Middle East and Terrorism

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

State Department Stabs Israel in the Back, Twists the Knife - David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

Biden administration promotes Hamas propaganda by smearing Israel as a human rights abuser.

[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]

On Tuesday, the State Department published its 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. What should have been a non-political document completed the betrayal of Israel that the Biden administration began on March 25, when it refrained from having the U.S. veto a UN resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire, the impact of which would enable the leadership of Hamas to survive and launch more attacks on Jews and Jewish babies. The clear meaning of the October 7 massacre was witnessed in Palestinians burning infants alive to cries of “Allahu Akbar” as though the incineration of the innocent – should they be Jews – is a holy sacrament rather than a sick episode in the wretched history of humanity’s inhumanity to its weakest members.

Far from being horrified by this celebration of evil, the Biden administration conflated the practices of the only civilized society in the Middle East with the monsters seeking its destruction.

Fox News noted that the Biden State Department report “highlighted Israel prominently, featuring concerns over the country’s precautions to minimize the civilian toll of Palestinians on the first page, which is normally reserved for the most egregious of human rights abusers.”

Not only does the report include Israel among the most barbaric human rights abusers – China, Putin’s Russia, the Taliban, and Iran, the would-be exterminators of the Jewish state — but “Israel was mentioned before the Biden administration’s State Department addressed ‘ongoing and brutal human rights abuses in Iran’ or ‘the Taliban’s systemic mistreatment of and discrimination against Afghanistan’s women and girls.’”

In Iran, they chant “Death to America” and have been waging war against their own people, brutally suppressing nationwide riots that broke out after Sharia police murdered a young woman, Mahsa Amini, who had been arrested for not wearing her hijab properly. In Afghanistan, girls have been denied the right to an education, and the Taliban regime’s Supreme Leader announced in late March: “We will flog women in public, we will stone them to death in public.” No similar quotes were offered by the State Department from Israel’s leaders… because there are none.

The State Department report treats Israel as a worse human rights abuser than any of the above.

As far as the State Department is concerned, Israel’s alleged human rights violations are so egregious that they warrant being discussed immediately after the report mentions “the Kremlin’s disregard and contempt for human rights,” which “are on full display in its war against Ukraine,” and the “horrific violence, death, and destruction, including mass killings, unjust detentions, rape, and other forms of gender-based violence” that the Sudanese Armed Forces have unleashed in that country. In other words, Israel – the only non-racist democracy in the Middle East – is worse than the slaveocracy in Sudan, when it comes to the Jews’ human rights records.

This is an obscene libel. John Spencer, who is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, analyzed the IDF’s actions in Gaza and reported in late March that “Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Likewise, the British Colonel Richard Kemp stated early this month that in Gaza, “the ratio of deaths of civilians to military personnel was far lower than in other wars where armies had not been accused of war crimes, adding that he was ‘not aware of any war crimes [committed by the IDF].’”

The State Department has ignored both Spencer and Kemp, and shown its appreciation for Goebbels’ infamous advice that people will more readily believe a Big Lie than a small one – as it happens in this case also to further the latest campaign – to exterminate the Jews “from the river to the sea.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has insisted that not a single Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state. This is not a plan for coexistence; it’s a recipe for genocide.

An Egyptian imam, Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub, made that plain in a 2009 televised sermon in which he articulated the neo-Nazi character of the anti-Israel war, saying that Muslim hatred of Jews had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the Qur’an:

“If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not…. Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are infidels, and second, that they are enemies…. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.”

Got that, Secretary of State Blinken? This is a thousand-year Islamic imperative, rooted in the Qur’an’s calls to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191, 4:89, cf. 9:5).

Israel is in the midst of a war for its survival – not as a state but as the home of the Jews. The war against the jihadist military base in Gaza is not a political war but a desperate effort to stave off a genocidal campaign which has been pursued without relief for 75 years in Gaza and more than a thousand years in the historic home of the Jews – the land around the Jordan. Yet its principal foes are radical Islamists – aided and abetted by a criminal White House seeking votes and support from a neo-Nazi Left based in American universities and funded by a self-hating Jew – George Soros – who long ago should have been prosecuted for organizing illegal street demonstrations attacking Wall Street and endangering the lives of ordinary Americans in the process.

Thanks to the oddities of American elections, the Jews’ main enemy at this point is a criminal sitting in the White House who is desperately seeking votes in Michigan and selling his political influence to America’s enemies – and giving less of a damn about American citizens than any president in history before him.

David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/state-department-stabs-israel-in-the-back-twists-the-knife/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden administration caving to BDS tactics against Israel - Israel Kasnett

by Israel Kasnett

The U.S. government is sourcing its information from “radical extremist organizations" that work to destroy the Jewish state.

Hamas backers rally in N.Y.'s Times Square in support of the organization's Oct. 7 mass terrorist attack, Oct. 9, 2023. Photo by Lev Radin/Shutterstock.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is reportedly considering blacklisting the IDF’s Netzach Yehuda Battalion under the “Leahy Laws,” two statutory provisions that, according to the State Department, prohibit the U.S. government “from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.”

Extreme political NGOs and rights organizations often falsely accuse Israel of committing human rights abuses. In October 2022, DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now) submitted to the State Department a Leahy Law referral against the Netzach Yehuda Battalion for alleged “systematic and widespread abuses.”

The battalion, an exclusively male, ultra-Orthodox battalion that, until late 2022 served in the Jordan Valley and Samaria and today operates in Gaza fighting Hamas terrorists, has faced accusations of abuse, most notably in the case of 78-year-old Palestinian-American Omar As’ad, who in 2022 died after being detained by the battalion.

But many critics see this hostile move as nothing short of preposterous, with the Biden administration hoping to win over anti-Israel voters ahead of the U.S. elections in November by delegitimizing the Jewish state as it fights a crucial war against a genocidal enemy.

Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, specifically blamed U.S. President Joe Biden, telling JNS the president “appears to be ready to cross yet another Rubicon, this time in delegitimizing the military of a close democratic ally by fundamentally questioning its integrity, morality and adherence to the rule of law.”

Goldberg added that the Biden administration is sourcing its information from “radical extremist organizations that work to destroy the State of Israel on a daily basis—some with ties to terrorist organizations.”

According to Goldberg, the ongoing political warfare against Israel “has emboldened Hamas, Hezbollah, and ultimately Iran.

“That Hamas refuses to release any more hostages and that Iran felt so confident in launching 120 ballistic missiles at Israel is a direct result of the Biden administration using BDS delegitimization tactics against a democratic ally,” he said.

In an April 21 post on X, Goldberg called on U.S. senators to “elevate this [the Netzach Yehuda issue] to the President right now before the supplemental has passed the Senate, and get a firm commitment that such a morally bankrupt and irresponsible action will not occur. The House and Senate should ready legislative responses.”

He also accused some employees of the State Department of harboring “virulent anti-Israel sentiment” and said there are “radical anti-Israel activists inside the Biden administration” who have a “long-awaited dream of imposing sanctions on the IDF or its units.”

Goldberg called on committees of jurisdiction to “move expeditiously to demand Secretary Blinken turn over the list of organizations that submitted ‘evidence’ that’s been used as the basis for a potential imposition of sanctions. … All communications on this matter between both State and NSC [the National Security Council] and State and outside groups should be subpoenaed.”

Far-reaching damage

Jacob Olidort, director of research for the Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), told JNS the Biden administration’s reported decision to rebuke Israel “by imposing sanctions on a unit of its military—as well as the manner and timing of how it was done—causes far-reaching damage, in this case not only to the institution of the IDF but to Israel’s security.”

Israelis “across the political spectrum are right to view this as a rebuke of the entire IDF, with a secondary message that Israel’s military has no credible legal or judicial system to hold its own accountable,” Olidort said.

He said he considered the move as “a concession by the administration to parts of its electoral base during an election year as well as an expression of its personal displeasure with certain members of the Knesset.

“This move could not have come at a more inappropriate time—during war, as Israel prepares for the Rafah operation in Gaza and braces for escalation on its northern border as well as from Iran directly—or in a more distasteful manner—announced publicly by the secretary of state rather than through the discrete channels of deliberations between U.S. and Israeli militaries—and sends an unmistakable message to our adversaries abroad and their supporters on U.S. college campuses that the United States restrains its support for Israel during its most precarious moment,” Olidort said.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the Biden administration’s intentions to sanction the Netzach Yehuda Battalion.

“I will strongly defend the IDF, our army and our fighters,” he said. “If somebody thinks they can impose sanctions on a unit in the IDF—I will fight this with all my powers. As our soldiers are united in defending us on the battlefield, we are united in defending them in the diplomatic arena.”

Defense Yoav Gallant spoke with Blinken on Sunday and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, to discuss the issue of sanctions, according to an Israeli Government Press Office statement.

“The battalion’s activities are carried out in accordance with the values of the IDF and in accordance with international law,” Gallant said in the statement.

He admonished the U.S. and said, “Any attempt to criticize an entire unit casts a heavy shadow on the actions of the IDF, which operates to protect the citizens of Israel. Damage to one battalion affects the entire defense establishment—this is not the right path for partners and friends.”

Gallant called on the U.S. to “withdraw its intention to impose sanctions,” adding that Israel’s “friends and our enemies are closely watching the ties between Israel and the United States, now more than ever.”

A slippery slope

Goldberg told JNS that using BDS tactics to delegitimize Israel and exercising the Leahy Laws “would start a slippery slope where the U.S. signals to the world that democracies are not capable of holding themselves accountable, giving the ICC [International Criminal Court] pretext to step in with arrest warrants for Israeli officials for made up war crimes, reopen investigations into the British military and eventually indict American officials for made-up war crimes, too.

“The president may think he’s just throwing another dart at Israel, but it’s actually a boomerang that will hit the U.S. military, too,” he said.

In his post on X, Goldberg wrote, “This is entirely a campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel—and to kneecap its efforts to defend its citizens from annihilation.”

Israel Kasnett

Source: https://www.jns.org/biden-administration-caving-to-bds-tactics-against-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'The House That I Live In'* - Lawrence Kadish

by Lawrence Kadish

Make no mistake about it. When student protestors burn the American flag and chant "Death to America" it has little to do with the Israeli military response to the murderous rampage by Hamas on October 7th and much to do with Iran's grand strategy of bringing death to the "Great Satan"

Today, at college campuses across our nation, there are Americans marching as Nazis and terrorist-supporters, shouting, "We're all Hamas." Pictured: An anti-Israel protest encampment on Columbia University campus on April 23, 2024, in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Before Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941, there were Nazis marching in our streets as Americans.

Today, at college campuses across our nation, there are Americans marching as Nazis and terrorist-supporters, shouting, "We're all Hamas."

Make no mistake about it. When student protestors burn the American flag and chant "Death to America" it has little to do with the Israeli military response to the murderous rampage by Hamas on October 7^th and much to do with Iran's grand strategy of bringing death to the "Great Satan" through "useful idiots."

Clearly, the protestors are outraged that Israelis have refused to be the mute, mutilated victims of the last Hamas outrage. After all, violent acts of anti-Semitism and Jew-killing are not supposed to come with a cost to its perpetrators. The "Death to America" crowd must be asking, "When did the Israelis change the rules?"

So these Iranian foot soldiers with student loans have taken to college campuses, where places like Columbia University have been forced to implement virtual learning and Jewish students are warned to stay away for their own safety. Would the universities have responded the same way if the protests had been, say, anti-Black?

