refers and claims “could lead to bloodshed” has already led to the shedding of blood by Jews, caused by Muslims, in a half-dozen European countries and the U.S., with France leading the list. He ought to have said “the incitement to commit antisemitic acts has in the past, and does so now, and will in the future, lead to the shedding of Jewish blood.”
Then there is this remark by Hagoel:
“I congratulate the authorities in Paris for arresting the despicable criminal. But unfortunately, it does not stop here. We must take a hard line and uproot the source of antisemitic hatred that is raging all over the world,” Hagoel went on to say.
Hagoel refers to, but carefully does not identify, that “source of antisemitic hatred that is raging all over the world.” But if we continue to be afraid to name it, how do we fight it, much less “uproot” it? The “hate-whose-name-we-dare-not-speak” is a prescription for policy paralysis. Why shouldn’t Hagoel say something like this: “Today’s main sources of antisemitic hatred are not to be found among neo-Nazis and the far-right, but among Muslims, some of whom refer to the Qur’an and Hadith as the sources of their hatred of Jews.” He should not avoid mentioning, but dare to adduce, the textual evidence of Islamic antisemitism: that is, the many Qur’anic passages that denounce Jews for a multitude of sins. But to soften the blow, Hagoel could add: “We allow ourselves to believe that with the cooperation of the many Muslims who do not share these views, we will be able, perhaps not to eradicate, but at least to reduce to manageable levels, the antisemitism that is now plaguing the world.”
Does Yaakov Hagoel dare to do this? Or will he, entrusted at the highest level of Jewish communal life with the responsibility for combating antisemitism – his official title is Vice Chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the Head of the Department for Israel & Countering Antisemitism – continue to shy away from identifying the true source of almost all the antisemitic acts in the world today? And how long will such fearfulness prevail, not only with Yaakov Hagoel but with other Jewish leaders, too, who prevent home truths from being told about Islam as “the source of antisemitic hatred that is raging all over the world”? How can they fight Muslim antisemitism if they refuse even to name it?
It is not often that a middle aged, 47 year old, high school teacher is stabbed and beheaded in broad daylight in a street in the suburbs of Paris. Samuel Paty, a history and geography teacher, at the school in Conflans-Sainte Honorine suffered this fate. He had given an eight grade lesson civics lesson on the contours and limits of free speech during which he showed two cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine, which depicted the prophet Muhammed. One showed a naked individual on his hands with genitals exposed, and a star on his backside, with a caption reading, “Muhammad, a star is born.” Paty, conscious that the cartoons were controversial, suggested that students look away for a few seconds if they thought they would be shocked.
A man named Brahim Chnina, a parent of a female student in Paty’s class, was informed of the event, even though she was not in class during the lesson, and posted three videos on social media attacking Paty, demanded his dismissal, and called on people to act. He was assisted in making the videos by Abdelhakim Sefrioui , an extreme Islamist of Morocco origin , notable for his antisemitic sermons at the exit of mosques, who claimed to be a member of the Council of Imans in France. Following these videos, Paty was interrogated by the French police, and explained the event, a discussion of free speech, to them.
Probably affected by these videos, a young man, 18 year old, named Abdoullakh Abouyezidvitch, a national of Chechen origin, who was born in Moscow and lived as a refugee in France, on October 16, 2020 killed Paty who was on the way home from school, and claimed responsibility for the crime before being shot by the police. The assassin who was unfamiliar with his victim had paid, giving 300- 350 euros, two school students to identify Paty. The two students stayed with the assassin waiting for Paty to come out of the school.
