I have written many times about the meeting I attended at Rollins College where Dr. Ellen Cannon spoke about the eventual impact Muslims would have on our society. Acting all within the law they would initially run focusing particularly on education, ie. school boards and would make every effort to break into the mass media field.
Ellen predicted it would take time but eventually they would be successful and would seek to change our society. It, not only has begun, but, in the last election, the momentum, has gathered steam.
Should you be concerned? I will leave that decision up to you but I would suggest you think about the fact that many of these Muslim elected candidates were not interested in running for public office to enhance our republic and social order but to radicalize and change America more to their liking. (See 1 below.)
And:
I also urge you to read this op ed about the recent candidate for Governor in Georgia.
I posted a similar article earlier but thought this new slant on the same subject was worth posting because so many I have spoken with believe our new governor was guilty of what Abrams alleged.
I warned , during the campaign, Stacey Abrams was the equivalent of Obama in a skirt, was a radical and had many questionable associations which she either denied or kept hidden - most specifically Linda Sarsour . (See 1a and 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only a few memos ago I asked was Chief Justice a weak person and did he influence Justice Kavanaugh in the vote denying The SCOTUS hearing the case regarding Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hanson again on Comey. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hamas, the ever present threat to world order. Toameh is a personal friend. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Many of you are familiar with a couple of congressional seats that were picked up by Muslim women and the first Muslim state attorney general put into office in Minnesota. What you may not realize is just how many political offices were filled by electing Muslims in 2018. Even more concerning is the high percentage of Muslims voting and their openness to promote the fact that they want to “change” our culture and society.
First, the information comes from JETPAC, which stands for Justice Education Technology Political Advocacy Center. According to their Mission Statement:
Jetpac (Justice Education Technology Political Advocacy Center) seeks to build a strong American Muslim political infrastructure and increase our community’s influence and engagement.We will take our place at the table across all levels of government.Our philosophy of change is rooted in a community-based approach, grassroots mobilization, civics training, and technology application. We have developed our own training curriculum, as well as proprietary social media technology and automation tools, to give our Fellows the skills and resources they need to win elections. (emphasis mine)
One wonders if some of those tools involve voter fraud, especially after what we witnessed in Minnesota.
Let’s break down the Muslim wins from federal to the local level, and then we’ll sort them by states.
Federal
| Rashida Tlaib (D) | MI 13th Congressional District | WON |
| Keith Ellison (D) | MN Attorney General | WON |
| Ilhan Omar (D) | MN 5th Congressional District | WON |
| Andre Carson (D) | IN 7th Congressional District | WON |
State
| Sheikh Rahman (D) | GA State Senate District 5 | WON |
| Safiya Wazir (D) | NH State House Merrimack 17 District | WON |
| Robert Jackson (D) | NY State Senate District 31 | WON |
| Nasif Majeed (D) | NC State House District 99 | WON |
| Mujtaba Mohammed (D) | NC State Senate District 38 | WON |
| Mohamud Noor (D) | MN State House District 60B | WON |
| Jason Dawkins (D) | PA State House District 179 | WON |
| Hodan Hassan (D) | MN State House District 62A | WON |
| Charles Fall (D) | NY State House District 61 | WON |
| Ako Abdul-Samad (D) | IA State House District 35 | WON |
| Aboul Khan (R) | NH State House Rockingham 20 District | WON |
| Abdullah Hammoud (D) | MI State House District 15 | WON |
| Abbas Akhil (D) | NM State House District 20 | WON |
County
| Sam Baydoun (D) | MI Wayne County Commission District 13 | WON |
| Sadia Gul Covert (D) | IL Dupage County Board District 5 | WON |
| Sabina Taj | MD Howard County Board of Education | WON |
| Mohammad Ramadan | NJ Passaic County Board of Education | WON |
| Cheryl Sudduth | CA West County Wastewater District Director | WON |
| Babur Lateef | VA Prince William County School Board | WON |
| Assad Akhter (D) | NJ Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders | WON |
| Abdul “Al” Haidous (D) | MI Wayne County Commission District 11 | WON |
Municipal
| Salman Bhojani | TX Euless City Council Place 6 | WON* |
| Dawn Haynes | NJ Newark Public Schools School Board | WON* |
| Yasir Khogali | MI City of Plymouth District Library Board | WON |
| Mohamed Khairullah | NJ Prospect Park Mayor | WON |
| Mohamed Al-Hamdani | OH Dayton Public Schools Board of Education | WON |
| Mo Seifeldein | VA Alexandria City Council | WON |
| Maimona Afzal Berta | CA Franklin-McKinley School Board | WON |
| Jihan Aiyash | MI Hamtramck Public School Board | WON |
| Javed Ellahie | CA Monte Sereno City Council | WON |
| Hazim Yassin | NJ Red Bank City Council | WON |
| Haseeb Javed | VA Manassas Park City Council | WON |
| Farrah Khan | CA Irvine City Council | WON |
| Ali Taj | CA Artesia City Council | WON |
| Alaa Matari | NJ Prospect Park Borough Council | WON |
| Alaa “Al” Abdel-Aziz | NJ Paterson City Council Ward 6 | WON |
| Aisha Wahab | CA Hayward City Council | WON |
| Ahmad Zahra | CA Fullerton City Council District 5 | WON |
| Salim Patel | NJ Passaic City Council | WIN |
| Sabina Zafar | CA San Ramon City Council | WIN |
Judiciary
| Shahabuddeen Ally | NYC Civil Court, NY County | WON |
| Sam Salamey | MI District Courts, District 19 | WON |
| Rabeea Collier | TX District Courts, 113th District | WON |
| Halim Dhanidina | CA Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three | WON |
| George Abdallah Jr. | CA Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Office 12 | WON |
| Adel A. Harb | MI Wayne County Circuit Court | WON |
In breaking these down by state, Deplorable Kel formulated a list.
California
Cheryl Sudduth – West County Wastewater District Director
George Abdallah Jr. – Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Office 12
Halim Dhanidina – Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three
Maimona Afzal Berta – Franklin-McKinley Board of Education
Javed Ellahie – Monte Sereno City Council
Al Jabbar – Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees
Ahmad Zahra – Fullerton City Council District 5
Aisha Wahab – Hayward City Council
Ali Taj – Artesia City Council
Farrah Khan – Irvine City Council
Sabina Zafar – San Ramon City Council
Florida
Amira Dajani Fox (R) – State Attorney
Georgia
Sheikh Rahman (D) – State Senate District 5
Illinois
Sadia Gul Covert (D) – Dupage County Board District 5
Indiana
Andre Carson (D) – 7th Congressional District
Iowa
Ako Abdul-Samad (D) – State House District 35
Maryland
Sabina Taj – Howard County Board of Education
Michigan
Rashida Tlaib (D) – 13th Congressional District
Abdullah Hammoud (D) – State House District 15
Abdul “Al” Haidous (D) – Wayne County Commission District 11
Sam Baydoun (D) – Wayne County Commission District 13
Adel A. Harb – Wayne County Circuit Court
Sam Salamey – District Courts, District 19
Minnesota
Ilhan Omar (D) – 5th Congressional District
Keith Ellison (D) – Attorney General
Hodan Hassan (D) – State House District 62A
Mohamud Noor (D) – State House District 60B
Siad Ali (D) – District 3 member of the Minneapolis Board of Education
New Hampshire
Aboul Khan (R) – State House Rockingham 20 District
Safiya Wazir (D) – State House Merrimack 17 District
New Jersey
Assad Akhter (D) – Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Alaa “Al” Abdel-Aziz – Paterson City Council Ward 6
Mohammad Ramadan – Passaic County Board of Education
Alaa Matari – Prospect Park Borough Council
Dawn Haynes – Newark Public Schools School Board
Hazim Yassin – Red Bank City Council
Mohamed Khairullah – Prospect Park Mayor
Salim Patel – Passaic City Council
New Mexico
Abbas Akhil (D) – State House District 20
New York
Charles Fall (D) – State House District 61
Robert Jackson (D) – State Senate District 3
Shahabuddeen Ally – NYC Civil Court, NY County
North Carolina
Mujtaba Mohammed (D) – State Senate District 38
Nasif Majeed (D) – State House District 99
Ohio
Mohamed Al-Hamdani – Dayton Public Schools Board of Education
Pennsylvania
Jason Dawkins (D) – State House District 179
Texas
Rabeea Collier – District Courts, 113th District
Salman Bhojani – Euless City Council Place 6
Virginia
Babur Lateef – Prince William County School Board
Haseeb Javed – Manassas Park City Council
Mo Seifeldein – Alexandria City Council
Those judiciary wins are extremely significant considering how judges don’t seem to be concerned about the Constitution anymore and look to foreign law and “precedent” in many of their rulings.