There should be little confusion as to what is occurring as police confront and arrest students and their organizers. These are individuals waging a coordinated, lavishly-funded campaign (exact funding has been meticulously researched and published by NGO Monitor) to demonize Jews, Israel, and those who stand against anti-Semitism, and the United States.

Former Black Panther supporter David Horowitz noted:

"An SDS radical once wrote, 'The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.' In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution."

They are seeking nothing less than to change American society. They have harnessed the Internet to organize, encourage, and amplify their hatred while dismantling our values so that political violence can be redefined as their free speech. Jews are just their targets today. Tomorrow it is you.

While there is considerable focus on whether Columbia University's president should resign for her inability to maintain campus safety for Jews, the far larger issue is how colleges across our country have become festering incubators for this kind of hatred.

This author has long cautioned that thoughtful less-radical voices have been repeatedly prevented from offering their insight and commentary before college symposiums. The violent radicalization of students now distilled into Jew-hatred is how this intolerance, willful ignorance, and deceitful Marxist and Iranian propaganda has metastasized into what we are witnessing.

For those who still believe that these violent student actions are a spontaneous response to Israel's military action: this is the weaponization of "woke." The only positive aspect is that none of these protestors can masquerade as loyal Americans, especially when masked protestors yelling "We're all Hamas!" "Long Live Hamas" and "Death to America!" Presumably they came here of their own free will, America has been good to them, but apparently they feel disappointed; if they do not like it here, no one is forcing them to stay.

You and those who fail to heed this open warning may soon find a dark, shattered America where freedom of speech and religious tolerance were proven too fragile to survive their next assault.

*"The House That I live In," lyrics by Abel Meeropol, sung by Frank Sinatra, 1945.

Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20597/the-house-that-i-live-in

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Jew-Hating’ Asian American Studies Program Exposed at Northwestern University - Sara Dogan

by Sara Dogan

Defending Hamas’ butchery and partnering with Students for Justice in Palestine.

[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]

Editor’s note: Since the barbaric Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7^th, American universities have become an undeniable locus of Jew hatred within our nation. Much attention has deservedly been paid to the radical campus groups like Students for Justice in Palestine who call for the genocide of the Jews and cheer the terrorists of Hamas. What has received less attention—but should in fact rank as the universities’ worst offense—is the Jew hatred promoted by official departments and institutes of the universities themselves. In the case of our campuses, Jew hatred is “the call coming from inside the house.”

The Freedom Center is exposing these academic institutes and programs as “The Top Ten Jew-Hating Academic Departments” in a new report. We will be publishing one school per day as a series on Frontpage. Northwestern University’s Asian American Studies Program came in at #10 on our list.

The Asian American Studies Program at Northwestern University has repeatedly used university resources and official communications channels to promote Jew hatred and condone Hamas’s actions against Israel and its Jewish citizens.

Roughly a week after the barbaric October 7^th Hamas massacre of over 1200 Israeli civilians, the Asian American Studies Program (AASP) published a statement on the official department website and reproduced it on the official department Instagram page. Rather than condemning Hamas’s brutality and the innocent loss of Jewish lives in Israel, AASP instead decried “Islamophobia” on campus and chastised the Northwestern University administration for their “silence at the loss of life in Palestine.”

The statement blatantly whitewashed the atrocious actions of Hamas, claiming that “On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the political group that has controlled Gaza since 2006, attacked Israel. Israel subsequently declared war, marking the latest in a long line of armed struggles between the two nations since their formation in 1947-48.” No mention was made of the sheer brutality of Hamas’s actions—raping women, slaughtering children, mutilating civilians both before and after death. In fact, AASP mocked reports that Hamas beheaded babies as “baseless claims [that] are meant to incite hate against Palestine and equate supporting Palestinian civilians with antisemitism.”

Showing almost no concern for the Israeli victims of October 7^th, and the citizens of Israel threatened by Hamas’s intended genocide, AASP instead chose to demonize and delegitimize the world’s only Jewish state, referring to Gaza as the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” and blaming the “civilian death toll” in Gaza solely on Israel—rather than on Hamas who started the war by attacking civilians and taking hostages and who then used Palestinian civilians as human shields.

The Asian American Studies Program also critiqued the “visible Islamophobia expressed in pro-Israel posters on NU’s campus falsely claiming that ‘Hamas is ISIS.’” Notably, the Program did not explain why they felt that comparison to be inaccurate or Islamophobic. Both organizations are Islamist terrorist groups known for their brutal treatment of women and ethnic minorities. The comparison seems apt.

Lest the message of support for Hamas and its aims was not clear enough, the Program statement went on to clarify that “The Asian American Studies program stands in solidarity with Palestinians, Arab Americans, the SWANA diaspora, and victims of Islamophobia worldwide.”

“As Ethnic Studies scholars, we are pro-Palestine and against antisemitism because we understand that all systems of oppression reinforce one another, and none can be fought in isolation,” continued the statement. “Islamophobia and antisemitism must both be eradicated if we are to live without violence. We offer our program as a haven for those who support or are Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, SWANA diaspora, and anyone experiencing Islamophobia at NU who seeks a safe space.”

It is notable that the statement condemns both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, but offers only those experiencing Islamophobia or those of Palestinian or Arab origin, a “haven” and a “safe space” within their program. No Jews need apply.

The Asian American Studies Program has also promoted Jew hatred by partnering with the Hamas-funded campus hate group Students for Justice in Palestine to hold a “Teach-In About Palestine” on campus. Held on November 7, just a month after Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians, the event description claimed it would concern “Palestinian liberation and building solidarity with other liberation movements, and what action we can take to support Palestine in this moment.” Northwestern University’s chapter of SJP proudly declares the genocidal slogan “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free” on its social media accounts and demands “The complete Northwestern boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel’s apartheid and genocide,” thus demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.

That the Asian American Studies Program saw fit to partner with an organization clearly known for its promotion of Hamas and its anti-Semitic rhetoric illustrates the lack of academic standards and rampant Jew hatred promoted by the Program. It is abundantly deserving of its place on the list of the worst Jew-hating academic departments.

Sara Dogan is the National Campus Director for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She has written extensively on issues including academic freedom and anti-Semitism on campus.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/jew-hating-asian-american-studies-program-exposed-at-northwestern-university/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Unsealed docs expose early collaboration between Archives, Biden White House in Trump prosecution - John Solomon and Steven Richards

by John Solomon and Steven Richards

One Rule For Me, Another for Thee? The newly unsealed documents provide the latest evidence indicating disparate by government's treatment in Trump and Biden's respective classified documents cases.

Just weeks after learning Joe Biden had improperly retained government documents, his administration began working with federal bureaucrats in spring and fall 2021 to increase pressure on Donald Trump for similar issues and eventually prompt a criminal prosecution of the 45th president, according to government memos newly unsealed by a federal judge.

The correspondence, released this week by U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida, provide the the most extensive accounting so far of how the Biden White House worked with federal bureaucrats to escalate pressure on Trump to return documents to the National Archives even as it slow-walked similar issues involving its own boss.

One email dated May 5, 2021, shows the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) had already consulted the Biden White House about missing Trump records, more than a year before the public would learn that the former president president had kept some classified memos.

“I have had several conversations with [Person 40] since the end of the Trump Administration about various paper records that he believes were not transferred to us,” NARA General Counsel Gary Stern wrote to his colleagues in one May email.

"Person 40" was not identified by name in the document but was listed as working for the Biden White House in the Records Management Office, according to a motion filed by Trump’s lawyers in the case, which was previously redacted.

Case 9.23-cr-80101-AMC Document 469.pdf

On August 30, 2021, NARA Archivist David Ferriero began to press Trump records representatives more explicitly about the documents, vowing to make referrals to “the Hill, DOJ, and the White House” if the documents had been destroyed or where not turned over soon.

“As you have seen in the press, the House has requested records,” Ferriero writes in one email chain. “Our ability to respond requires access to the 24 boxes which have yet to be accounted for. At this point, I am assuming that they have been destroyed. In which case, I am obligated to report it to the Hill, DOJ, and the White House.”

Case 9.23-cr-80101-AMC Document 469-1.pdf

By September 2021, Stern had decided to draft a criminal referral against Trump to the Justice Department after documents were still not returned, according to an FBI interview summary with a NARA employee, identified as “Person 53” in the court documents.

“Stern approached [Per. 53] to formally draft a letter to DOJ raising concerns about PRA materials from the TRUMP administration which remained unaccounted for by NARA,” the FBI memo stated.

In his interview with the FBI, Person 53 noted in his “years of experience,” he “understood NARA never had to make such a referral to DOJ…to accomplish such an ask.”

When he circulated the draft letter internally, Stern told colleagues he had been in contact with “DOJ counsel” about the matter and was continuing to communicate with the White House Counsel’s Office, showing the Biden administration was in the loop about the efforts to repossess Trump’s documents.

“In addition, [White House] Counsel is now also aware of the issue, and has asked that I keep them in the loop to the extent that we make any reference to the White House Office of Records Management,” Stern wrote in the email.

While NARA and the White House were engaging DOJ on Trump, Biden aides were trying to figure out what to do with memos Biden kept at his University of Pennsylvania Biden Center office in Washington, some which turned out to be classified.

In March 2021, Annie Tomasini, an assistant to Biden, traveled to the Penn Biden Center to take inventory of documents, according to a House Oversight Committee letter. The Biden White House previously claimed that classified documents were “unexpected[ly] disover[ed]” on November 2, 2022, more than a year after Tomasini’s first visit to the center.

NARA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Just the News for itself or its General Counsel Gary Stern. The White House also declined to respond for a request for comment.

The new documents provide fresh contrasts in how the Biden administration dealt differently with the discovery of improperly-retained documents by the president and his political rival, Trump.

Sen. Ron Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told the "Just the News, No Noise" television show on Tuesday night that the new memos confirm Trump and Biden were treated differently by federal bureaucrats.

Trump was eventually indicted, while Biden escaped criminal charges in part because prosecutors believed he'd be viewed as old and forgetful by a jury. "It's just another outrageous example of the dual system of justice and just the partisan nature within these agencies," Johnson said.

"President Biden gets let off scot free because I guess it's because he's senile. .... President Trump is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because he's Donald Trump," the Wisconsin senator said.

The court documents make clear that NARA collaborated and shared periodic updates with both Biden White House officials and Department of Justice officials throughout 2021 and 2022 as their efforts to retrieve classified documents from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property progressed.

By late January 2022, Stern “consulted” with Deputy White House Counsel, Jonathan Su, who referred the NARA officials directly to the Department of Justice, specifically Associate Deputy Attorneys General Emily Loeb and David Newman.

According to the FBI interview memo, Newman told NARA to refer the matter to both the Archives Inspector General office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Eventually, the NARA Inspector General would send the referral back to the DOJ, to the Public Integrity Section, according to the court documents.

The case against the former president was ultimately born from this referral. Later that year, Attorney General Merrick Garland would approve an official investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. He appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the criminal investigation in November 2022.

Previously, Just the News reported that then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ, and the National Archives as early as April 2022, shortly after Trump and his associates voluntarily returned 15 boxes of classified documents and other presidential records to the agency. Now, according to the dates referenced in the court documents, these contacts started months earlier.

In Just the News’s previous reporting, documents showed the Biden White House was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ, and National Archives to facilitate access to the documents for investigators probing the former president’s handling of classified documents, despite publicly claiming it had no prior knowledge before the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.