The brutal murder caused a stir. Demonstrations and makeshift memorials were held in homage to Paty, flowers were placed at the site of his death, and marches took place in several cities, including one with several thousand in Paris. Crowds brandished the French tricolor flag. Many people, echoing the slogan, “Je suis Charlie,” adopted by supporters of free speech and freedom of the press after the murders by Islamists on January 7, 2015 of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, carried signs “Je suis Samuel.” On October 21, 2020, Paty was given posthumously the Legion d’Honneur in a ceremony at the Sorbonne in Paris, the symbolic embodiment of the spirit of enlightenment. French teachers, though often underpaid, personify the enlightenment. Paty it was proclaimed embodied the values of the French Republic. In his teaching he encouraged students to think critically.
There are two central questions. One is whether the outpouring of emotion and solidarity will lead to resolute action in preservation of those values. The other is not whether there will be another attack, but when. The Republic is still confronted by Islamist refusal to tolerate or accept criticism of their faith as the attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo showed. Admittedly, Charlie Hebdo was and is controversial, referring to itself as “an irresponsible paper.” But it can be considered in the one aspect of the venerable traditional style of French journalism, the slaying of heinous dragons using language, not only controversial but also may be insolent, garish, and ribald. Islamists regarded its cartoons of Muhammed as unacceptable, and the murders of journalists in January 7, 2015 and others in October 16, 2020 are viewed as occasions for avenging the prophet, and declaring Allahu Akbar, God is great.
For some years France has struggled with the issue of Islam and tenson with its Muslim community. Its secularist ethos has led to ban in school rooms on Muslim headscarves and religious symbols. The October 2020 murder has led to governmental action being taken, adding to the 73 mosques, private schools and work-places, that have been closed since the beginning of the year. The government closed the pro-Hamas group, Cheikh Yassine Collective, the French group named in 1987 after the founder of Hamas who was killed by an Israeli strike in 2004. Its head, Abdelhakim Sefrioui, mentioned above, had denounced Paty in a video, and was thus indirectly implicated in his murder.
Many issues are involved in the struggle against Islamism. The first is that the murder of Paty was the latest example of Islamist terror, the second attack with a knife in a month. On September 25, 2020 an 18 year old immigrant of Pakistani origin using a butcher’s knife, a meat cleaver, had stabbed two people in Paris and seriously wounded them.
Seeking revenge against Charlie Hebdo he had acted outside what he thought was the office of the magazine, but he was mistaken since the magazine had moved to secret quarters. The assailant had not been known to the French police, but his father said that “the God’s prophet had chosen him and assigned him to kill the blasphemers.”
The danger remains whether the brutal murder of Paty will inspire other young Islamists , lone wolves, to carry out similar atrocities, and has left a clear path for others to follow. This is proclaimed in the English language monthly magazine, The Voice of Hind, produced by supporters of ISIS for the Indian subcontinent, which urged followers to emulate the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It called on followers to take revenge on everyone who has insulted “our beloved messenger. Our swords will not stop defending the honor of the prophet Muhammed.”
A significant issue, one which is currently troubling the U.S. as a result of actions by Facebook and Twitter, is the impact of social media, the speed of messages that are broadcast. Extremist Islamists have been affected by those media. After seeing the videos, the killer of Paty had come from his home in Evreux, Normandy, more than 50 miles from Paris to commit the crime. Immediately after the crime, leaders and representatives of social media groups were summoned by a government minister to discuss the problem. Marlene Schiappa , minister in charge of citizenship, urged them to take more responsibility for what is on their platforms and to counter what she called “cyber-Islamism.” The government has already tried to increase controls on social media. The paradox is that France has passed a law to control internet hate but the important clause in the law that the social media remove hateful media within 24 hours was struck down by the Constitutional Court as detrimental to free speech. It is an open question whether the beheading of Paty will lead to changes in social media policies in France, and influence attitude towards the media in other countries including the U.S.
The French government has acted on this and wider issues. The security authorities are examining 51 associations, including religious schools and mosques, and has begun inquiring into extremist opinions expressed on online sources. Islamic organizations are being investigated especially the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, CCIF, and Baraka City that claims to be a humanitarian organization.CCIF supposedly monitors attacks against Muslims, but is now accused of being connected with the murder of Paty. Baraka has previously been investigated for financing terrorism. Though it presents itself as a humanitarian and charitable association based on Islamic values, it is linked to radical Islamist movements. Its founder and leader, a man named Idriss Sihamedi verbally attacked Charlie Hebdo, praying that the flames at the graves of the journalists should be increased. He was arrested on October 20, 2020.
President Emmanuel Macron at the ceremony for Paty on October 21 at the Sorbonne spoke passionately. Paty , he said, was a victim of hate, slain by cowards for representing the secular, democratic values of the Republic against those who transformed religion into a weapon of war. Already earlier this month on October 2, Macron declared action against “Islamic separatism,” which he defined as an ideology of radical Islam which claims its own laws and seeks to create a parallel order which would be superior to those of the Republic. Macron declared that associations that indoctrinated children would be banned as well as all foreign interference in religious activity in France. The general French policy is to ban organizations that do not adhere to the secular institutions of the Republic.
The trial of those accused of being accomplices to the terrorists who killed murdered people in Charlie Hebdo office and the Jewish supermarket in Paris in January 2015 is going on.
Their punishment will be a hopeful sign that in France the lights will not go out.
What does a be-heading mean? It is an act meant to terrorize, paralyze, and silence onlookers and a signature form of Islamic murder.
by Phyllis Chesler
We all know that truth has died and hate speech has triumphed in the West—and both in the name of free speech; that writers, the media, publishers, the academy, governments, “progressives,” and most international bodies will not write, teach, or publish anything that accurately portrays Islamic gender and religious apartheid, the existence of black slaves today, the ongoing and literal crucifixion of Christians, and the honor killing of women in Muslim lands.
If you do focus on such subjects, you may get sued, fined, exiled, publicly shamed, shunned, or forced to live in hiding with police protection (if you’re lucky); otherwise, it's at your own expense.
However, you may also be beheaded.
French schoolteacher, Samuel Paty, has just been beheaded by a Muslim refugee from Chechnya, in a suburb of Paris. His crime? With delicacy and sensitivity, he presumably told any Muslim students who may be there to avert their eyes or even leave the classroom for a moment—and then he showed two of the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. He was trying to teach his class about secular French values which do not include any law or custom in which “blasphemy” or criticism of any religion is forbidden.
Muslim parents and Imams escalated indignation on the internet and on the street outside the school. The 18 year old Chechen brought the knife, yelling “Allahu Akhbar” as he savagely sliced away at Paty’s head.
What does a be-heading mean? It is an act meant to terrorize, paralyze, and silence onlookers. It is certainly meant to silence the victim, to literally cut off his identity, separate his consciousness from his body. It is a way of protesting what he may be thinking, or punishing him for “insulting Islam” or for being different in any way, for being an infidel, a Jew, a dissident, a secularist, an apostate, a homosexual, a feminist.
Like acid attacks, which also disfigure one’s identity and which are so common in south east and central Asia, be-headings are also a signature forms of Islamic murder.
Look up beheading online and you will first find many Christian examples e.g. the decapitation of St. John the Baptist, the use of the guillotine in France during their bloody Revolution. Many pages into your search, you will begin to see 21st century Muslim videos of Islamists beheading Western journalists, humanitarian activists, journalists, free thinkers, secularists, Christians, and Jews.
According to history professor, Timothy R. Furnish, in Middle East Quarterly, there is a basis for beheading in the Qu’ran.
“Sura (chapter) 47 contains the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly." The Qur'anic Arabic terms are generally straightforward: kafaru means "those who blaspheme/are irreligious," although Darb ar-riqab is less clear. Darb can mean "striking or hitting" while ar-riqab translates to "necks, slaves, persons." With little variation, scholars have translated the verse as, "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks."
Who can forget Daniel Pearl’s savage and sickening be-heading which his killers video-ed? His crime? He was a Jew, and was therefore considered a Zionist, the crime of all crimes.
What else might I say about Islamic terrorism in France?
Jean Raspail said it all in the 1970s in his brilliant, raw, dystopian novel In the Camp of the Saints, for which he was demonized as a racist. (My early writing about this work led to my being defamed as a racist).
Bat-Yeor’s work warned us about the coming of Eurabia. She, too was demonized as an Islamophobe.
Oriana Fallaci weighed in with biting passion and was also defamed as a racist, silenced via lawsuit in both France and Italy, and forced to live in exile in America.
Islamists in France have blown up Parisians who are out for an innocent evening of entertainment (the Bataclan mass murders); they’ve shot the most creative of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo; they’ve stabbed and shot Jews on the street and in kosher supermarkets.
Vicariously, we have all lived through the agonizing Muslim torture-murders of Jews Ilan Halimi and Sarah Halimi (no relation) in Paris; the (fake) ice cream truck rampage on Bastille Day in Nice, the day that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove his truck into six hundred living human beings, killing 86 and injuring 485 others.
And then there are all the Muslim car rammings, stabbings, street beatings, and harassment of Jews all over France.
The handwriting is off the wall. And yet, despite the public and government outrage and announcements of getting it to stop, will France actually have the courage to deport many millions of jihadists and potential jihadists who may not be refugees, who may be French citizens?
Notice: I’ve written “jihadists” not “Muslims.”
Will France have the wisdom, the will, and the resources to separate out “jihadists” from those Muslim citizens who themselves are in flight from Jihad and who want to lead modern French lives, both secular and religious?
Ah, La Belle France.
I wrote my college dissertation on Henri Beyle, aka Stendhal. I was also reading novelists Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, Collette, Celine, and Camus, as well as poets Baudelaire, Proust, Rimbaud, Verlaine, in college. I have visited France many times. My last time there, I stayed in Nice. I stood on the Corniche, where the Muslim Jihadist ice cream truck driver perpetrated his rampage.
When I was there, the Mediterranean still sparkled, the yachts and cruise ships preened on by, the sun shone, the beach was fully occupied—as if there had been no screams, no sound of bones snapping, no anguish, no blood, as if nothing like this had ever happened.
When I discovered, through copious research, that the hotel I was in had a Vichy Nazi past that they had smoothly covered up—I vowed never to return to France.
This month is the 20th anniversary of the October 12th lynching of two Israeli reservists, Vadim Norzhich (z”l) and Yosef Avrahami (z”l) in Ramallah.
As in Gaza, so in Paris. I dedicate this column to their memory.
Prof. Phyllis Chesler is a Ginsburg-Ingerman Fellow at the Middle East Forum, received the 2013 National Jewish Book Award,.authored 20 books, including Women and Madness and The New Anti-Semitism, and 4 studies about honor killing, Her latest books are An American Bride in Kabul, A Family Conspiracy: Honor Killing and A Politically Incorrect Feminist.
This week, in a truly shocking development, a CBS reporter named Bo Erickson actually asked Joe Biden to comment on the revelations surrounding a laptop purported to belong to his son, Hunter. Former Vice President Biden, who was boarding an airplane, was clearly agitated and refused to comment, calling it a "smear" and basically insulting the reporter.
"I have no response. I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.”
That is about as close as the mainstream media has come to trying to find out the truth about the laptop and the alleged emails to and from Hunter Biden indicating that he was trading on his father's name in order to do business with China and Ukraine. Other than Fox News, the New York Post, which broke the story, and Mr Erickson, our media is trying its best to bury this story.
CNN continues to ignore the story while trying to deal with the latest in their own embarrassing stories with one of their talking heads, this time, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who is "taking some time off". Over at MSNBC, Joy Reid used it to bring up a hit piece on President Trump's children while calling the Hunter Biden story, "fake".
Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Adam Schiff (D-CA) is calling the story another Russian government disinformation piece designed to interfere in our election. Never mind that he has no basis for making such a charge and zero evidence to support it. In rebuttal, the FBI and Justice Department have gone on record this week stating that there is no "Russian connection" to this scandal.
Here is something else that is worth noting. Neither Biden nor his campaign has made any specific denial that the laptop in question (which was turned over to the FBI) belongs to Hunter Biden. Nor are they denying the emails that have been reported. The most that Joe Biden has said to this point that I am aware of is that it is a "smear", and that neither he nor his family has traded on the Biden name as has been alleged. Wouldn't you expect those type of specific denials from Joe Biden? And where is Hunter Biden these days? Where are the reporters camped out in front of his house? Does anyone even know where to look for him?
Of course, the Bidens know that there is a living witness to the story-the computer repair shop owner, who saw the material on the laptop and who apparently stands ready to corroborate everything. It has also been revealed this week that there is a receipt with Hunter Biden's signature on it. Joe Biden also knows that the laptop in question is in FBI custody and has been referred to the US Attorney's office in Delaware.
What we have not heard from Biden or his camp is a statement along the lines of: "the laptop in question does not belong to Hunter Biden", or, "the emails that have been reported are false". He might also throw in something like, "any reports that the laptop shows Hunter using crack cocaine and engaging in sex acts are false". None of that. Instead, they are attacking Rudy Giuliani for his role in the turning over of the material.
As far as the alleged meeting in 2015 in Washington with a Burisma official named Vadiym Pozharskyi, the Biden camp has stated that a review of then-Vice President Biden's schedule reflects no such meeting as being scheduled. That is hardly conclusive. Unscheduled meetings happen all the time with Washington officials.
Then there is Joe Biden's reference to the CBS reporter about the "smear." It's an ugly word with all sorts of negative connotations, but sometimes, a smear can be true. For example, when people bring up Monica Lewinsky and her affair then-President Bill Clinton, that is a smear against Clinton-but it is a true smear. So Joe Biden calling the story a "smear" is not really a denial.
Of course, all this is going to be asked of Joe Biden in Thursday's debate, right? It's the elephant in the back of the room, and it should be the first question asked, right? Don't get your hopes up. The debate is being moderated by pro-Biden Democrat Kristin Welker of NBC. In addition, the Commission on Presidential Debates intends to cut off the microphone of the candidate(s) when "appropriate". So if Welker says nothing about the Hunter Biden issue, and Trump tries to bring it up, we can now look forward to his microphone being cut off.
And then there are social media giants, Facebook and Twitter, trying to short-circuit any discussions about this story while they "fact-check" it.
And to cap it all off, should Biden win this election, once the new administration comes into office and a new attorney general sets up the new Justice Department, we can rest assured that any further investigation of Hunter Biden will quietly disappear-just as the on-going investigations into the corrupt practices of the Obama administration in trying to take Trump down before, during, and subsequent to the 2016 election- will also quietly disappear.
An old colleague of mine once said decades ago, "the only thing the people need to know is the ball scores". That thought may now be coming true. At least we will know who won the World Series.
THE ILLIBERAL LEFT: DO THEY INTEND TO PUNISH TRUMP SUPPORTERS FOR THEIR THOUGHT CRIMES?
by Howard Rotberg
“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” - George Orwell, 1984
Former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and professor at the leftist University of California Berkeley, Robert Reich tweeted recently:
“When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”
This Orwellian suggestion, of course, has nothing to do with discovering truth or reconciling opposing parties in the nation. The truth is whatever Professor Reich and his colleagues says it is. And the reconciliation is meant to punish those guilty of thought crimes for supporting Trump’s agenda of draining the swamp created by Democrat party officials and sympathetic media, bureaucrats, and professors.
Popular You Tube and Fox News commentator Dan Bongino responded to Reich:
“You've been warned—liberal (Democrats) are looking for revenge. And they're not kidding. What they can't win democratically, they'll punish tyrannically."
Libby Emmons, writing in the Post Millenial, notes:
“In addition to this Commission, Reich is calling for a blacklist of Trump supporters. It is unclear as to what he would like to happen to the people named by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or how it would be determined who should be on it.”
If this sounds McCarthyesque to you, then you still have a sense of political morality, notwithstanding the insanity that has swept the Democratic Party and its apologists in mainstream media and the academy. Here is Mark Bulgutch, a Canadian Professor of Journalism at the leftist Ryerson University, who was a former senior executive producer of Canada’s government owned CBC News, writing in Canada’s largest newspaper, the leftist Toronto Star, making clear his extremist anti-Trump mentality:
“History’s verdict on Donald Trump’s presidency will be savage. Future generations will find it hard to believe that this cruel, crude, ignorant, and probably criminally corrupt, man, was ever elected. Trump’s name will forever be synonymous with disgrace ... The Trump contingent has much to answer for. We know that the soon-to-be former president will never back down from his version of what happened. He may not even know the difference anymore between what is true and what is a lie. The rest of us do.”
He is certainly entitled to his opinion. But then this fellow, who educates future journalists, writes this:
“Now that the end is near, I have some advice for those who have been his willing enablers. It’s time to come up with some good reasons you did what you did. The likes of Mitch McConnell, who pushed his agenda in the senate, Sarah Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany who lied for him from the White House press room, Kellyanne Conway who dissembled for him and invented the parallel universe where “alternative facts” thrived, Rudy Giuliani who defended the indefensible and proposed that “truth isn’t truth,” Bill Barr who allowed the U.S. Department of Justice to ignore the basic premise that no man is above the law.”
“Each and every one of his sycophants will have to answer for the last four years. (my emphasis)
“My guess is that many of them will try to escape the stain of their service to the blustering bully. They will say they recognized Trump’s failings both as a president and as a human being. They will say they stayed on to try to restrain his wild impulses. They will say that without them, it would have been worse.
“If that’s their plan, they’d better have kept a paper trail. It won’t be enough to say their hearts were in the right place. They’ll have to document the orders they ignored, the plans they scuttled, the fiats they modified, the whims they deflected, the decisions they watered down. Without that kind of solid physical proof, the henchmen and henchwomen won’t be off the hook.”
And if the foregoing is not bad enough, this from the Professor should really scare you:
“When the inevitable tell-all books are written by those who must explain, don’t let them talk their way out of their complicity. Make them prove their case.” (my emphasis)
So those supportive of the President are not only warned that they will have to “answer” for their actions or words in some unspecified manner, but they will face what we lawyers call a “reverse onus”: while generally in criminal law the Government has the onus to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Professor Bulgutch advocates making the Trump loyalists “prove their case”. Professors Reich and Bulgutch seem to have in mind a totalitarian “truth commission” where anyone who supported Trump must prove their innocence, rather than the state proving their guilt. This type of commission often is built on getting apologies from those who who supported the “evil regime” which might have oppressed Blacks or Indigenous peoples. In our new hierarchy of victimhood, everyone at the bottom of the list must apologize (and compensate (?) everyone higher on the victim list.
Many small businesses in large American Democrat-run cities feel that they are under the threat of more violent protests and destruction of their properties if Trump is re-elected.
George Orwell in his brilliant dystopian novel 1984 warned us about those seeking power above all else: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power – pure power.”
Just think about the variety of ways that the Democrats have sought to overturn the results of the 2016 election in their pursuit of power.
1. Spying on the Trump campaign and early stage presidency. Abuse of the FISA process to get illegal warrants to spy.
2. The fake Russian collusion charge which took up years of time and millions of dollars as the Mueller investigation turned up no evidence.
3. The phony impeachment charge based on supposed collusion with Ukraine for one letter where the impeachment charges, stood no chance of being approved in the Senate, and which charges were not even impeachable offences. In fact, we now know that it was Hillary Clinton that colluded with the Russians and Joe and Hunter Biden were colluding with Russian, Ukraine and China.
4. Joe Biden’s tweet the day after President Trump’s January 31, 2020 banning of flights from China, that Trump has shown “a record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering, which Democrats have ever since tried to twist its plain meaning into something not related to the travel ban.
5. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. read into the Congressional record his own "parody" version of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky without noting he'd made it all up. By this May, the Wall Street Journal reported that recently released documents proved that Schiff was aware along that there was no Trump-Russian collusion.
6. Nancy Pelosi blaming Trump for Coronavirus deaths when she invited masses of people to come to San Francisco’s ChinaTown when there should have been a lockdown; and her disregard of the lockdown to get her hair done by a closed hair stylist and not wearing a mask. And her ripping up of the State of the Union address. And her refusal to properly criticize Ilhan Omar for her anti-Semitic statements.
We can go on and on. Trump opponents can cite all the ways they disagree with him, but the American democracy does not give the losing party the right to lie and cheat to take down the winning party, or to breach the Constitution to exact revenge.
Joe Biden still alleges that Trump at Charlottesville said white nationalists were fine people when he clearly said that there are fine people on both sides of the issue of taking down statues of historical figures. The Democrats still try to target the President as a supporter of white supremacists, when he has disavowed them numerous times on tape.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris do not criticize the violent looting and destruction of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They do not seek to identify and prosecute the leaders and financial backers of these horrible people. In fact, Harris has directed funds to pay bail to get violent accused people out of jail.
Are we allowed to question whether China may have used the Wuhan Virus as a weapon of war, and are we allowed to comment on how Chinese experts on internet censorship have been hired by Facebook? The New York Post reports that there are at least half a dozen Chinese nationals who are working on censorship in Facebook’s Seattle office.
In Orwellian fashion the team is called the Hate-Speech Engineering team.
All of the foregoing has created a mentality that should really worry us. The President of a Jewish organization in Toronto, which has a long history of identifying leftist anti-Semitism, has forwarded to me a note allegedly left at a home in Florida, which oozes the kind of hatred that we Jews have to contend with, although it doesn’t specifically target Jews (yet):
“You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter.
“Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.
“We recommend that you check your home insurance policy and make (sic) that it is current and that it has adequate coverage for fire damage.
“You have been given ‘Fair Warning’.
“Always remember that it was ‘you’ that started this Civil War.
“Be prepared to face the severe consequences of your pre-emptive actions against democracy.”
We should not really be surprised to see this, when the media and big tech utilize their raw power to censor stories that show criminal and unethical conduct by Joe and Hunter Biden, such as the current email evidence from several sources showing that Joe Biden, notwithstanding his statements to the contrary, was a full participant in the influence peddling and bribes now disclosed, and the conflict arising between their personal financial interests in China and U.S. foreign policy and national security dictates.
The New York Post is a reputable newspaper, fourth largest in the U.S. and 200 years old. Facebook and Twitter not only censor any sharing of this story but have shut down the Post’s own accounts in a clear effort to censor. The rest of the American media don’t see any problem with Joe Biden hiding from media questions on this and for not carrying in their newspapers what could be the most explosive news story of the year.
The usual Democrats whose truthfulness should forever be challenged due to what they said during the Mueller commission and the Impeachment trial, now assert the Biden emails are (you guessed it) Russian “disinformation.” However, The Department of Justice agrees with spy chief John Ratcliffe’s assessment that emails published by the Post from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden are not part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
What can we do when the New York Post and Fox News are the only news organizations willing to report on these stories? And what will people like me do when we have to prove our cases before a Truth Commission? Will the Commission believe me or the New York Times?
Howard Rotberg writes on political culture, values and ideologies. His two latest books are The Ideological Path to Submission... and what we can do about it and Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed. He writes periodically for New English Review, FrontpageMagazine, Israel National News and others. He is president of Canada’s sole conservative publishing house, Mantua Books - www.mantuabooks.com.-