However, numbers from a report by Hamas-CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) in coordination with JETPAC indicates that a high percentage of Muslims voted in 2018.
The report claims:
95% of Muslim voters participated in this year’s midterm election.
• 78% of Muslim voters primarily voted for the Democratic Party candidates and 17% for Republican Party candidates.
• 46% of Muslim voters consider themselves liberal on social issues, while 35% consider themselves conservative.
• 43% of Muslim voters consider themselves fiscally conservative, while 40% consider themselves liberal.
• 26% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic candidates perceived themselves as being conservative on social issues. Moreover, 36% perceived themselves as being fiscally conservative.
• 68% of Muslim voters thought Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. increased while 17% thought it decreased in the past year.
• 78% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year. Conversely, only 33% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Republican Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.
• 53% of Muslim voters became more interested in politics since the 2016 presidential election, while 34% maintained the same level of interest in politics and 13% became less interested in politics.
• 55% of Muslim voters have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since the 2016 presidential election, while 45% have not.
• Out of those Muslim voters who have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since 2016 presidential election:
• 20% have primarily donated money to a political or social campaign.
• 25% have primarily donated their time by volunteering with a local charity or civic-minded or religious organization.
• 18% have primarily donated their expertise by using their skills and/or network to advance social/political engagement.
• 37% have primarily been involved in another way.
• 78% of Muslim voters primarily voted for the Democratic Party candidates and 17% for Republican Party candidates.
• 46% of Muslim voters consider themselves liberal on social issues, while 35% consider themselves conservative.
• 43% of Muslim voters consider themselves fiscally conservative, while 40% consider themselves liberal.
• 26% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic candidates perceived themselves as being conservative on social issues. Moreover, 36% perceived themselves as being fiscally conservative.
• 68% of Muslim voters thought Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. increased while 17% thought it decreased in the past year.
• 78% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year. Conversely, only 33% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Republican Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.
• 53% of Muslim voters became more interested in politics since the 2016 presidential election, while 34% maintained the same level of interest in politics and 13% became less interested in politics.
• 55% of Muslim voters have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since the 2016 presidential election, while 45% have not.
• Out of those Muslim voters who have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since 2016 presidential election:
• 20% have primarily donated money to a political or social campaign.
• 25% have primarily donated their time by volunteering with a local charity or civic-minded or religious organization.
• 18% have primarily donated their expertise by using their skills and/or network to advance social/political engagement.
• 37% have primarily been involved in another way.
If you don’t think they have an agenda to conform America to Islam, you really do need to pull your head out of the sand.
1a) The Cynicism of Georgia’s Stacey Abrams
By Karl Rove
The Democratic gubernatorial loser goes to court with bogus racism charges.
In one state and for one candidate, the 2018 midterm election isn’t over.
Georgia Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Stacey Abrams lost to Republican Brian Kemp by 54,723 votes, 50.2% to 48.8%. Turnout was 3.9 million, the biggest ever in a Peach State governor’s race.
But Ms. Abrams insists she “cannot concede” that the outcome “is right, true or proper.” At issue is what she calls Mr. Kemp’s “appalling” actions as Georgia’s secretary of state. She asserts his objective was the “suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote,” in a “deliberate and intentional” effort that left the election “rotten and rigged.”
Because “democracy failed in Georgia,” Ms. Abrams has filed a lawsuit. She’s seeking to do more than overturn state laws: She wants to brand Mr. Kemp a racist election thief and discredit his tenure as governor.
Ms. Abrams has claimed that Mr. Kemp unlawfully purged 1.5 million voters from the rolls, put 53,000 new registrations on hold, created long polling lines on Election Day, and misplaced provisional ballots. She says her “accusations are based entirely on evidence.” Let’s take a look.
First, removing names from the registration rolls: The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton, requires states to keep voter lists “accurate and current” by identifying persons who died or moved, using “uniform, nondiscriminatory” procedures.
Georgia’s law to comply with the federal act is similar to Ohio’s, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this year. It works like this: If the U.S. Postal Service’s change-of-address list shows a Georgia voter has moved or is no longer at his address of record, the state sends him a postage-paid confirmation reply card. It there’s no response for 30 days, the voter is considered “inactive,” but can still vote if he wants. If he doesn’t turn out in the next two federal elections, he is removed from the rolls. The removal process can take as long as seven years. And about the impact of those removals: While Mr. Kemp was Secretary of State, the number of Georgians registered to vote rose from 5.8 million before he took office in 2010 to 6.9 million this year.
Then there’s the charge of holding up registration applications. This involves the state’s “exact match” law, which requires the last name, first initial, date of birth and other simple information on voter-registration applications match the information in the Social Security database or the Georgia driver’s-license file. If they don’t match, the prospective voter is notified online and by mail, and given 26 months to correct any discrepancy. Meanwhile, he can vote by presenting a valid ID that is “a substantial match” with his application. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a similar law in Florida. Moreover, local election boards in Georgia’s 159 counties check registration forms against the databases. The secretary of state’s office is only a backstop.
Ms. Abrams herself may be responsible for many of the botched voter applications. Before running for governor, she led a $12.5 million registration drive that paid her $442,000 over three years for serving as its part-time leader. Despite ample resources, Ms. Abrams’s efforts relied on paper forms, not online registration or electronic forms. As a result, many applications contained mistakes or fraudulent signatures.
Ms. Abrams’s complaints about long lines at polling places and mishandled provisional ballots are also misplaced. County election boards, not the secretary of state, decide on poll closures, set the number of voting machines, and handle provisional ballots. These local officials are in many cases Democrats, and Ms. Abrams carried the three Atlanta-area counties—Fulton, Cobb and DeKalb—with the most closures, the largest numbers of machines withdrawn from service, and the bulk of provisional-ballot problems.
As a rising star on the Democratic left, Ms. Abrams drew millions in donations from the Soros family and billionaire hedge-funder Tom Steyer, as well as campaign appearances by Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama and many of the party’s 2020 presidential hopefuls. She lost anyway.
Ms. Abrams now cynically claims she’s a victim of election fraud motivated by bigotry. Even in this ugly period of American politics, trying to use defeat in a close election to create racial resentment stands out as dangerous and corrosive. Ms. Abrams’s suit, Fair Fight Action v. Crittenden, is unlikely to have a happy ending. And damaging the state’s reputation won’t help her win future races, no matter how much she says she loves Georgia and wants to serve it. Sometimes you should exit gracefully.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
Appeared in the December 13, 2018, print edition.
1b) Women’s March leaders buried anti-Semitic ‘family secret’
Tablet Magazine reveals that two leaders of the Women’s March swapped anti-Semitic conspiracy theories when they first met.
By World Israel News Staff
A Dec. 10, Tablet Magazine story by Leah McSweeney and Jacob Siegel reveals that two leaders of the Women’s March swapped anti-Semitic conspiracy theories when they first met in November 2016.
“In the first hours of the first meeting for what would become the Women’s March … something happened that was so shameful to many of those who witnessed it, they chose to bury it like a family secret,” McSweeney and Siegel write.
Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez, while getting to know one another, talked about the Jews’ “special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people,” and that “Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade,” the Tablet authors write, citing a “close secondhand source.”
“These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam — ‘the bible of the new anti-Semitism,’ according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: ‘Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation,’” McSweeney and Siegel say.
Mallory denies she made such comments.
A similar scene took place at a January 2017 meeting held at Mallory’s apartment, the Tabletauthors say. One of the attendees, Evvie Harmon, described to the magazine what happened when Mallory and Perez started criticizing Vanessa Wruble, another member of the group.
“I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa, who was sitting on a couch, and berating her—but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’ I was raised in the South and the language that was used is language that I’m very used to hearing in rural South Carolina. Just instead of against black people, against Jewish people. They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.”
The Tablet piece also reports that Nation of Islam members handled security and acted as drivers for the Women’s March co-founders, according to Mercy Morganfield, a former spokeswoman for the Women’s March.
In November, the founder of the Women’s March movement, Teresa Shook, called on the leaders to step down, tweeting on Nov. 19:
“In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs. I call for the current Co-Chairs to step down and to let others lead who can restore faith in the Movement and its original intent.”
One of the first public figures to distance herself from the group was actress Alyssa Milano, who announced in late October that she wouldn’t speak at another Women’s March event until its organizers denounce notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
She was followed shortly afterwards by fellow actress Debra Messing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Behind the Supreme Court’s Dodge
Three Justices rebuke Kavanaugh and Roberts for ducking a big case.
The Editorial Board
Supreme Court watchers are looking for clues about the new conservative majority, and on Monday they were offered a surprising one. The Justices chose not to hear Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, drawing a sharp rebuke from three of the Court’s conservatives.
At issue is whether patients may sue states in federal court for restricting or removing providers from their Medicaid programs. Many states excluded Planned Parenthood amid reports that the outfit illegally harvested fetal organs and engaged in fraudulent billing. Louisiana in Gee terminated its at-will contract with Planned Parenthood for reproductive services.
Federal law gives states substantial discretion to administer Medicaid programs but establishes guidelines for receiving matching federal dollars. The Health and Human Services secretary may withhold funds from states that don’t comply.
One federal requirement is that Medicaid patients may obtain care from any provider “qualified to perform the service or services required.” The law does not define “qualified,” and states can exclude providers “for any reason . . . authorized by state law.” States must also provide an administrative appeal and judicial review for excluded providers.
But Planned Parenthood has leapfrogged state adjudication by recruiting plaintiffs to sue in federal court to vindicate their putative right to their preferred provider. Five appellate courts including the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have recognized a private right of action while the Eighth has not.
One reason for the split is the Supreme Court’s hazy and evolving jurisprudence. During the late 20th century, the Court permitted private rights of action that are not explicitly provided in federal law. But the Court has recently met these lawsuits with more skepticism. In Gonzaga v. Doe (2002), the Court held that the creation of a private right requires “clear and unambiguous terms.”
Planned Parenthood wanted federal regulators to clear up the 5-1 circuit split with guidance. But at issue is more than different statutory interpretations—which the Court is well-suited to resolve—but basic questions of federalism and separation of powers. If federal courts may compel states to reinstate Medicaid providers, the political branches become subservient to the judiciary and the state-federal relationship is abrogated.
All of this made the case ripe for High Court review. A grant of certiorari requires four justices, and three wanted to consider the case. But Chief Justice John Roberts and new Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the four liberals in passing.
In a dissent joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that the case “affects the rights of the States” and their ability to manage Medicaid. The circuit division “stems, at least in part, from this Court’s own lack of clarity on the issue” and “it is our job to fix it.”
Justice Thomas spared no feelings in rebuking the no votes. “So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” he wrote.
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background,” he added. “The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote ‘that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance’ of the courts’ role as ‘bulwarks of a limited Constitution,’ unaffected by fleeting ‘mischiefs.’”
***
Perhaps the Chief Justice wanted to avoid deciding a case certain to become embroiled in the politics of abortion. Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh thought the Chief might side with the Court’s liberals on the merits, so why take the case and lose? Or perhaps Justice Kavanaugh wanted to avoid a case fraught with gender politics so soon after his Senate ordeal.
The dodge is disappointing whatever the reasons. An unsound ruling could injure the constitutional order, but so does continuing legal confusion that invites more federal regulation and more litigation against states. If the Justices duck every case remotely implicating gender politics, substantive constitutional issues will go unresolved and individual rights may be impaired.
The Constitution provides Justices with lifetime appointments precisely to insulate them from political considerations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Comey Continues to Display His Lack of Credibility
Fired former FBI Director James Comey is at it again.
Last week, Comey testified before members of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In a single appearance, Comey, on 245 separate occasions, while under oath, stonewalled questions with “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall,” according to a congressional interrogator, Rep. Jim Jordan. (R-Ohio).
If any private citizen tried Comey’s gambit with federal IRS auditors or FBI investigators, he would likely be indicted for perjury or obstruction.
Why did Comey, the nation’s former top-ranking federal investigator, avoid telling “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” while under oath?
The answer is, unfortunately, obvious. Comey has been called to testify before members of Congress on numerous occasions. He has written a long book and gone on an extensive book tour, and his paper trail is long.
He tweets almost daily and is often on television — and in those venues never seems to admit to any memory lapse. And Comey has been at the center of every major scandal involving the 2016 election.
In other words, Comey is realizing that almost anything he might say will likely be at odds with something he has said, done or written prior — and could potentially subject him to perjury charges.
So, Comey dodges and hedges.
Oddly, Comey has long posed as a modern-day Jeremiah. He thunders almost daily about the moral lapses of his perceived antagonists — mostly Donald Trump, the Trump administration and the Republican Party that Comey left.
Comey has tweeted under the pseudonym “Reinhold Niebuhr” — the celebrated 20th-century German-American theologian and ethicist. Comey apparently wishes to remind us of their similar moral insight.
Comey’s memoir is grandly entitled “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.” He writes to remind readers of his sterling character, which has always guided his career. Most recently, the self-righteous Comey said that the interim attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, is not very bright.
What is odd about the professed ethics of the sanctimonious Comey is that his assertions are belied by his own often-unethical conduct.
The Justice Department’s inspector general criticized Comey in a report for acting unprofessionally in his investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit private email server, improperly assuming the role of both investigator and prosecutor. Comey concluded, then opened, and then again concluded the Clinton email case at public press conferences in the midst of a presidential campaign. He drafted an exoneration of Clinton before he had even interviewed her or her top aides.
Comey’s testimony about FBI leaks to the press is at odds with his sworn statements from his former deputy, Andrew McCabe.
Comey met with President Trump on several occasions and ensured him that he was not the subject of an FBI investigation — amid mysterious leaks to the press that Trump was, in fact, part of the probe.
Speaking of leaks, Comey made sure that his memos about his meetings with President Trump were leaked to the press.
Comey said his bizarre behavior was designed to force the appointment of a special counsel, which resulted in the selection of Robert Mueller, a former FBI director and a longtime Comey acquaintance.
A number of high-ranking FBI officials during Comey’s tenure have either been fired, forced to resign, retired or were reassigned — in some cases resulting from accusations of improper conduct or bias.
McCabe was assigned by Comey to oversee the Clinton email scandal even though just months earlier, McCabe’s wife had run for a seat in the Virginia state senate with the help of nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with the Clintons.
Comey’s FBI is largely responsible for the prominence — and the leaking — of the notorious dossier compiled by Christopher Steele. Yet Comey did not reveal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that requests for warrants to conduct surveillance on a member of the Trump administration were based on an unverified dossier. The court was never informed that the dossier was funded in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Nor was the court informed that Steele, a British citizen, had been dropped as an FBI source for leaking to the press. Comey also misled the court by presenting news stories as proof of alleged Trump-Russian collusion, even though those stories were based on the contents of the unverified Steele dossier.
There has been no explanation from Comey about why, when, where and how the FBI used an informant in hopes of gaining damaging information against Trump.
Comey’s sanctimoniousness and misdeeds pose lots of questions. Is Comey a mere hypocrite? Or in guilt does he project his sins onto others? Or does he by design pose as a moralist to help insulate himself from future legal jeopardy?
Or all of the above?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) The Hamas Plan to Take the West Bank
- Hamas and its allies are openly working and encouraging the eruption of a new anti-Israel uprising in the West Bank, and they have been emboldened by the recent failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt a US-sponsored resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for firing rockets at Israel and inciting violence.
- The Hamas-engineered attacks are not only a threat to Israeli civilians and soldiers; they also undermine the Western-funded Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas. Each "successful" attack carried out by Hamas earns it more popularity in the West Bank, at the cost of Abbas and his regime.
- Now that Hamas is getting what it wants in the Gaza Strip -- millions of dollars and no war with Israel -- it is seeking to shift the attention to the West Bank, all with the help of its friends in Tehran. This has a twofold goal: to undermine or overthrow the Palestinian Authority, inflict heavy casualties on Israel, and thwart any peace plan brought forward by the US administration.
Hamas and its allies are openly working to export their "armed struggle" against Israel beyond the Gaza Strip and ultimately to take control of the West Bank. Pictured: Masked Hamas terrorists. (Photo by Abid Katib/Getty Images)
|
It is clear by now that Hamas is behind some of the recent terror attacks against Israelis in the West Bank. These attacks serve the interests of Hamas and its friends and sponsors, especially the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization -- and Iran.
Hamas and its allies have a plan, and they are not even keeping it a secret -- to export their "armed struggle" against Israel beyond the Gaza Strip and ultimately to take control of the West Bank.
The latest terrorist attack took place on December 9 outside the West Bank settlement of Ofra, east of Ramallah. An Israeli-Canadian citizen, Amichai Ish-Ran, and this pregnant wife, Shira, were among seven people wounded in a drive-by shooting attack. The baby born prematurely as a result of the terrorist attack died on December 12, after doctors fought to save his life for close to 72 hours.
Hamas, which later claimed responsibility for the attack, was the first Palestinian faction to commend the terrorists. So far, not a single Palestinian faction has come out against the attack, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction.
Describing the shooting attack as a "heroic and qualitative operation," representatives of Hamas and several Palestinian factions said that it demonstrated that the Palestinian "resistance was still alive in the West Bank." They also called on Palestinians to "step up the intifada (uprising) against Israel, specifically settlers and Israel Defense Forces soldiers.
"The West Bank has taken the initiative of resisting the occupation," Hamas said in a statement published in the Gaza Strip shortly after the terrorist attack. The attack, Hamas added, "came to affirm our people's legitimate right to resist the occupation at a time when the occupation, together with Israel, had tried to criminalize our resistance."
This stance by Hamas points at two important factors; first, that Hamas and its allies are openly working and encouraging the eruption of a new anti-Israel uprising in the West Bank; and, second, that Hamas and its friends have been emboldened by the recent failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt a US-sponsored resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for firing rockets at Israel and inciting violence.
Hamas's dream of spreading its ideology to all Palestinians is as old as its foundation 31 years ago. Hamas is not interested in ruling only the Gaza Strip. It wants the West Bank, Jerusalem, and all the land, "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." Hamas does not believe in negotiations or peaceful settlements. Rather, it believes that the only way to "liberate" Muslim land is through jihad. This goal is why, it says, it remains committed to the option of "armed struggle" against Israel.
As Hamas clearly states in its charter:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned." (Article 6)The Hamas charter leaves no doubt as to the methods it believes should be used to employed to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian issue except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." (Article 13)The Hamas charter, which is relevant today more than ever, states unambiguously that the movement "believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up. (Article 11).
From here, it is easy to understand why Hamas continues to celebrate and applaud every terrorist attack against Israel, whether in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or inside Israel proper. Hamas sees these "heroic and brave operations" as an implementation of its ideology of waging jihad to "liberate the land of Palestine." Even if the terrorists who carried out the recent shootings in the West Bank do not belong to Hamas, their attacks are completely compatible with Hamas's declared goals and ambitions, the most prominent of which is seeing Israel removed from the map.
Hamas has good reason to celebrate not only the attacks, but what it perceives as a series of "achievements" that it has gained in recent weeks. These "achievements" include the $30 million in Qatari cash grants that were delivered to Hamas in the past few weeks so that it can pay salaries and stipends to tens of thousands of its employees and supporters, as well as the failure of the UN General Assembly to adopt the anti-Hamas resolution. These two steps have left Hamas leaders laughing all the way to the next shooting attack on Israel.
The Qatari funds are being delivered to Hamas as part of unwritten understandings regarding a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. The purpose of the funds is to help solve the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and prevent the eruption of another major military confrontation between Hamas and Israel. Hamas, however, has thus far done nothing to stop the violence, including weekly protests that began last March along the border with Israel. On the contrary, Hamas is now saying -- and there is good reason to believe it -- that the demonstrations will continue. Hamas is also saying the that it was not required to pay any "political price" for a purported ceasefire.
The ceasefire understandings between Hamas and Israel, which were reportedly achieved through the mediation of Qatar, Egypt and the UN, are only related to the Gaza Strip, and have nothing to do with the West Bank. Because these understandings are limited to the Gaza Strip, Hamas, believes it has a green light to continue launching and directing terrorist attacks from the West Bank without being accused of violating the ceasefire.
The UN, Qatar and Egypt should have demanded that any ceasefire agreement include the West Bank, where Hamas still has several armed cells as well as significant support.
The Hamas-engineered attacks are not only a threat to Israeli civilians and soldiers; they also undermine the Western-funded Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas. Each "successful" attack carried out by Hamas earns it more popularity in the West Bank, at the cost of Abbas and his regime.
Evidently, members and friends of Hamas have interpreted the failure to adopt the US resolution as a pass from the UN and the international community to continue their "resistance" against Israel. They perceive the failure of the US administration as a "big achievement" -- one that permits the Palestinians to continue all forms of "resistance" against Israel, including the "armed struggle." It is no coincidence, then, that Hamas has responded to the debacle at the UN General Assembly by pledging to remain committed to an "armed struggle" against Israel.
Every dollar and every concession that is being made to Hamas will only increase its appetite to continue its plan to extend its control beyond the Gaza Strip. From Hamas's point of view, its plan has won legitimacy from the UN and important players in the region such as Qatar and Egypt. As long as Hamas feels that it is marching in the right direction, we are likely to see an increase in armed attacks and other forms of violence in the West Bank.
Now that Hamas is getting what it wants in the Gaza Strip -- millions of dollars and no war with Israel -- it is seeking to shift its attention to the West Bank, all with the help of its friends in Tehran. This has a twofold goal: to undermine or overthrow Abbas's Palestinian Authority, inflict heavy casualties on Israel, and thwart any peace plan brought forward by the US administration. In other words, Hamas and Iran now have their sights set on the West Bank, and this is reason not only for Israel to worry, but Abbas as well.
Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment