+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You might find this of interest:
Joe Biden Was at Epicenter of Deep State for 5 Decades!
Now a powerful new movie reveals his stunning 50-year record!
In his nearly five decades at the very top of American politics, Joe Biden has often been an embarrassment to the nation — flip-flopping on issues like war, immigration, and taxes, spouting disturbing racial comments as he enriched his friends, allies, and family.
But he has also been backed by the most powerful people in our government, some of the richest people in our country, and has the strong support of China.
Now, for the first time, Newsmax TV’s movie special Bad Decisions: The Joe Biden Story presents a powerful, unflinching, and balanced look at the checkered record of the 46th president of the United States.
It also reveals how Biden really rose from obscurity, first to be Barack Obama’s vice president, and then president of the United States.
The American media have never examined his real record . . . as a senator, as vice president, as a citizen and public figure.
Until now.
Until Newsmax TV, America’s fastest-growing cable news channel, first aired this powerful documentary.
Now, for the first time, it is available on DVD so Americans like you can get the full, unvarnished truth about America’s 46th president.
As a six-term senator from Delaware and two-term vice president under Barack Obama, Biden has consistently portrayed himself as a solid policymaker, a centrist, and an honest, middle-class American.
But Bad Decisions provides startling evidence — based on Biden’s own words, deeds and the people who knew him the best — that his policies have often been disastrous with damaging consequences for the millions they impacted.
Bad Decisions, a one-hour special documentary program, reveals how Biden:
• Flip-flopped on the plan for a U.S. surge in Iraq that saved thousands of American lives.
• Openly opposed the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, considered the hallmark achievement of the Obama presidency.
• Approved a border wall long before President Trump ever advocated for it.
• Opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, then supported it.
• Was derided by Obama’s own Defense Secretary Robert Gates as “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
• The truly shocking story of Biden’s role in Ukraine.
• How the Penn Biden Center at the University of Pennsylvania was backed by Chinese donors.
• Seesawed on taxes — approving of a payroll tax cut during the Obama years, then slamming President Trump’s tax cuts.
• Supported mass incarceration for minor drug offenders that almost destroyed the African-American community.
• Lauded Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member who opposed federally-mandated desegregation and civil rights, as someone who “elevated the Senate.”
• Supports defunding the police by “redirecting” money from the enforcement on streets to education.
________________________________________
“Joe Biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
— Robert Gates, Pres. Obama’s Sec. of Defense
________________________________________
In the heated 2020 campaign for president, the media hid the real Joe Biden story — one that shows decades of policy decisions and secret efforts to benefit his inner circle and Democratic allies . . . all at the expense of the American people.
As Bad Decisions points out, even The Washington Post has reported that Biden has made a “significant move to the left” on “everything from climate and guns to healthcare and policing.”
And now, with over $6 trillion in new spending, Joe Biden is already the most radical left-wing president in history!
You owe it to yourself and America to watch Bad Decisions, this special program produced by Newsmax TV.
You will never see this on CNN, the major TV networks, or even Fox News!
You can now get this powerful DVD from Newsmax with our special FREE Offer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It has come to be, a white supremacist is anyone white whom a radical Trump Hater, a typical liberal hypocrite and /or your garden variety Democrat says they are when a so called "supremacist" objects or calls attention to anything resembling a display of unpatriotic behaviour, ie. disrespect for the American flag etc.. Those who lie about the intent of the founding of our nation do so as a cover for their own hatred and prejudice. Calling someone a racist is also another subtle method of stilling voices and is, itself, an attempt to suppress..
Those who indulge in such blatant attacks are generally trying to hide and/or project their own prejudices and bigotry and is simply another method of character assassination. Such accusations have become a popular weapon of those on the left because it has proven effective and allowed the left to sneak in their own prejudiced characterizations and plans to destroy America.
Inculcating guilt in young white school children is divisive, is sick and is also a brilliant way to destroy a nation. Education remains any nation's soft underbelly and one of the most effective ways to destroy and/or shape a nation's culture.
In terms of America, our history is far more glorious when the whole truth and facts are told because it reveals the story of a people constantly in pursuit of making their union a more perfect one when matched against any other nation. The American Constitution is a document like none other that challenges it's citizens to be and do their best and provides the structural and legal tools to accomplish these worthy goals and pursuits.
Those who wish to destroy America do so for a variety of psychopathic reasons but at the root one always finds an evil intent, one based on neurotic angry discontent, a desire to seek power for ill gotten purposes based on some perceived and/or real act(s) against them. In the case of American blacks, the despicable act of enslavement has been used to legitimately call attention to human acts of immoral depravity. That said, those who continue to seek reforms, often purposely lie and disregard the progress and total legal rejection of such behaviour in order to extract advantages through their own acts of prejudice and abusive amoral behaviour. BLM is the personification of one such organization and there are others.
I believe a backlash is forming and where it takes us and whether it will be successful is yet to be determined. Time always provides the answer.
And:
I find it interesting that one of the great Rights the Founding Fathers created was the right of citizens to vote and thus, change those who governed.
The problem is government has grown so powerful, so big, so distant that by the time two and four years rolls around the damage to our freedoms has occurred and it is often too late to make a difference.
David Brooks and Bret Stephens are the only centrists on the staff of the NYT's Editorial Department and Brooks is questionable. This article begins by stating America is racist, according to Brooks, it is simply a matter of by how much.
How Racist Is America?
By David Brooks - Opinion Columnist
One question lingers amid all the debates about critical race theory: How racist is this land? Anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear knows about the oppression of the Native Americans, about slavery and Jim Crow. But does that mean that America is even now a white supremacist nation, that whiteness is a cancer that leads to oppression for other groups? Or is racism mostly a part of America’s past, something we’ve largely overcome?
There are many ways to answer these questions. The most important is by having honest conversations with the people directly affected. But another is by asking: How high are the barriers to opportunity for different groups? Do different groups have a fair shot at the American dream? This approach isn’t perfect, but at least it points us to empirical data rather than just theory and supposition.
When we apply this lens to the African American experience we see that barriers to opportunity are still very high. The income gap separating white and Black families was basically as big in 2016 as it was in 1968. The wealth gap separating white and Black households grew even bigger between those years. Black adults are over 16 times more likely to be in families with three generations of poverty than white adults.
Research shows the role racism plays in perpetuating these disparities. When, in 2004, researchers sent equally qualified white and Black applicants to job interviews in New York City, dressed them similarly and gave them similar things to say, Black applicants got half as many callbacks or job offers as whites.
When you look at the data about African Americans, the legacies of slavery and segregation and the effects of racism are everywhere. The phrase “systemic racism” aptly fits the reality you see — a set of structures, like redlining, that have a devastating effect on Black wealth and opportunities. Racism is not something we are gently moving past; it’s pervasive. It seems obvious that this reality should be taught in every school.
Does this mean that America is white supremacist, a shameful nation, that the American dream is just white privilege? Well, let’s take a look at the data for different immigrant groups. When you turn your gaze here, the barriers don’t seem as high. For example, as Bloomberg’s Noah Smith pointed out recently on his Substack page, Hispanic American incomes rose faster in recent years than those of any other major group in America. Forty-five percent of Hispanics who grew up in poverty made it to the middle class or higher, comparable to the mobility rate for whites.
Hispanics have lately made astounding gains in education. In 2000, more than 30 percent of Hispanics dropped out of high school. By 2016, only 10 percent did. In 1999, a third of Hispanics age 18 to 24 were in college; now, nearly half are. Hispanic college enrollment rates surpassed white enrollment rates in 2012.
The Hispanic experience in America is beginning to look similar to the experience of Irish Americans or Italian Americans or other past immigrant groups — a period of struggle followed by integration into the middle class.
A study by scholars from Princeton, Stanford and the University of California at Davis found that today’s children of immigrants are no slower to move up to the middle class than the children of immigrants 100 years ago. It almost doesn’t matter whether their parents came from countries from which immigrants are mainly fleeing misery and poverty, or from countries from which immigrants often arrive with marketable skills, children of poor immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than the children of the native-born.
This economic success obviously does not mean immigrant groups do not face hardship, bias and exploitation. Almost every immigrant group in American history has faced that. It just means that education and mobility can help overcome some of the effects of this bias. According to that same study, immigrant groups are largely doing well because they come to places where opportunity is plentiful. They are not so much earning more than those around them, but earning more along with those around them.
Economic progress is one thing. What about cultural integration?
A landmark 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that the lives of immigrants and their children are converging with those of their native-born neighbors, in good ways and bad. This pattern applies to how well educated they are, where they live, what language they speak, how their health is and how they organize their families. A study by a Brown University sociologist, for example, found that Mexican immigrants are learning English at increasingly higher rates and growing less isolated from non-Mexican Americans.
Rising intermarriage rates are one product of this integration. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center report, about 29 percent of Asian American newlyweds are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity, along with 27 percent of Hispanic newlyweds. The intermarriage rates for white and Black people have roughly tripled since 1980. More than 35 percent of Americans say that one of their “close” kin is of a different race.
Blending identities is another sign of this integration. There was an idea going around a few years ago that America was about to become a majority-minority country. This would be true only if you rigidly divided Americans into white and (with one drop of nonwhite blood) nonwhite categories.
But real humans are very quick to adopt multiple and shifting racial identities. The researchers Richard Alba, Morris Levy and Dowell Myers suggest 52 percent of the people who self-categorize as nonwhite in the Census Bureau’s projections for America’s 2060 racial makeup will also think of themselves as white. Forty percent of those who self-categorized as white will also claim minority racial identity.
In an essay for The Atlantic, they conclude: “Speculating about whether America will have a white majority by the mid-21st century makes little sense, because the social meanings of white and nonwhite are rapidly shifting. The sharp distinction between these categories will apply to many fewer Americans.”
When you look at the data across groups, a few points stand out.
First, you can see why some people have issues with the phrase “people of color.” How could a category that covers a vast majority of all human beings have much meaning? The groups that the phrase attempts to bring together have different experiences and even face different kinds of bias. Perhaps this phrase covers over real identities instead of illuminating them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Biden about to make another critical blunder in judgment? Has America become too financially weak and emotionally exhausted to carry through on historical acts of diplomacy.
Balance of power moves in Iran’s favor in Gulf, Jordan, as America pulls back from region
Partly driving the shift “is the weakness the United States is showing towards Iran in its efforts to reduce its presence in the Middle East and bolster its position in the Far East against the growing Chinese challenge,” said Bar-Ilan Professor Hillel Frisch, a Middle East expert at the BESA Center.
By Ariel Ben Solomon
U.S. President Joe Biden met with Jordan’s King Abdullah on Monday amid concerns that Iran is gaining strategic ground in the Gulf area and Jordan as the United States pulls back from the region.
“You’ve always been there, and we will always be there for Jordan,” Biden told Abdullah in front of reporters. “You live in a tough neighborhood.”
Abdullah’s visit comes as Jordan suffers through instability and what the government claims was an attempt to destabilize the regime. Earlier this month, a Jordanian court sentenced two former officials to 15 years in jail for an alleged plot to overthrow the monarchy.
At the same time, the United States is closing military bases in Qatar and transferring weapons and supplies to Jordan, according to a report by the American military publication based in the Pentagon, Stars and Stripes.
The report said that the closure of three bases comes as the Biden administration presses to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan this year and removes eight Patriot anti-missile batteries from Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. However, the United States will continue using Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar for CENTCOM, an Army statement said last month.
It was a great pleasure to meet again with my dear friend President Biden. We had excellent talks on strengthening our historical partnership. Thank you @POTUS for your friendship and support. I look forward to building on our joint efforts for peace, stability and prosperity pic.twitter.com/YpyqkllEeq
— عبدالله بن الحسين (@KingAbdullahII) July 20, 2021
Harold Rhode, a longtime former adviser on Islamic affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense, said that the transfer of weaponry and soldiers to Jordan “sends a message to Iran and other Middle Easterners that America is abandoning the Gulf states by removing them.”
He said the action to remove bases a short distance from Iran and positioning them far away could be part of concessions to Tehran to coax them into rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal. However, these so-called “goodwill gestures might make sense to Westerners, but this concept is totally alien to the Middle Eastern way of thinking. For Middle Easterners, making any unilateral concessions is a sign of weakness.”
“Iran and our Muslim allies in the region see it as another sign that America cannot be trusted,” he added.
“Of all places, why should we move U.S. assets to Jordan? The U.S. administration might think that by doing so, we are strengthening our ally, Jordan. But something else is taking place in Jordan, which over the long term endangers not only our assets there, but our troops and other American diplomats stationed there as well,” assessed Rhode.
“Jordan is extremely unstable and only promises to become more so soon. Therefore, Jordan might not survive,” he said.
Rhode draws attention to how Tehran became the dominant force in both Lebanon and Syria. It seems to be using the same strategy to take over Jordan. In doing so, “Iran is attempting to surround Israel and Saudi Arabia further.”
In an article by Edy Cohen for the BESA Center at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gat, titled “Jordan is now an ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he argues that Abdullah has opened up to Tehran in order to stave off the many crises facing the country, including a struggling and stretched economy, issues related to the coronavirus and an ongoing drought.
The king met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Baghdad as part of a June summit to announce a deal to transport Iraqi oil through Jordan and onto Egypt. Since Iraq remains under the strong influence of Tehran and as Jordanian state media promote cooperation with the country, Cohen posits that Jordan is now allied with Iran.
The pretext Iran could use to infiltrate Jordan, said Rhode, emphasizes that the brother of ‘Ali—the cousin and son-in-law of the Muslim prophet Muhammad—is thought to have a brother named Ja’afar buried in Karak, about 84 miles southwest of the capital of Amman.
“ ‘Ali is the central figure in Shi’ite Islam, but the Sunnis loathe him!” pronounced Rhode. Further, the tribes of Jordan are Sunni and have been the backbone of the state since its founding. “The tribes hate the Palestinians, the Shi’ites, and more and more the monarch imposed on them, they believe, by America and the CIA,” he said.
“The Iranians have built a beautiful shrine where Ja’afar is thought to have been buried—the architecture and atmosphere are Iranian,” explained the former U.S. official.
Desperate for financial support, Iran and the Jordanian monarch have agreed that Iran will turn that shrine into a major Shi’ite tourist site, attracting pilgrims, mainly from Iran.
“These tourists will, of course, be more than tourists. Iran will carefully choose these pilgrims to propagate the Shi’ite version of Islam throughout Sunni Jordan,” predicted Rhode.
“The tribes see the monarch almost as a foreigner,” he said as the king’s mother is British, and he grew up more there than in Jordan. “He is culturally more British than Arab.” His wife, Rania, is Palestinian.
‘Tensions between the king and many Jordanians’
Hillel Frisch, a Middle East expert at the BESA Center and a professor at Bar-Ilan University, told JNS that Jordan’s opening towards Iran “could be attributed primarily to the kingdom’s economic plight and internal political problems.”
But also driving the shift “is the weakness the United States is showing towards Iran in its efforts to reduce its presence in the Middle East and bolster its position in the Far East against the growing Chinese challenge,” he said.
“Welcoming Iranian Shi’ite pilgrims might bring in much-needed cash, but it will also exacerbate tensions between the king and many Jordanians, who are overwhelmingly Sunni and worried over Hezbollah’s influence in Jordan, Syria and Iraq,” said Frisch.
“These developments are obviously bad for Israeli interests,” he added.
At the same time, efforts by Israel’s new government to boost economic, trade, water and other deals are in the works with some hope of warming relations on the horizon, Iran and the Palestinian issues aside.
Also, a defense pact signed in March between Jordan and the United States also remains auspicious.
The lingering question is what the effect of new Iranian efforts in Jordan will be and if the boosted U.S. military presence will provide enough support amid Jordan’s growing instability.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More hypocrisy parading as liberal discontent.
The flavour of malice
The main issue isn't the Ben & Jerry's boycott. It's the thinking behind it.
By Melanie Phillips
In attempting to defend itself against persistent bigotry, the Jewish diaspora repeatedly thinks with its heart rather than its head and consequently misses the key point.
Ben & Jerry’s has announced that it will stop selling its ice-cream in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, areas that it regards as illegally occupied by Israel.
As a result, the company is being boycotted in turn by people who are refusing to consume ice-cream flavoured with malice. In the United States, some supermarket chains are registering their protest by reducing or halting their sales of the product.
Such fury and disgust among Israel-supporters is more than justified. Ben & Jerry’s reasons are spurious and make no sense even by their own lights. They say selling their ice-cream in “occupied Palestinian territory” contravenes their “values”.
Those values apparently include punishing the Palestinians whom the company purportedly supports, since their boycott will hit Arab as well as Jewish consumers in these territories. Indeed, their target is none other than those Arab and Jewish consumers, since the wretched ice-cream isn’t even made in these territories but in undisputed Israel south of Tel Aviv.
Of course, though, the claim that this is just a protest about the disputed territories is a fig-leaf. Omar Barghouti, the founder of the BDS movement, has acknowledged that the strategy is to eradicate Israel from the map altogether.
The chairman of Ben & Jerry’s board, Anuradha Mittal, reportedly has form as a virulent Israel-basher. According to NGO Monitor, in June 2021 she signed a petition to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanding that he halt weapons sales to Israel. In 2019, she tweeted: “calling for Congress not to have allegiances to foreign countries (Israel) is not anti-Semitic”.
She has even attacked the company’s parent body, Unilever, for acting without her board’s approval during this furore in pledging to continue selling Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream in Israel, even though it did not say it would sell it in the disputed territories. The board, said Mittal, had wanted to “release a different statement … that made no reference to continued sales in Israel”.
So Ben & Jerry’s has revealed itself to be poisonously bigoted against Israel. Boycotting its ice-cream is therefore a justified expression of disgust.
Lawsuits that are being threatened on the grounds that the company will be breaking American anti-boycott laws are timely and useful, and will put Unilever under pressure through an embarrassment it clearly never sought and must be fervently wishing would now disappear.
Nevertheless, this emotional reaction by the Jewish world misses the most important and hard-headed issue. For many people oppose this boycott while nodding along to its premise that Israel is an illegal occupier of the disputed territories and is thus repressing Palestinian human rights.
This is true of the Biden administration, which has given Palestinian rejectionism a shot in the arm by restoring funding and diplomatic recognition to the Palestinian Authority but whose State Department has reiterated that “we firmly reject the BDS movement, which unfairly singles out Israel.” And that Janus-faced position is true of other governments and much of the western media, too.
People oppose boycotts on various grounds, including the fact that they punish ordinary people on all sides. Indeed, some may be making this exact objection to the boycott of Ben & Jerry’s that’s now underway.
And even if they do sympathize with boycotting its tubs of “Chunky Monkey” or “Chubby Hubby,” their own attitude to Israel may still be problematic.
Let’s put it this way. Suppose the boycott and lawsuits directed at Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever force the company to resume ice-cream sales in the disputed territories. What then? Residents there will once again be able to buy that product. But does anyone imagine that outcome will get us all very far, even if Mittal were to get the boot?
Throughout the west, innumerable companies, universities, government bodies, professional organisations, the arts and other cultural institutions are stuffed with people who believe that Israel has no right to exist at all; and they contain even more people who believe that although Israel may have such a right, it routinely deprives the Palestinians of theirs.
The point about the attack by Ben & Jerry’s, as with all boycotts of Israel, is that the main issue is not the boycott. It’s the thinking behind the boycott.
After all, boycotts are in themselves a reasonable response to despicable behaviour; which is why many think that in all conscience the west should boycott the Beijing winter Olympics.
Not to do so will give a powerful boost to a tyranny that is posing an increasing risk to the world, and will also make the west inadvertently complicit in the internal repression and human rights outrages being perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party.
The terrible thing, though, is that even some of those who oppose the Ben & Jerry boycott (not to mention the boycotters themselves) think that Israel is similarly despicable. That’s because they’ve swallowed the falsehoods and distortions about Israel that now drive not just the boycott movement but much western opinion.
They believe that the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the land of Israel who were displaced by the Jews; that there is such a thing in international law as Palestinian land; that Israel is in illegal occupation of some or all of that land; and that it is only Israel that stands in the way of the obvious “two-state” solution to the Middle East conflict.
All these claims are falsehoods and distortions, which have wickedly reframed Israel in much of the western mind as a regional aggressor identified with injustice and contempt for the rule of law. And yet the Jewish world, including the State of Israel, is noticeably reticent about demonstrating that these claims are the very reverse of the truth.
It should be constantly hammering home to the world the fact that the indigenous people of the land of Israel are the Jews while the Palestinians are the would-be colonisers; that the notion of Palestinian rights to any of that land is a legal and historical fiction; and that Israel liberated the disputed territories from the truly illegal occupation of those lands by Jordan between 1948 and 1967.
It should be constantly hammering home to the world that the Palestinians reveal by their words, actions and insignia that their aim remains the obliteration of Israel; that the “two-state solution” is a convenient untruth by which they dupe the useful idiots of the west; and that it is only Israel that stands for peace, justice and the rule of law.
Alas, though, the Jewish community itself won’t stand up and tell the truth about the Jews’ unique rights to all the land (whether or not Israel actually wants it all), the legality of all Israel’s actions or the hysterical Jew-hatred spewed out by the Palestinians without remission.
Indeed, given the Palestinian Authority’s repression of its own dissenters, its incitement to murder Israelis and steal their land and its Nazi-themed demonisation of the Jewish people, the question that might properly be raised is whether there’s a moral duty to boycott the Palestinians.
But instead of saying any of this, the Jews are mostly divided between those who believe these lies themselves and those who know they are lies but are too terrified to say so.
Until and unless the Jewish world starts properly exposing the falsehoods and demented antisemitism that are driving the vilification of Israel, boycotting the boycotters will always leave the defenders of truth, justice and sanity behind this particular murderous curve.
Jewish News Syndicate
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment