Would a supporter of Israel really fill his foreign policy staff with those who hate the Jewish State?
Just days after Joe Biden was inaugurated, pro-Erdogan Turkish journalist Hakkı Öcal, according to Ahval News, “highlighted a report on the strong presence of Jews in the cabinet of U.S. President Joe Biden.” The report claimed that there was an “over 50 percent Jewish presence in the new U.S. cabinet,” and pointed Secretary of State Antony Blinken and CIA Deputy Director David Cohen, among others. But Öcal was off base: among Biden’s handlers, Jewish and non-Jewish, there are few, if any, staunch friends of Israel. After just a few months in office, it was clear that Joe Biden’s handlers’ administration was shaping up to be the most anti-Israel presidency since the founding of the modern State of Israel.
Robert Malley, Special Envoy to Iran, has become notorious over the years for his support for Iran’s Islamic regime and pronounced distaste for Israel. The Washington Times revealed in February 2021 that back in July 2019, “Iran’s smooth, English-speaking foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser, in an apparent bid to undermine the Trump team and lay the groundwork for post-Trump relations.”
Malley was a good choice for such an assignment. An Israeli security official noted in February 2008 that Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.” Obama dropped Malley in May 2008 after it came to light that he had met with representatives of Hamas, but six months later sent him as an envoy to Egypt and Syria.
Meanwhile, Reema Dodin is a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. According to the Jerusalem Post, “during the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, California, saying that ‘suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people.’” Also, “in 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel….The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.”
In a similar vein, Biden’s handlers appointed Maher Bitar the Senior Director for Intelligence on the National Security Council. In 2006, while a student at Georgetown University, Bitar was a member of the executive board of the viciously pro-jihad, anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, and was seen dancing in front of a banner that said “Divest from Israel Apartheid.”
The Deputy Secretary of State is Wendy Sherman, who was the lead negotiator of Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. The State Department’s undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights is Uzra Zeya. According to the Jewish News Service, Zeya “worked for the magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its publishing group, American Educational Trust. The Washington Report has questioned the loyalty American Jews have to the United States; published accusations against the ‘Jewish lobby’; claimed American Jews control the media; and accused the Mossad of perpetrating the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine is Hady Amr. In an unhinged 2002 rant, Amr repeated Palestinian jihad propaganda, declaring: “I have news for every Israeli: a very large proportion of the more than 150 million children and youth in the Arab World now have televisions, and they will never, never forget what the Israeli people, the Israeli military and Israeli democracy have done to Palestinian children.”
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy is Colin Kahl. According to Israel Hayom, “Kahl has quite the anti-Israel record. He thinks the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq was 1981 was a mistake. In 2012, he acted to remove recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic party’s platform. In 2015, he was among those to formulate the Iran nuclear deal. In 2016, at the end of his term, then-US President Barack Obama tasked him with enlisting support for the anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that determined Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were a violation of international law.”
Have Biden’s handlers appointed a balancing group of strong supporters of Israel, who will move to prevent this unsavory group (which is larger than just those named here) from disrupting America’s relationship with its strongest, most reliable ally in the West? Is there any brake to the ability of the anti-Israel group in Biden’s administration to force Israel to make potentially life-threatening concessions to the Palestinian jihad force. The answer to both questions is no.
The pope was making a theological point, that all human beings are sinful, and that this destruction is a manifestation of that sinfulness. But it is also noteworthy that he ascribed the destruction he saw to all of humanity, and decried nations that sell weapons, but never said a word about why the ruined buildings he saw were destroyed in the first place. The Islamic State destroyed mosques because the people who attended them did not accept their authority, and were thus apostates in rebellion against the caliphate. It destroyed churches because they were places of unbelief (see Qur’an 5:17, 9:30, etc.) and shirk, the association of partners with Allah in worship. But there was never any possibility that the pope might ask the assembled Muslim leaders to fight against jihad violence and teach their people to refrain from jihad violence. After all, the pope has committed himself and the Catholic Church to the proposition that Islam is peaceful and has nothing to do with terrorism, so as far as he was concerned, there was nothing for him to ask the Muslim leaders about. And that rendered the trip a useless and indeed counterproductive exercise.
“Pope Francis dismisses ‘heresy’ charges for his commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue,” by Claire Giangravé, Religion News Service, March 8, 2021:
VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Aboard the papal flight back from Iraq, the first papal trip since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis addressed criticism of those who have accused him of being “one step away from heresy” in his commitment to promoting human fraternity among the world’s faiths.
“There are some critics who say the pope is not brave but reckless, that he’s taking steps against Catholic doctrine, that he’s one step from heresy,” the pope told journalists on Monday (March 8).
Francis said that his decision to speak with Muslim religious leaders and promote interreligious dialogue is “always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice.” He said that his efforts to mend Christian-Muslim relations, far from being “capricious,” are in keeping with the doctrine laid out by the Second Vatican Council….
On Saturday (March 6), the pope met in Najaf, a holy city to Shia Muslims, with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leader. The historic meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, was the first official meeting between a pope and a prominent Shiite representative.
The pope described al-Sistani as “a humble man” who has “wisdom and prudence,” adding that “it was good for my soul to encounter him.” Francis said the meeting was “a duty in his pilgrimage of faith” to promote human fraternity among religions….
It was the tragic decimation of the Yazidi ethnic community by the Islamic State group following the 2014 occupation of Northern Iraq that inspired the pope to make the trip, he said. The book “The Last Girl” by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, which described the suffering of the Yazidi people, “provided the background for the decision,” he said.
On Sunday (March 7), Francis viewed the ruins of mosques and churches in Mosul, the capital of the Islamic State during the occupation. He said he “had no words” after seeing the scale of destruction. “Human cruelty, our cruelty, is impossible to believe,” he added.
The pope also criticized those nations selling weapons, though he didn’t single out any particular country….
Among the topics addressed by the pope during the trip was the question of the suffering of immigrants, which has been a main focus of this pontificate. Francis met with the father of a 3-year-old boy who died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The picture of Alan Kurdi’s body became a symbol of the plight of immigrants and refugees in Europe and beyond….
Even the briefest survey of man’s civilization highlights a redundancy of the “rise and fall” of world Empires. History validates that many World Powers rested securely because they possessed the most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy. But the unimagined occurred…the World Power lost its power.
There is one historical constant—a nation ascends to the apex of the world’s power. Its economy is the desire of all, its strength is envied and it presents the promise that if any can live within its borders then all problems will vanish. However, this constant has an ominous corollary—with every “rise” comes a “fall.” National greatness is fragile. Many great Empires have been erased and shuffled to obscurity (i.e. the Hittite Empire). National greatness celebrated by one generation can be surrendered by the next generation.
The history of civilization validates the troubling fact that nations focused on self are destined for the dust bins of history. The very instant that the national attention is turned toward personal gratification and moral standards are ignored, a decay of that nation begins. Consequently, all of their great accomplishments (politically, economically, militarily and religiously) become a tragic footnote in the evolving chronicle of earth’s history.
There is only ONE absolute means for total security of a nation. That security is a national adherence to and willing consent with the Almighty God’s directions. “Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His heritage” (Psalm 33:12).
The tragic redundancy of civilization’s rise and fall is being repeated in our “modern” era. The record of the sociological movement of the world (and particularly our nation) traces a number of events that have decimated the God-ordained family unit, erased the morality and ethos of civil behavior, and repudiated the necessary trust for divine strength and protection. An observable move away from a focus on the Lord God Almighty of the Bible and toward mortal knowledge has been recorded. Personally, I think the movement possibly began with the repudiation of God and the supernatural at the turn on the 18th Century. This rejection of God became evident with World War 1. The aftermath of the Great War brought sociological shifts of unimagined damage to those seeking “freedom” from God.
The current Presidential election is a cultural war that will decide the fate of the United States of America. After November 3, 2020, Americans will see either the total “transformation” of our nation or the opportunity of the citizenry to reclaim the “greatness” that characterizes the “exceptionalism” of America. I believe this is a valid point that many ignore.
Today’s cultural war has been highlighted with specificity in the comments of the presumed Democratic Presidential candidate—Joe Biden. Biden, and the Democratic Party, proposes a number of disastrous promises. The final form of the Democratic platform of the campaign is yet to be released but we are given strong hints as to their real objectives. This article highlights perhaps the most destructive objective of the Democratic Party.
I recall in public high school homeroom every day we would stand and face the flag of the United States of America place our hands over our hearts and recite the pledge of ALLEGIANCE to this nation. Then we would be seated as a classmate would select his/her favorite biblical text, go to the front of the class and read that text from a Bible that was always openly displayed on the teacher’s desk. The daily Bible readings were simply scheduled—we would go down the desk rows and each day the reading would be given and the next sitting in the row would be expected to come to homeroom with his/her Bible reading ready. After the Bible reading the homeroom teacher would lead the entire class in the Lord’s Prayer. In this fashion, the public educational system reminded pupils of our heritage of faith and their required fidelity to uphold elementary civics.
But, in 1962 the United States Supreme Court held, in Engel v. Vitale, that it was unconstitutional for students to be required to recite official prayers in the public schools. That ruling slowly disseminated until today it is impossible to mention basic Judeo-Christian beliefs or profess allegiance to our nation’s Constitution.
This heinous development is now highlighted by the Democratic Party’s presumed Presidential candidate.
Monday 20 July 2020 Joe Biden spoke to the Million Muslim Votes Summit. On a video call with Sharia law advocate and radical Islamic activist Linda Sarsour, Biden said, “If I have the honor of being president, I will end the Muslim ban on day one, day one.”
Adding to this flagrant repudiation of America’s basic foundations, Biden said that American children should be taught more about Islam in schools. “One of the things I think is important, I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”
Biden continued praising Islam: “Hadith from the Prophet Muhammad instructs, ‘Whomever among you sees a wrong, let him change it with his hand. If he is not able, then with his tongue. If he is not able, then with his heart.'” Muhammad, the founder of Islam owned slaves, partook in the slave trade, viewed women as a possession on the same level as a camel, commanded terror and ruthlessness toward any one not a Muslim. And these evils are now simply redefined as actions of the Islamic “heart.”
Joe Biden’s stated position is clear: “I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”
The United States of America was founded upon the principles enunciated by the Lord God Almighty—Jehovah of the Bible. NOT by the angry Allah of Islam who delights in blood, gore and oppression.
How benevolent is this Islamic religion which Joe Biden wishes to upon our public schools? It is a religion marked by terror, hatred, bloodshed, bigotry, cruelty, arrogance, and all other evil attitudes and actions of Satan. It has stood against every humane principle upon which our great nation was founded.
Recently the Daily Caller News Foundation published an article with this title: “Islamic school tortures and chains kids between 2 and 10 years old, Children finally free form horrific nightmare” (July 22, 2020). It reported an incident in Nigeria. I have experience in Nigeria and specifically with the Boko Harem. Dealing with Islam always involves conflict just as reported in this article. Fifteen children were freed after being held and tortured at an informal Koran school in Nigeria. The children were found with scars and wounds, indicating they were tortured. Three chains used to tie the children’s legs were recovered. The children’s ages ranged between two and ten. Unregulated Islamic schools are common in Nigeria and often exposed for gross mistreatment of students.
Now, do YOU understand that this is the reality which Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party, seek to bring to the public schools of the USA? This is the coming reality of the Muslim objective in Michigan when the police are defunded and no law exists, THEN Sharia Law will be installed!
Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are delighted that public prayers to Jehovah God and the readings of the Bible are banned. They are delighted in contemplating the introduction, teaching and enforcement of Islamic Sharia Law! They blasphemously reject Jehovah God of the Bible and eagerly embrace Allah of the Koran!
God’s judgment will come upon our nation just as it has historically fallen upon any nation that rejects Him. The most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy cannot forestall this judgment! God’s prophet spoke to such a nation saying, “You are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination…Behold, all of them are false; their works are worthless. They are wind and emptiness” (The Bible, Isaiah 41:24, 29).
Note:John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
Islam divides the entire world into two sectors: “Dar-al-Islam” (House of Islam) and “Dar-al-Harb” (House of War). The only countries that are considered to be at peace with Islam are those which enforce Shari’a Law. This is because Islam does not recognize the right of any other religion to exist. America at large is thus a part of the “House of War.”
Muslim leaders world-wide have been bold and blatant that their efforts are toward an Islamic-dominated world. Iranian leader Ahmadenejad declared it (2006); Leading Muslim cleric in the UK Anjem Choudary insisted that the Muslim flag will one day “fly over the White House;” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chair Omar Ahmad confessed in 1998 that the Islamic goal is “to become dominant worldwide;” and the Muslim Brotherhood has given us “The Project”—a 100 year-plan to establish “Islamic government on earth.”
The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, claims to have more than 70 affiliated terrorist organizations throughout the world. It states that “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Note that they define “jihad” for us. It involves “dying in the way of Allah.”
“Jihad” is the sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world. This is not the creation of a few extremists or the hijacking of a peaceful religion by a handful of radicals. Jihad is mandated in the writings of the Quran, was practiced in bloody earnest by the false prophet Muhammad, and is overwhelmingly defined by classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists as a military concept of “waging war.”
According to the eminent scholar of Islamic history and culture at Princeton University, Bernard Lewis, the late Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton,
[the] term ‘jihad’ has usually been understood as meaning ‘to wage war.’ The great collection of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad in which the military meaning predominates. …According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an obligation imposed upon all Muslims by God, through revelation … It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.
Students in public schools today learn the “5 Pillars of Islam” inclusive of prayer, alms, pilgrimage, and so forth. However, the instructional materials in our public schools normally do not include the 6th Pillar. Jihad is the 6th Pillar. So important was “Jihad” (Religious fighting for Allah) that Muhammad declared it the second most important deed in Islam. (Hadith by Bukhari, Vol. 1, no. 25).
Some Muslim clerics inform us that “jihad” can mean “inner struggle” as in a person who “struggles” for inner mastery over sin. This definition is “taqiyya”—or lying. Jihad, in the authoritative materials of Islam, uniformly means fighting for political mastery.
Muhammad himself stated that “The person who participates in Jihad (Holy Battles) for Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed.)” (Vol. 1:35).
Some Muslims may ignore jihad or disregard it—and we are glad they do– but it is certainly not defined in the authoritative Islamic texts as “inner struggle.” Further, this is not a matter of “interpretation”—but of either acceptance or rejection by Muslims.
It is very difficult for Christians to understand, but Islam is a militant movement which has as its primary aim not spiritual, but political goals. The ultimate purpose of Islam is the establishment by force of a worldwide Islamic state where Shari’a law is enforced.
This brings us back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their outlined strategies for western world takeover include the “appearance of moderation,” the “use of deception to mask good,” the “extensive usage of social networks,” and to “cultivate Islamist intellectual community;” “using Western institutions until they convert them into the service of Islam.”
Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad. As Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradowi stated, “jihad can be fought with the pen, then the sword.”
The great world-class scholar and former president John Quincy Adams warned America regarding Islam. His comment was that Muhammad had
poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], a war of twelve hundred years has already waged. The war is yet flagrant … while the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motive to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
(1) Communism & Islam. Ideological Twins. Exploring the Communistic doctrine of the Dialectic as applied to Conduct of People. Specifically LYING and PREVARICATING. This aligns with the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya. Lying in order to further Islamic goals.
(2) The Constitution Corner: Examining Article 1.8 of the Constitution and the “General Welfare” clause.
(3-4) GUEST: Brigitte Gabriel — President and Founder of ACT for America. Talking about her “Made in the USA” campaign — stop our dependency upon CHINA. actforamerica.org
Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”
She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”
And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”
Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”
What About These Things?
While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.
This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.
Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.
This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.
How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”
Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.
The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.
The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.
The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.
Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!
Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.
Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?
The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.
When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).
Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.
Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.
Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.
It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.
Which side are they on? The answer to that is clear.
Democratic presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are slated to host a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group that has been accused of lobbying on Tehran’s behalf.
Along with Reps. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sanders and Warren are scheduled to speak Wednesday evening with members of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The group played a central role in what former Obama national security adviser Ben Rhodes called the administration’s pro-Iran Deal “echo chamber,” spinning journalists, lawmakers, and citizens.
The Democratic candidates’ willingness to engage with NIAC—a group that aggressively pushed the accord and has strongly advocated against U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic—reflects their desire to see America reenter the nuclear deal, which released up to $150 billion in cash to the regime. Much of that money has gone to fund Iran’s regional terror operations, including recent attacks on American personnel stationed in the region.
NIAC has deep ties to Iran’s regime, including senior officials like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif worked closely with NIAC founder Trita Parsi, who, in turn, consulted with the Obama administration.
Parsi lobbied Congress against sanctions on Iran in 2013 and met with Obama administration officials at the White House dozens of times leading up to the nuclear deal’s signing in 2015. Multiple U.S. officials and senior congressional sources informed the Washington Free Beacon that Parsi helped the White House craft its messaging as it tried to sell the nuclear deal to the public. The NIAC chief met with Rhodes, among other top officials, during multiple visits throughout the Obama era.
Rhodes delivered a keynote speech at the 2016 NIAC leadership conference.
NIAC was ordered to pay more than $180,000 in 2013 to the legal defense fund of Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian-American writer, after a failed defamation lawsuit. Daioleslam had accused NIAC of failing to disclose its clandestine lobbying efforts to undo sanctions on Tehran, the Free Beacon previously reported. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said Parsi’s work was “not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.”
Elle magazine seems somewhat embarrassed by its list, published last week, of “20 Women of Color in Politics to Watch in 2020.” The article now carries this prominent disclaimer: “The below list was compiled by She the People, a national non profit network of women of color committed to social justice and voter mobilization. A previous version of this story did not make clear that the list was compiled by She the People and not ELLE magazine.” This was added because Elle faced a backlash for including the vehemently anti-Semitic Leftist activist Linda Sarsour on the list. But no one seems to have noticed another problem: the list is of “women of color,” and Sarsour is white.
Such minor quibbles will fall on deaf ears among Leftists. For the Left is at war not just with conservatives, but with reality itself. This has been clear for quite some time. Instead of trying to achieve some reconciliation with the nature of things as they are, the Left is growing ever more divorced from truth, reason, and ineluctable facts. For example, witness the hijab-wearing feminist (an oxymoron just as much as a white “woman of color,” as white is not a color in the Left’s world) Linda Sarsour’s magical race transformation.
It has been absurd enough to see Sarsour, a hijab-wearing defender of that most misogynistic of legal codes, Sharia, emerge as a champion of women’s rights and a feminist leader. But that was rational compared to the weapons-grade absurdity that Elle, or She The People, is now serving up regarding this palest of “women of color.”
The stage was set for Elle to anoint Sarsour as a “woman of color in politics to watch in 2020” several years ago, when the blogger Elder of Ziyon made an amazing discovery: Linda Sarsour claimed she “magically changed from white to a ‘woman of color’ in an instant,” just by putting on a hijab.
It’s true: in a Vox video published in January 2017, Sarsour said: When I wasn’t wearing hijab I was just some ordinary white girl from New York City.
But in an April 2017 interview of this hero of feminism, there is this: After watching Michelle Pfeiffer’s character in Dangerous Minds, Sarsour decided to become a high school teacher, “inspiring young people of color like me, to show them their potential.” She graduated a year early, gave birth to her eldest son, and enrolled in community college.
In the ensuing controversy, Linda Sarsour doubled down, saying: I’m Palestinian. If I want to say “I’m black,” I’m black!
What did being Palestinian have to do in Linda Sarsour’s crowded mind with her spurious claim of blackness? Well, it’s a fictional nationality, so Sarsour might as well take on a fictional race to go along with it. Maybe she was saying that since she had already made one fantasy a cornerstone of her public identity, adding another couldn’t hurt. As The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process demonstrates, the “Palestinians” as a people were indistinguishable from the neighboring Arabs. The “Palestinian” ethnicity or nationality was never known or mentioned throughout human history until the 1960s, when Yasser Arafat and the KGB invented it as a stick to beat the Israelis with. Tiny Israel arrayed against 22 hostile Arab countries looked like the plucky, heroic underdog; but the tinier “Palestinian” people facing the massive Israeli war machine reversed the narrative.
PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said this in 1977: The Palestinian people does not exist.
The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a “Palestinian,” I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem.
However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
If Islamic jihadis (with considerable help from Marxist strategists) can invent an entire ethnic group, why can’t Linda Sarsour, a proud member of this invented ethnic group, change races? For “tactical reasons,” in order to identify with the fashionable victim classes instead of with the universally designated oppressor, white people?
Elle’s article shows that Sarsour’s tactic has worked wonderfully, and reality can take the hindmost. The Left left it behind long ago, and if you still pay attention to it, you’re just not woke.
MADRID — Throughout the United Nations COP25 “Climate” summit in Spain, America, the GOP, and President Donald Trump — not carbon dioxide or even “climate change” — were public enemy number one. Indeed, the U.S. government, the American people, their elected officials, and what remains of the free-market system that ushered in unprecedented global prosperity were all viciously and relentlessly attacked.
Globalists, communists, Islamists, socialists, environmentalists, and crackpots of all varieties dropped the mask in a carefully orchestrated show. Incredibly, even the many prominent Americans who spoke at the summit demonized their own nation and the freedom that made it so succesful. If the “climate” coalition gets its way, the consequences will be catastrophic for America, liberty, self-government, and material well-being.
At a “Fridays for the Future” protest that began inside before heading into the street, shrieking children and “youth” screamed all sorts of Marxist talking points while putting their hands in the air — each one painted with an occult-style eye painted on it. The “young people,” terrorized and carefully managed by adults, chanted, among other things, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Occasionally, people would stand up and rant about the alleged evils of America, CO2, patriarchy, energy companies, markets, and more.
Once outside, the dozens of noisy children, made to look like an enormous march by the media, surrounded by well-spoken adults giving instructions and adoring “journalists” broadcasting the spectacle to the world, shouted “anti-capitalist, anti-capitalist” over and over again. Then they began chanting “system change, not climate change.” When asked about it, every protester said the goal was to dismantle what remains of the market system.
On the last day of the summit, “CommunismoEsVida” (Communism Is Life) was trending on Twitter in Spain as indoctrinated children on social media ranted against economic freedom.
Inside, similar rhetoric was everywhere. Infamous Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, called for an end to free market. “Capitalism is at the heart of what is driving” alleged man-made climate change, he declared at UN summit. “We’ve got to throw the system out.”
He probably felt right at home. Even the big cheese, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is an admitted socialist. Before taking the reins at the UN, he led the Socialist International, the world’s most powerful alliance of Socialist and Marxist political parties, many with the blood of countless innocents on their hands.
Among the significant demands was that the U.S. government hand over climate “reparations” under the guise of “loss and damage.” Hundreds of “youth” activists — many funded by the very governments and companies they were “protesting” against — demanded that America fork over the money. In short, poor and middle-class American taxpayers would end up paying Third World kleptocrats for supposedly causing bad weather, forest fires, and other natural disasters. Seriously. The UN now claims America cannot avoid paying up.
Adults speaking at the summit sounded similar. On one of the most prominent platforms in the entire UN summit, radical population-control advocate Stuart Scott with the group “Scientists Warning” blasted the United States as the “the kleptocratic States of America.” Speaking of President Trump, he went even further. “This man is a threat to the planet, as is his corporate owned Republican Party, who have been bought by the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries,” argued Scott.
The idea that American officials and the voters who elect them represent a mortal danger to the planet has been a common theme for weeks. Prominent professor of international relations Ole Wæver at the University of Copenhagen even suggested that the UN Security Council could decide that “climate change” is a “threat to international peace and security,” thereby sending in UN “peacekeeping” troops to enforce its climate mandates at the barrel of a gun.
Scott, who told The New American in an interview that reducing the population of the planet was urgent, continued to spew hatred against Trump while sitting on the UN stage. “They have together done a huge disservice to humanity and all of life on Earth,” he said about Trump and Republicans. “They’ve done all this for the sake of money. Make no mistake: Trump has got a particular personality aberration.”
“The callousness of this man is astonishing and revolting,” Scott continued, blasting Trump’s “amazing depravity.” Not a single pro-Trump or pro-GOP speaker was allowed on stage to offer an alternate perspective.
Sharing the stage with him was Dan Galpren, an attorney and legal advisor to leading climate alarmist James Hansen. “The derangement goes well further than Trump,” he told the UN summit, adding that the entire Republican Party was deranged, as well. Even though the American people who voted for those elected officials pay more for the UN than anybody on the planet, nobody challenged the narrative in an official capacity throughout the entire two-week summit.
For some reason, Scott then shared some teenage gossip he heard about Trump during his childhood. “I grew up a couple miles away from where Donald Trump grew up,” he said. “And the story in the hood — the neighborhood — was that he got kicked out of a couple schools locally, and so his parents put him in a military academy where they tolerated him as long as his parents paid. And his initials became the acronym for serving detention at the military academy.”
He also claimed that by getting the U.S. government out of the UN Paris agreement, Trump was “not trying to protect the American people, that’s very clear.” Using nasty foul language to demonize Trump, Scott said the president was a reality TV star, “you will recall, who could create his own reality on his programs.” “This man somehow cheated, lied, hoodwinked the public into becoming president of the United States,” Scott said, claiming the GOP had rigged the election through “a lot of gerrymandering the districts to help make that possible.”
Christians, of course, say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when considering actions. Scott, though, concluded his highly controversial remarks by asking, “What would Greta do?” It fit perfectly with the words by Trump’s former climate advisor, Dr. William Happer of Princeton, who spoke at a separate non-UN summit in Madrid and accused the man-made warming crowd of being a “bizarre cult” that would do enormous damage if not stopped.
Other major speakers at the UN summit called for massive depopulation of America and Europe in order to stop “climate change,” while others said reducing the number of Africans and Asians should be a top priority.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry, an uber-wealthy former politician who also spoke from one of the most prominent stages at the UN summit, declared that he was ashamed to be American. “I assume the burden unfortunately of a country that is the largest naysayer of all,” he told throngs of officials, journalists, and activists from around the world. “And I’m sorry for that. I regret it enormously. Only the United States of America has a head of government who calls climate change a Chinese hoax.”
Kerry also took some time to lie, multiple times, about various issues ranging from diesel particulate to the supposed “science” underpinning the man-made-warming hypothesis. He claimed solar power, “now absolutely, under any standard by whatever you measure, is cheaper than coal, no question about it.” If that were true, everybody would be using solar power, of course.
Currently serving American officials who spoke at the summit were also extremists opposed to fundamental American values. Speaking on a panel called “Subnational strategies in North America for meeting Paris Commitments,” for instance, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes called on the world to “stymie capitalism.” All of the other U.S. and Canadian officials were similarly left-wing extremists.
Indeed, despite constant shrieking about “this is what democracy looks like,” there was literally no representation for conservative Americans or Republicans anywhere at the summit. Not a single conservative, pro-America speaker could be found among the 25,000 attendees. There was just a tiny handful of American patriots who reject the man-made global-warming hypothesis even allowed in the conference, and none of them were given a platform to speak.
Prestigious U.S. scientists who reject the man-made-warming narrative were also denied a platform to share their views or express their concerns. Instead, a coalition of “skeptic” and “realist” scientists and experts such as Princeton physicist Dr. Happer, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, had to gather elsewhere in Madrid to present their views. Out of thousands of journalists from around the world, just a tiny handful showed up at the Climate Reality Conference they hosted.
In the spectacles, funded by the Kremlin and the Rockefeller oil dynasty, trophies were handed out to activists pretending to be Donald Trump, who would stand up and make America look evil, greedy, and ridiculous. There were many supposed reasons for America being the worst country in the world: Not handing over enough money, not slashing CO2 emissions quickly enough, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, sending delegates to represent U.S. interests despite being in the withdrawal process, and more.
Despite all the hatred, the U.S. delegation hardly rocked the boat in a serious way. “The United States continues to lead on clean, affordable, and secure energy while reducing all types of emissions ― including greenhouse gases ― over the last 15 years,” said U.S. Ambassador Marcia Bernicat, who headed the U.S. delegation. “Our model shows how innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.”
After saying this COP25 would be the last one where the U.S. government would be a party to the UN Paris Agreement, she vowed that Washington, D.C., would remain involved. “We remain fully committed to working with you, our global partners, to enhance resilience, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Ambassador Bernicat said during the three-minute time allotted to the U.S. government.
In conversations with The New American, U.S. State Department officials said the reason 50 American delegates were required was to “represent U.S. interests” while the federal government remained involved in the Paris Agreement officially until next year. Depending on who one talked to though, it was not clear whether the U.S. delegation was advancing or slowing down “progress” on the UN’s controversial “climate” agenda.
“The United States is proud of its record as a world leader in reducing emissions, driving economic growth, and fostering resilience at home and abroad,” a State Department spokesman told The New American. “The United States will continue to be a leader in assisting our partners to reduce emissions, protect natural resources, increase resilience, and respond to natural disasters.”
With U.S. officials perpetuating the narrative that CO2 is pollution, despite Trump having called the theory a “hoax” to benefit Communist China, all the rage might seem hard to understand. But at least one heavyweight on the side of climate realism suggested the hatred against America had to do with the U.S. government’s lack of cooperation.
“Why is the UN having a hard time advancing the global warming ball?” asked Craig Rucker, president of the free market-oriented environmental group known as CFACT. “One name — Donald J. Trump and his plans to pull America out of the Paris Climate Accord. It’s no fun making spending plans when you can’t leach off the world’s biggest economy.”
“What is actually happening at this year’s UN climate talks is a wait-and-see game geared toward next November’s American election,” he continued. “After watching Britain give the Tory party its biggest victory since Thatcher during the talks, and moves now afoot to pull Britain out of the E.U. once and for all, government by global bureaucracy is under threat. The UN is plenty scared.”
Of course, if CO2 were the real enemy, the UN summit would have been praising America non-stop, as the nation’s emissions of the essential gas continue to plummet. Instead of America being demonized, the “climate justice” warriors would have targeted Communist China, which is far and away the world’s largest emitter of CO2. And yet, not only was the murderous regime in Beijing not criticized; increasingly, it has been painted as the savior of multilateral “climate solutions.”
With the raw hatred against America and freedom that was on display throughout the COP25, it should be beyond clear to Congress that not one more American cent should be used to fund this absurdity known as the UN. Instead, though, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to keep America shackled to the UN’s “climate” regime at all costs. The American voter is now the only significant human force holding back planetary disaster in the form of a UN “climate” regime. The next election will be crucial.