General

Update on AIPAC: It’s All About the Benjamins.”

/2 Comments/in /by

NYTimes:

… AIPAC has criticized at least one Republican lawmaker recently, but its campaign spending in this year’s election has focused largely on opposing candidates in Democratic primary elections it judges not to be in sync with its agenda. AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has already spent money seeking to defeat candidates in Democratic primaries for House seats in California and Illinois deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel, including a Chicago community organizer who has described Israel’s offensive in Gaza as “genocide.”

And AIPAC has blasted its closest — though far smaller — rival, the more dovish pro-Israel group J Street, which has criticized Mr. Netanyahu and called for a negotiated stop to the war.

J Street “is many things,” AIPAC has said repeatedly on social media, “but it is not pro-Israel.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s president, responded, “Intra-communal bickering and organizational food fighting does nothing to advance the security and well being of the people of Israel.”

AIPAC’s bare-knuckled approach has sparked protest. On Monday, a coalition of progressive interest groups launched an initiative called “Reject AIPAC,” an effort to counter the $100 million that AIPAC is expected to spend to defeat congressional candidates who have decried the civilian suffering in Gaza produced by Israel’s war against Hamas. …

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for AIPAC, said in a statement: “Our sole criteria for evaluating candidates from both parties is their position on strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. We believe it is entirely consistent with progressive values to stand with the Jewish state.” [!!! Actually, he’s probably right. Many progressives in the West would have no problem with genocide if it was against White Christian conservatives.]

AIPAC’s bare-knuckled approach has sparked protest. On Monday, a coalition of progressive interest groups launched an initiative called “Reject AIPAC,” an effort to counter the $100 million that AIPAC is expected to spend [$100,000,000! Just try to find that kind of money to promote our ethnic interests. Jewish activism begins and ends with money—and media and academic power.]  to defeat congressional candidates who have decried the civilian suffering in Gaza produced by Israel’s war against Hamas. [AIPAC: “There has been absolutely zero civilian suffering in Gaza.”] …

AIPAC’s tactics have had a chilling effect in Congress, according to some Democrats.

“I’ve seen people who have said I really can’t vote this way because I don’t want an AIPAC opponent,” said Representative Mark Pocan, Democrat of Wisconsin and an outspoken critic of the group. “That gets said a lot.” [Politicians being politicians. No principles. Just get elected.]

AIPAC remains one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington. It raised a record amount of money in 2023, and its super PAC began this year with more than $40 million on hand to spend in campaigns. Some of its biggest donors are Republicans like the hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and the WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum. …

[At an AIPAC conference,] Officials [never shy about pressuring Jews for money] urged the donors to give more, casting the moment as perilous for the group’s mission, even as the programming demonstrated AIPAC’s enduring clout.

On Sunday evening, Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, spoke at the conference. On Monday, attendees heard from President Biden’s Middle East coordinator, Brett McGurk, as well as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, and Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli war cabinet. Mr. Gantz warned the crowd that an Israeli invasion of Rafah — the area of southern Gaza where Hamas leaders are believed to be hiding — was a question of when, not if, one listener said.

Mr. Schumer received a standing ovation when he declared that “as long as Hamas exists, there will never be a two-state solution,” according to two people who heard his remarks, “with Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace, prosperity, security and dignity.” [What a joke. The two-state solution is nothing more than a sick joke at this point, but useful for Israeli propaganda.]

 

Paul Craig Roberts: “What’s Up with Conservatives?”

/4 Comments/in /by

Paul Craig Roberts: “What’s Up with Conservatives?”

[It] is depressing that [Gov Noem of South Dakota] is so uninformed that she cannot connect her enthusiasm for halting the inflow of immigrant-invaders with her unbridled support for Jews. Governor Noem stresses that she “called on every governor to follow my lead and send troops to the border, and I offered to personally drive more razor wire down to Texas in the back of my truck.” Yet, she seems unaware that principal among the NGOs recruiting and financing the overrunning of America by “immigrant-invaders” is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, of which the current director of the US Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, himself a Jew, was a board member. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/02/18/the-genocide-of-the-west/ and https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/02/06/america-is-undergoing-genocide/
So here we have Governor Noem pimping for Jews as she complains about the immigrant-invaders the Jews are helping to bring into our country.

It is really quite astounding that a governor, a conservative hope, cannot see the contradiction or inconsistency in her positions. What it looks like is that politicians simply grandstand on issues that they don’t bother to understand and, thereby, end up with inconsistent positions.

Of course, it’s not so astounding to readers of this website. And it’s bereft of any analysis of how we got here—in particular, that the activist Jewish community views multicultural, multiethnic immigration as a net positive (with few small bumps mainly as a result of Muslim immigration) because it precludes a homogeneous White society that might come to see Jews as enemies, as happened in Germany in the 1930s. And it’s not just liberal-left Jews who see things this way, but Jewish neocons are totally accepting of the “invite the world, invade the world” ideology.

Neocons have been incredibly influential in the Noem’s party, basically dominating U.S. foreign policy in both parties until Trump’s candidacy resulted in wholesale defection among GOP neocons because of his declared non-interventionist foreign policy and his rhetoric against multiculturalism (e.g., claiming that Brussels isn’t Brussels anymore). Hence Victoria Nuland, who was Dick Cheney’s top foreign  policy advisor as well as having important positions in the Obama and Biden administrations.

A big part of the decline of the U.S. is that politicians of both sexes and both parties overwhelmingly see getting elected as their only real goal, and supporting Jewish causes, especially Israel, is a fundamental sine qua on for election. Hence subservience to the interests of our hostile, Jewish-dominated elite, is the only real option. It’s where the money (particularly from the Republican Jewish Coalition) and media coverage are.

Victoria Nuland Resigns—Not a Moment Too Soon

/in /by

Arch-neocon Victoria Nuland, who has been discussed many times on TOO, has resigned as the State Department’s Secretary of the Ukraine War. I have seen very little commentary on her resignation, so an article on ZeroHedge got my attention. Unfortunately, the comments are admittedly speculative, but seem at least reasonable.

While there have been rumors that maybe [Nuland] could be in poor or declining health, McGovern has told Russia’s Sputnik that the notoriously hawkish Nuland was a liability at a moment NATO and Russia are inching closer to direct nuclear-armed confrontation.

From the Sputnik article: “The CIA would have, the NSA would have those conversations as well,” said McGovern, referring to leaked recordings of discussions between Nuland and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius that appeared to reveal plans for an imminent attack on Russian soil. The leaks generated significant embarrassment for German officials as attention was drawn to Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s support for the Ukraine proxy conflict.
[McGovern:] My best guess here is that the CIA and the Defense Department and the NSA got this message around saying, ‘look, Victoria’s got her own agenda here,’” said the analyst. “‘The president doesn’t really want to strike these ammo depots in Russia or knock down the [Crimean] Bridge. So we got to rein her in, I guess it’s time for her to go to early retirement.’”

“My best guess here is that the CIA and the Defense Department and the NSA got this message around saying, ‘look, Victoria’s got her own agenda here,’” said McGovern.

The former CIA official continued to speculate: “‘The president doesn’t really want to strike these ammo depots in Russia or knock down the [Crimean] Bridge. So we got to rein her in, I guess it’s time for her to go to early retirement.’”

Another theory, though not necessarily contradictory to the above, has been advanced by professor of national security at Bowie State University Dr. Matthew Crosston.

He laid out what “a staunch anti-Putinist Nuland was and how fervently she wanted to continue to utilize Ukraine as a platform in which to continue to weaken and/or slight Russia on the global stage — and perhaps even up the ante in that conflict with her support of sending ballistic missiles into Ukraine.” But she also knows the Ukrainian side is losing.

She may have seen the writing on the wall as Ukraine forces are in retreat, and wanted to bail before potential total defeat:

“She undoubtedly understood that if American support lessons or wanes, Ukraine loses, period,” Crosston pointed out. “Perhaps she did not want to be in the Administration that would be responsible for that outcome.”

But both McGovern and Crosston would agree that with Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (in this capacity she basically ran all of US foreign policy in Europe), ceasefire talks between Kiev and Moscow remained an extremely distant prospect or even an impossibility.

“One thing is certain: as long as Nuland remained in that chair, there was literally no chance such talk could even be theorized. Now it can,” Crosston concluded.

ZeroHedge also includes this video of an interview of Glenn Greenwald. Much of this will be familiar to readers of TOO, but there is a discussion of Adam Schiff as a warmonger endorsed by AIPAC and now the presumed next Senator from California. Schiff was buoyed by billionaires, presumably Jewish or at least rabidly pro-Israel, who donated millions to Republican Steve Garvey (who has no chance to win in a very blue state) in order to prevent a runoff between two Democrat candidates. As expected, no mention of Nuland’s strong Jewish connections — also prominent among neocons generally (see here, p. 32ff).

Judge Carney Defends the First Amendment

/1 Comment/in , /by

Editor’s note: This FEF article on selective prosecution is very important. It is a huge problem for our side and happens repeatedly. The prosecution of the right — even though the same behavior or worse on the left is tolerated — is paradigmatic, but there are many other examples, including the lawfare against Vdare, the deluge of lawsuits against Trump (e.g., inflating property values is common in the real estate industry, and banks can certainly do their own due diligence), and the J6 and Charlottesville defendants. All of these suits have been brought by leftist prosecutors who depend on the courts to uphold their arguments. And people on our side don’t file civil suits related to free speech either because it’s unlikely we could succeed in the courts, no matter how much the facts are on our side (e.g., James Edwards’ lawsuit for defamation against The Detroit Free Press—no libel protection for White advocates). It’s hard to find judges who will apply the rule of law in these situations, but Judge Carmac Carney is doing that. But of course the evil forces of repression are doing their best to overcome that.

Support the cause: donate today at https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/donate/.

JUDGE CARMAC CARNEY DEFENDS THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW

Written by: FEF Staff

There is an old adage that a judge is a combination of a lawyer and a politician. Hard experience by attorneys representing the Dissident Right in First Amendment cases has shown that this adage often – too often – carries much truth. But there are exceptions. There are judges who wear their robes with honor and interpret and enforce the law impartially and in accordance with basic First Amendment principles. Judge Carmac Carney, federal judge for the Central District of California, is one such judge.

FEF’s supporters may have taken note of Judge Carney’s recent bombshell ruling ordering the release from custody of former Rise Above Movement (RAM) members Robert Rundo and Robert Boman, who were in police custody after being charged under the federal Anti-Riot Act with engaging in violence with hard-left groups at a pro-Trump rally in 2017. Rundo, who had been living abroad since the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and was extradited from Romania to face charges last year, has become a fixture in dissident right circles across North America, principally for founding a network of health and fitness societies, called Active Clubs.

Thus far, this highly rare ruling has been covered with unsurprising outrage in the New York Times and CNN, among others, but more interestingly by mainstream conservative sources as well, including the Daily Wire, Hot Air, and the Daily Caller.

From the Daily Wire:

Judge Carney objected to the fact that federal prosecutors charged only right-wing participants, even though left-wing agitators performed identical conduct or worse at the same event—which prosecutors’ own evidence acknowledged.
…
“Antifa and related far-left groups decided they needed to ‘shut this down.’ … They came prepared for violence, bringing weapons including pepper spray, fireworks, knives, and homemade bombs,” Judge Cormac J. Carney of the US District Court for the Central District of California wrote on February 21. “And they used those weapons, as well as their bodies, against Trump supporters and law enforcement.”

As part of Rundo’s and Boman’s defense, Judge Carney was presented with photographs from the pro-Trump event showing that Antifa engaged in violence more egregious than the alleged violence the RAM members were charged with. But no Antifa were ever charged. FEF’s Glen Allen witnessed similar photographs of Antifa violence from the Charlottesville UTR rally presented by prosecutors during the sentencing of an RAM member. The prosecution used these photographs to send the RAM members to prison for two years or more but here again Antifa’s violence was ignored.

More about Judge Carney from the Daily Wire:

“Defendants have established selective prosecution. There is no doubt that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals. Antifa and related far-left groups attended the same Trump rallies as Defendants with the expressly stated intent of shutting down, through violence if necessary, protected political speech. At the same Trump rallies that form the basis for Defendants’ prosecution, members of Antifa and related far-left groups engaged in organized violence to stifle protected speech,” he continued.

FEF’s supporters may value a background on the defense of “selective prosecution” and the Anti-Riot Act, the latter a law FEF has particular expertise in, as FEF has filed numerous amicus briefs in Rundo and other cases challenging the Act’s constitutionality.

Traditionally, our criminal justice system has been the purview of state and local governments. This changed in the 1960s as the federalization of crime began to take root. As critics of this growing trend contend, it is rare when federal charges are not duplicative and the criminal activity in question cannot be adequately handled by state authorities operating under state laws. More fundamentally, the Founders, particularly Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 17, sought state jurisdiction over public safety specifically to hinder the prospect of central government oppression. As the Founders correctly foresaw, such oppression might come from laws passed or enforced for reasons of politics, inflamed public opinion, and grandstanding Congressmen—and, one might add today, overly ambitious judges and prosecutors.

Thankfully, there are procedural defenses against this increased federalization of criminal prosecutions. Derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, selective prosecution, or disparate enforcement of the law, is essentially an allegation of discrimination by prosecutorial authorities. Unlike federal and most state anti-discrimination laws, the defense of selective prosecution allows for claims on the ground of political-opinion discrimination (in addition to discrimination based on the more traditional grounds of race, religion, etc.). Due to the wide discretion prosecutorial authorities enjoy, however, the defense is rarely successful.

The Anti-Riot Act is a prime example of such needless federalization as well as dramatic overreach and over-criminalization in American society. This rarely applied law, enacted in the violent late 1960s, makes it a federal offense to plan or engage in what later becomes a riot, e.g., by travelling across state lines. Enacted, argue some, as a way to deal with then-burgeoning black nationalist and hard-left violence, the long dormant Act has recently been revived by prosecutors, perhaps ironically so, in the Trump-era and used against dissident right-wing individuals and groups. For instance, other members of RAM have previously been charged under this law for communicating about the Charlottesville rally by smart phone messaging apps and travelling in interstate commerce with the “intent to riot” in violation of the Act. In an early iteration of the Rundo indictment, parts of that law, thanks to FEF’s help, were struck down on First Amendment grounds as protected advocacy.

Despite the broad deference accorded prosecutorial discretion, defendants can successfully show selective prosecution by presenting clear evidence that the government’s prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. This is just what Judge Carney, a Bush II appointee, found in the Rundo case.

Unfortunately for Rundo and Boman, the Department of Justice and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appear to be doing their best to blunt Judge Carney’s ruling:

But after prosecutors filed an emergency motion to appeal, the Ninth Circuit had one of the right-wingers arrested the next day, February 22. Robert Rundo “is to remain in custody pending resolution of appellant’s motion to stay release pending appeal. No lower court may order his release absent further order of this Court,” the appeals court wrote.

On February 21, Carney again dismissed the charges based on their second argument, of selective prosecution.

Rundo was released from jail, but prosecutors immediately filed an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit, asking for Rundo to be arrested and held without bail, and saying they thought he might flee through the southern border if he was not.

On Feb. 23, appeals judges wrote that “Defendant-Appellee Robert Rundo has been arrested” and that lower courts were prohibited from releasing him as the government’s appeal proceeds.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s rulings, Judge Carney’s decision is a welcome precedent from a law-abiding judge at a time when such rulings seem unfortunately rare. Watch this space to keep apprised of this case as well as FEF’s involvement in it and other similar cases.

The Myth of Low Immigrant Crime

/1 Comment/in /by

The Myth of Low Immigrant Crime

   With the Biden administration hauling in millions of “newcomers” (the latest euphemism for illegal aliens) from booming economies like Venezuela, Senegal and Haiti, we seem to be getting a Kate Steinle every day.

     Among the recent atrocities committed by Our Greatest Strength is the savage murder of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan illegal alien released into our country by the Biden administration. The “newcomer” beat Riley so badly that he disfigured her skull.

MEDIA ALERT: Time to roll out the fake studies on low immigrant crime!

The one-man factory producing these studies is Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute. (Take our country, just don’t raise taxes.) He fudges the data, slaps a false title on his report, and journalists copy his work like they’re Claudine Gay writing a thesis.

Thus, in its story on the murder of Riley, The New York Times cited “studies” showing “no causal connection” between immigrants and crime. Indeed, the Times said, studies “have concluded” that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

The article links to 1) Nowrasteh’s sham study and 2) a 2017 Times story that cites Nowrasteh’s sham study.

That same day, the Times’ Angelo Fichera ran a “fact check” on Donald Trump’s claim that “the United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It’s a new form of vicious violation to our country.”

Fichera’s ruling: “This lacks evidence.”

His proof:

“One recently updated analysis by Alex Nowrasteh, the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, found that the homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants in Texas in 2015 was slightly lower than the rate among U.S. citizens.”

(If they’re so law-abiding, why are they fleeing the crime in countries full of people just like them?)

The Nowrasteh “study,” and others that perform the exact same error-ridden analysis, is the heart and soul of the immigrants-commit-less-crime scam. If it’s wrong, liberals have nothing, and you can go back to believing your lying eyes.

Needless to say, his study is not merely off by a homicidal illegal or two. He — and others like him — aren’t even comparing illegal aliens to citizens. They’re comparing illegal aliens to a group that includes both illegal aliens and citizens.

As I pointed out in “Adios, America!” (and apparently will have to keep pointing out for the rest of my life): Texas’ crime data only counts illegal aliens who have already been caught and fingerprinted by the Department of Homeland Security.

That leaves out a lot of illegals. Is the DHS even fingerprinting migrants at the border anymore? If not, then by Nowrasteh’s calculations, illegals’ crime rate in Texas is zero.

How about we only count the murder convictions of citizens who’ve previously been fingerprinted by the Denver police? Why would we do that?

Obviously, a lot of the inmates originally classified as “other/unknown” will later turn out to be illegals. But all these Nowrasteh counts as “citizens.” He had his headline, so why bother updating the data?

According to the more accurate count of illegals in Texas prisons, they commit 30% more murders than U.S. citizens — not to be confused with a “slightly lower” rate than citizens.

Not only that, but the longer inmates are in prison, the more of them will be found to be illegals, whereas the reverse is not true. Consequently, the number of illegal alien murderers continues to grow, while the “other/unknown” — all of whom Nowrasteh calls “citizens” — continues to shrink.

Apart from Nowrasteh’s “study,” the main argument for the peacefulness of illegal aliens relies on “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” reasoning:

The national crime rate declined since 1980, even as illegals poured in. Therefore, illegals cause crime rates to drop.

Cities with lots of illegals have low crime rates. Therefore, illegals are law-abiding.

This is how primitives think. Heard of Rudy Giuliani? Ed Meese? COMPSTAT, California’s three strikes law, the boom in prison construction or the sentencing commission? The cause-and-effect argument about immigration and crime employs the logic of a witch doctor, which may be where this country is headed.

One September day, New York City was 65 degrees, the skies crystal clear, and 3,000 people were murdered. Therefore, cool, clear days cause mass murder.

The media seem to think the criminality of immigrants is a critically important fact, judging by how often they wheel out these nonsense studies. But they don’t have the necessary information. There are no such “studies.”

Why doesn’t the government tell us? The fact that it won’t — and that the media aren’t asking for concrete numbers — tells us more than a million phony studies.

     COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Interview with Warren Balogh and Eric Striker

/3 Comments/in /by

Michael Moore: Jews should fight White Christians, not Hamas

/10 Comments/in /by

It’s paradigmatic of White European self-hate—much more empathy for people who are unrelated and with totally non-Western values and traditions than with their own people, and completely duped by the Jewish propaganda about the history of anti-Semitism where the main story is legitimate conflicts of interest on the part of the Christians.

The clueless Michael Moore doesn’t seem to realize that Jews are fighting a two-front war in the Middle East and against Christianity. They have regarded White Christians as the enemy for well over a millennia. Now that they are in power in all Western countries, they are well on their way to completely destroying their enemy—as they are doing to the Palestinians. And if they get absolute power, as they did during the 1920s and ’30s in Russia when 20–30 million White Christians were murdered , the results will be catastrophic.

<p>The surge in antisemitism in the UK comes as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues in the Middle East </p>