In a letter sent on May 10, 2022, sent to Trump’s lawyers, by acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall summarized the Biden White House’s involvement in the probe.

"On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes," Wall wrote to Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

The letter also revealed that Biden gave the National Archives to the power to waive any claims of executive privilege Trump may assert against any DOJ attempts to gain access to the documents.

“The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" Wall wrote. "... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege.”

John Solomon and Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/new-court-docs-show-archives-biden-wh-coordinated-trump-probe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Green New Deal Is Based on Lies About Budgets, Green Energy, and Climate Science - Jeff Reynolds

by Jeff Reynolds

The Green New Deal is here, and it is worse than you think.

Contrary to the breathless pronouncements by globalists, elitists, and climate hysterics, we don’t have a “climate crisis.” What plagues us, rather, is a crisis of lying about climate, science, and big government solutions to these imagined problems.

Those who would control your life, tax you into oblivion, and expand the role of government have built their theories on junk science and bad public policy. Instead of blowing trillions of dollars on projects that sound good but don’t accomplish anything, we should get government out of the way so people all over the world can lift themselves out of poverty.

In my latest exposé at Restoration News, I go into painstaking detail to show how climate radicalism has its basis in junk science. The adherence to this junk science, despite no direct evidence to support the claims of impending doom, more resemble a cult than a scientific pursuit. The lies run so deep, I believe the science has morphed into a hybrid cult of quasi-religious fervor. The mechanisms created by this ‘Cult of Scientism’ empower oligarchs and billionaires using a phony scientific consensus as justification to control private citizens and whole economies. Individual liberty and the ability to prosper be damned; we have a planet to save.

The Green New Deal is here, and it is worse than you think.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has sent billions of dollars into the most radical pet projects imaginable: grants for “climate justice,” subsidies for “hydrogen hubs,” tax rebates for EVs, and massive expansions of wind and solar. The real goals seem nothing short of expanding every aspect of the federal government, regardless of the tenuous connection to climate.

Former climate czar John Kerry famously boasted about the IRA, citing “investments” that bring down the costs of “clean technologies.” Climate evangelist Al Gore bragged that the IRA was “by far, the best and biggest climate legislation any country’s ever passed,” allocating $1.2 trillion to the acceleration of the deployment of “renewable” energy and batteries.

In other words, the Biden administration lied about its true intentions with the Inflation Reduction Act. As everyone can now see, it had nothing to do with inflation. Actually, scratch that. It had the opposite of the stated effect, jacking up inflation even more with insane increases in federal spending.

In effect, in combination with several Executive Orders by President Biden, the IRA has implemented the Green New Deal.

That’s $1.2 trillion on top of annual federal spending levels, which have already created a national debt crisis. The United States debt has topped $34 trillion, with the annual spending deficit approaching $2 trillion. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the US federal debt to GDP ratio is a staggering 122 percent and growing.

In Biden’s worldview, nothing matters outside of defeating the forces of Big Oil and creating a command economy to save the planet. If only they could subvert unbridled capitalism and the profit motive, consumers would finally have a real choice between planet-choking “dirty” carbon emissions and cheap, reliable green energy that will keep Mother Earth from boiling over.

If only their baseline assumptions had any basis in fact or science. Even one would help.

As the junk science report details, government agencies from NOAA to NASA to the EPA have engaged in such extensive manipulation of historical temperature data as to render it meaningless. The United States has a little over 1,200 weather reporting stations, but a full forty percent of them have not reported actual observed data in several decades. NOAA simply puts out temperature “estimates” for the stations that have gone inactive.

According to the EPA’s own data, over eighty percent of observed American weather stations show a cooling trend since 1980, with only 19 percent showing a warming trend in that same period.

Most importantly, several peer-reviewed studies have concluded that a rise in carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations in the atmosphere throughout history follows rises in average temperature. Rising CO₂ does not precede warming trends and, therefore, cannot cause them!

Meanwhile, the touted green energy cannot succeed at scales large enough and economical enough to make any difference.

As just one example, a recent study concluded that the cost of charging an electric vehicle comes out to over $17 per gallon when compared to refueling an internal combustion car. Meanwhile, EVs continue to explode, fail in cold weather, or run out of juice for lack of a charging station. Range anxiety is a real thing that EV manufacturers have failed to solve.

When presented with all the facts, consumers have continually chosen energy that is inexpensive, reliable, and available instead of their green energy pipe dreams. The climate cultists exist in a bubble, where that only happens because Big Oil unfairly manipulates the marketplace. They must, they believe, bring big government mandates and big government expenditures to the battlefield to defeat the evil wrought by Big Oil. At least that’s their cover story. What they really desire is more government, more power, and less consumer choice.

That’s what the Green New Deal truly offers: an enormous expansion of the power and scope of government in the form of a command economy. As we have seen throughout history, command economies necessarily come with higher prices, a loss of individual liberty, and reduced prosperity for all. If Biden somehow gets a second term in office, rest assured the damage he will do in the name of the climate will dwarf what he’s already accomplished.

Jeff Reynolds is a senior investigative researcher for Restoration News, published by Restoration of America, and author of the book “Behind the Curtain: Inside the Network of Progressive Billionaires and Their Effort to Undermine Democracy.” You can find all his work at www.whoownsthedems.net.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/24/the-green-new-deal-is-based-on-lies-about-budgets-green-energy-and-climate-science/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump v US: SCOTUS likely to determine presidents get ‘some amount’ of immunity, experts say - Brianna Herlihy

by Brianna Herlihy

Supreme Court to hear case Thursday to determine whether Trump can claim presidential immunity

The Supreme Court is set to consider arguably the highest-profile cases of the term Thursday to determine whether former President Trump can claim presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by the Biden Justice Department.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump following his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and Trump's alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election result, argued in briefs submitted to the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

Trump's legal team conversely argued, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President…[t]he threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while all nine justices might be skeptical of Trump's sweeping immunity claims, they are likely to give guidance on where presidential immunity from criminal prosecution ends for actions taken while in the Oval Office – which could have a profound impact in the criminal cases against the former president.

SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO DEBATE TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in Trump v. United States on Thursday. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)

Jonathan Turley, a practicing criminal defense attorney and professor at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital the case is "surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs."

"This case may be rather maddening for the justices because it is surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs. If the court goes one way, a president has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they turned the other way, he has a little accountability for the most serious criminal acts," Turley said.

"This is a court that tends to be incremental. They tend not to favor sweeping rulings," he said.

The Justice Department argued in lower court that a president has virtually no immunity when he leaves office, and the lower court agreed.

Turley says the justices "could reject the lower court decision and send it back for a more nuanced approach on constitutional immunity."

"The justices may find that presidents do require immunity, even with regard to some criminal acts," Turley said, adding that "any remand would work significantly in the former president's favor on a tactical level."

Turley explained that if the case were to be remanded back down to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. District Court, that process would make a trial before the November election "even less likely."

"There are both constitutional and tactical aspects to the ruling, but I think these justices are likely to approach this argument with an eye toward balancing these interests, and if that's the case, they could well come up with a different approach than the lower court or the former president," Turley said.

LEGAL EXPERTS SAY JACK SMITH’S RUNWAY TO TRY TRUMP BEFORE 2024 ELECTION ‘JUST GOT A LOT SHORTER’

The thrust of Trump's legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for his official acts, and that the same immunity should apply to a criminal context.

"There’s a real likelihood that the Supreme Court will give some concrete guidance on the exact amount of protection a president is entitled to," Jim Trusty, former legal counsel for Trump and a former federal prosecutor, told Fox News Digital.

"There are still likely to be factual issues that the lower courts will then have to decide as to where President Trump’s actions fit within this continuum of protected or unprotected conduct," he explained.

Former President Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith (Getty Images/File)

John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, gave a similar view.

"The chances of the Supreme Court giving the office of the president some amount of level of immunity are pretty good," Shu told Fox News Digital.

But Shu also said "there's also a decent chance that whatever immunity the court carves out, it may not encompass Trump’s alleged acts."

RED STATE AGS BLAST SPECIAL COUNSEL PUSH FOR SCOTUS TO RUSH TRUMP CASE: ‘PARTISAN INTERESTS’

Former President Trump (Win McNamee/Getty Images/File)

"They won’t be making purely legal arguments, but political power arguments as well, and they’ll have to get at least five Supreme Court justices to agree with them," Shu said.

Trusty said the questions put to each of the parties in Thursday's oral arguments "could be pretty transparent as to each justice’s view of immunity."

So far, Shu observed, Trump’s attorneys have argued that the president has absolute immunity, even after he leaves office, for any and all acts.

"I don’t think the court will go that far," Shu said.

Similarly, Trusty said he expects the court to "give very little credit to the notion of absolutely unlimited immunity, as President Trump’s lawyers have argued."

"But I do think there is a strong possibility that the court confirms the notion that immunity protects the president and that their ruling could set in motion the eventual dismissal of the Jan. 6, Mar-a-Lago and Georgia cases," he said.

The Supreme Court will hear the case, Trump v. United States, on Thursday at 10 a.m.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement, "Without immunity for official acts, there can be no Presidency. No President in American history has faced prosecution for his official acts — until now."

"Allowing political opponents to prosecute the President once he leaves office will distort the President’s most important decisions. Even during his Presidency, his enemies will blackmail and extort him with threats of lawless criminal charges and imprisonment once his term ends. The Framers of our Constitution wisely created a system that prevented this endless, destructive cycle of recrimination for 234 years," he continued.

"The Supreme Court should uphold Presidential immunity and put an end to Jack Smith’s deranged, unconstitutional witch hunt against President Trump, once and for all," he said.

Brianna Herlihy is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-us-scotus-determine-presidents-get-some-amount-immunity-experts

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Senate passes $95 billion foreign aid package, including potential TikTok ban - Misty Severi

by Misty Severi

The Senate already cleared one hurdle earlier Tuesday, by voting to end the filibuster on the foreign aid package in a 80-19 vote.

The Senate voted to pass a major $95 billion foreign aid package late Tuesday night, marking a major achievement for Congress and securing funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, as well as including a provision to ban TikTok in the U.S.

The measure passed 79-18.

Congress has been at a standstill over additional funding for Ukraine, and other funding for Israel and Taiwan, with many Republicans holding out until there was substantial legislation for the southern border crisis. But the House passed three bills on Saturday that include $61 billion for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel, and $8.1 billion in aid for Taiwan.

The Senate cleared one hurdle earlier Tuesday, by voting to end the filibuster on the foreign aid package in a 80-19 vote. That teed up the final vote on Tuesday night. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, praised the end of the filibuster, claiming that Republicans had "turned the corner" on the aid package.

"If you're looking for a trend I think it's a trend in the direction that I would like to see us go, which is America steps up to its leadership role in the world and does what it needs to do," McConnell said in a press conference, per ABC News. "I think we've turned the corner on the isolationist movement. I've noticed how uncomfortable proponents of that are when you call them isolationists. I think we've made some progress and I think it's going to have to continue."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also praised the end of the filibuster, telling Israel and Ukraine that help was "on the way."

"A lot of people inside and outside the Congress wanted this package to fail. But today, those in Congress who stand on the side of democracy are winning the day," Schumer said after the procedural votes Tuesday afternoon. "To our friends in Ukraine, to our allies in NATO, to our allies in Israel, and to civilians around the world in need of help -- help is on the way."

The Senate has passed a $95 billion aid package before, but this time it has already passed the House of Representatives with some minor changes to the bills. The most notable were making some Ukraine funding in the form of loans and changes to the Taiwan bill, which included a way for the United States to ban the app TikTok nationwide, according to the Associated Press.

President Joe Biden praised the passage of the foreign aid package, and said he would sign the legislation as soon as it reaches his desk on Wednesday. He is also expected to deliver short remarks on the passage when signing it.

“Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression,” Biden said in a statement. “I want to thank Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, and all of the bipartisan lawmakers in the Senate who voted for this bill. This critical legislation will make our nation and world more secure as we support our friends who are defending themselves against terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin.”

Misty Severi

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/hold-senate-votes-95-billion-foreign-aid-package

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Risking contempt, Trump casts himself as martyr and defender of free speech over court's gag orders - Ben Whedon

by Ben Whedon

Trump has been subjected to gag orders in Smith’s D.C. election case, Bragg’s prosecution, and James’s civil case, each of which have limited his ability to comment publicly on the allegations against him and the key players in the proceedings.

Former President Donald Trump faced a contempt hearing Tuesday to address claims from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office that he repeatedly violated a gag order from the federal judge overseeing his prosecution, marking the latest development in a string of fights over his public speech amid his myriad civil and criminal trials.

Judge Juan Merchan deferred judgement Tuesday on whether to hold Trump in contempt, but appeared skeptical of the arguments from his attorneys who argued that Trump's remarks did not run afoul of his restrictions.

Trump currently faces four criminal prosecutions, including that of Bragg, two from special counsel Jack Smith, and one from Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney Fani Willis. On the civil side, he remains mired in litigation over New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil fraud case and has also faced civil action from E. Jean Carroll over defamation and sexual battery claims.

Of those, Trump has been subjected to gag orders in Smith’s D.C. election case, Bragg’s prosecution, and James’s civil case, each of which have limited his ability to comment publicly on the allegations against him and the key players in the proceedings.

Trump has broadly contended that each of the cases are part of a wider political witch hunt designed to derail his 2024 bid to return to the White House and has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing. The former president has long taken aim at the leading prosecutors, notably lumping Willis, Smith, Bragg, and James into the so-called “Fraud Squad” last year in an August ad.

But his messaging around the gag orders has seen him recast his legal woes as a form of political pseudo-martyrdom that has even seen him invoke the legacy of South African dissident and later President Nelson Mandela.

James’s civil fraud case

Judge Arthur Engoron issued the first of the gag orders last October as part of James’s case in which she alleged that Trump had manipulated the value of his assets to secure favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums.

Prompting that gag order was a post Trump made on Truth Social in which he dubbed Engoron’s chief clerk “Schumer’s girlfriend” in reference to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. That initial order barred all participants in the case from making public statements about members of the court staff.

A month later, however, Engoron issued a second gag order that also applied to his attorneys and barred comment on his communications with court staff. The order followed Trump attorney Christopher Kise informing the court that it may pursue a mistrial due to a report from Breitbart News suggesting that Engoron’s clerk, Allison Greenfield, had violated judicial ethics rules against excessive political donations.

Two weeks later, Trump secured a temporary stay on the gag order, with Judge David Friedman curtailing the restrictions against his public speech, though an appellate court reinstated the gag order by month’s end. He requested in December that the New York Court of Appeals conduct an “expedited review” of the matter, though in January it declined to toss the order.

Throughout the process, Trump ran afoul of Engoron’s orders and incurred judicial fines over the violations. Though Trump had long criticized the case as partisan in nature, the imposition of fines saw him begin to assert the judge’s complicity.

He incurred one fine after calling Engoron a "very partisan judge” and making a reference to Greenfield. The penalty, however, led to a significant escalation of his rhetoric, with Trump claiming that the judge had “GONE CRAZY IN HIS HATRED OF 'TRUMP,'" and that he was “trying to protect RACIST A.G. Letitia James, who has no case, lost the appeal, but has a tyrannical and unhinged Trump Hating Judge.”

“This is Judicial Misconduct, coupled with Prosecutorial Misconduct, and somebody from the State of New York must step in and stop this Complete & Total Miscarriage of Justice!" he added at the time.

Smith’s election case

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued the second gag order just weeks after Engoron as part of Smith’s prosecution over Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election. Smith first sought the order in September, citing Trump’s past criticism of prosecutors.

"This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses. This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice," Chutkan said at the time. "His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify public servants who are simply doing their jobs.”

Trump promptly appealed the order and linked limitations on his public commentary to the rights of his supporters to hear his opinions.

"By restricting President Trump’s speech, the Gag Order eviscerates the rights of his audiences, including hundreds of millions of American citizens who the Court now forbids from listening to President Trump’s thoughts on important issues," his attorneys argued at the time. Chutkan temporarily stayed the order while he appealed.

Trump’s attempts to directly link his own free speech with the rights of American voters appeared to resonate with an unlikely backer in the form of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued against the gag order on grounds that it was overly vague.

“The obvious and unprecedented public interest in this prosecution, as well as the widespread political speech that it has generated and will continue to generate, only underscores the need to apply the most stringent First Amendment standard to a restraint on Defendant’s speech rights,” the ACLU also asserted.

Chutkan reimposed the gag order the following day, which prompted Trump to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted a temporary stay in early November. A three-judge panel of that court heard arguments on the matter later in the month and appeared critical of the order’s scope. Ultimately, the judges upheld the order, but narrowed its scope to bar Trump from discussing “known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses” and permitted Trump to criticize Smith himself. The panel further limited Trump’s restrictions to comments “made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” the case. The appeals court denied a bid from Trump to rehear the matter en banc in January.

District Attorney Bragg’s “hush money” case

Bragg’s case has witnessed the most recent gag order against Trump as well as some of his most pointed rhetoric on the subject to date.

Prosecutors initially sought the gag order in February in light of Trump’s “long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings.” Trump’s team retorted at the time that it “"would be unconstitutional and unlawful to impose a prior restraint on President Trump’s First Amendment speech.”

Judge Juan Merchan imposed the gag order in late March, but Bragg subsequently asked him to expand its scope after Trump raised concerns over the judge’s daughter’s employment with a left-wing organization. Trump had previously sought Merchan’s recusal over his daughter, Loren’s, employment with Authentic, which boasts both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris as clients. Merchan obliged Bragg.

Early in the process, Trump’s rhetoric focused on the judge’s daughter and suggested that Merchan’s decision-making was influenced by her.

"So, let me get this straight, the Judge’s daughter is allowed to post pictures of her ‘dream’ of putting me in jail, the Manhattan D.A. is able to say whatever lies about me he wants, the Judge can violate our Laws and Constitution at every turn, but I am not allowed to talk about the attacks against me, and the Lunatics trying to destroy my life, and prevent me from winning the 2024 Presidential Election, which I am dominating?" he said in March.

"Maybe the Judge is such a hater because his daughter makes money by working to 'Get Trump,' and when he rules against me over and over again, he is making her company, and her, richer and richer. How can this be allowed?"

As the trial approached in April, however, Trump’s remarks grew sharper, with him indicating a willingness to accept imprisonment for speaking what he deemed “truth.”

“If this Partisan Hack wants to put me in the 'clink' for speaking the open and obvious TRUTH, I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela - It will be my GREAT HONOR,” he posted. “We have to Save our Country from these Political Operatives masquerading as Prosecutors and Judges, and I am willing to sacrifice my Freedom for that worthy cause.”

Last week, Bragg asked Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 for alleging violating the gag order over his categorization of witnesses Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen as "two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!”

The following day, Bragg moved to hold Trump in contempt.

Is it working?

The evolution of Trump’s rhetoric from criticizing prosecutors over bias to claiming political martyrdom and essentially daring the courts to throw him in prison appears to have resonated somewhat with unlikely audiences.

Amid the trial, Trump visited Harlem and found a degree of public support, a visit that led to viral videos of black and Latino residents gathering in his support. Outlets such as the Financial Times subsequently published articles attesting that Trump’s appeals to the issues facing New York, especially on the crime and economic situations, had resonated. His status as a defendant and alleged victim of judicial malfeasance, moreover, also appears to have struck a chord.

“Here’s the sad part about it... It gives credence to the argument Trump made during a speech weeks ago where he talked about black folks relating to him and his plight,” ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith said of Trump’s New York case during a Friday appearance on NewsNation. “Now, what the h--- would black folks have in common with a guy who was born on third base thinking he hit a home run, born with a proverbial spoon in his mouth? It’s the legal system.”

“This man right here, who’s the presumptive GOP nominee is in a position to literally get back into the White House because of what you’re doing to him we find fairly relatable to things that have been done to folks in our community. And it’s happened for decades,” he went on. “There’s no escaping that fact and Trump pointing it out and being accurate in doing so in perhaps the height of embarrassment for the Democratic Party.”

Speaking on the John Solomon Reports podcast in an interview set to air Wednesday, pollster John McLaughlin highlighted the public perception of the cases against Trump, contending that clear majorities saw the cases as politically motivated.

"We're what 196, 195 days away from the election today, where 66% of all voters see these indictments against Donald Trump as political," he said, adding that "56% think Joe Biden has played a role in these indictments ordering them against President Trump."

"54 to 36, they say that a double standard of justice in the United States... 53% to 34%, they believe Joe Biden's training put Donald Trump in jail," he went on.

"[Biden] is driving the narrative against [Trump] with these trials where if you watch MSNBC, CNN and the mainstream networks, you think this is a legitimate, you think it's legitimate, it's not," McLaughlin contended. "And everybody else, the majority of Americans are getting this that, you know what they're trying to do here is wrong."

The pollster further pointed to the overwhelmingly Democratic jury pool in New York City and the participation of a former Biden Department of Justice official in the prosecution.

"So it's completely rigged. You know, like these other indictments that [were] directed by Biden and his supporters, and it's all about stopping Donald Trump from winning reelection because we're heading the pulse," McLaughlin concluded.

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

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/holdrisking-contempt-trump-casts-self-martyr-and-defender-free-speech-over-gag

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Blocks States From Obtaining Info About Abortions - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

This is the very definition of lawlessness.

Whatever you think about abortion, these “sanctuary state” tactics raise troubling questions. Especially when they’re being implemented by the federal government.

States do have the right to enforce their laws. And without Roe v. Wade, this administration is looking to use bureaucratic shenanigans and abuse laws not intended for this purpose to sideline state abortion laws.

The new rule, issued through the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, strengthens existing provisions under the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule.

It is aimed at protecting women living in states where abortion is illegal who travel out of state to have the procedure done – something thousands of women are already doing, research shows.

The rule also protects healthcare providers, insurers, or other entities which perform or pay for abortions.
“Each and every American still has a right to their privacy, especially when it comes to their very private, very personal health information,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said at a news conference announcing the rule.

It specifically bans the use of protected health information related to reproductive care when sought to identify, investigate or punish individuals, providers, or others seeking to obtain, provide, or otherwise facilitate reproductive healthcare such as abortions.

Media Newspeak aside, this isn’t strengthening anything. It’s abusing HIPAA to suppress cooperation with state laws and law enforcement.

This is the very definition of lawlessness.

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-blocks-states-from-obtaining-info-about-abortions/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter