Biden Administration Follows Communazi Example, Falsifies History

 The Biden Administration is bringing the USA in line with the Nazi and Communist regimes. It is falsifying history, specifically the history of the ancient Land of Israel, the land that Greeks and Romans called Judea. It is now viewing parts [or all?] of the ancient Land of Israel, Judea, as "palestine." It did so in a series of statements linked to the delivery to the "palestinian authority" of an ancient archeological finding. 

American and Palestinian officials gathered on Thursday at the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in Bethlehem for what was described as “the historic repatriation of a rare Palestinian cultural object.”

During the ceremony, the Department of Homeland Security’s investigative arm (Homeland Security Investigations) delivered a 2,700-year-old cosmetic spoon to the Palestinian Authority. [World Israel News, 1-7-2023 ]

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is no indication as to what makes this object culturally Palestinian. Yet the head of the U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs, George Noll, stated that his office “is proud to facilitate the return of this rare antiquity, an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony.” [ibid.]

Now when they use the words "repatriation" and "return", they are saying that somehow the so-called Palestinian Authority," a body set up under the Oslo Accords, is the legitimate owner of this ancient artifact. Now, according to the PA's minister of tourism, Rula Maayah, 

 “The artifact that is being delivered today is a cosmetic tool that was used to pour incense and it dates to the Assyrian civilization 700-800 BC.” [ibid.]

Hence, according  to the PA's own expert, the artifact is Assyrian, not specifically "palestinian." Yet the US Govt is handing over the object to the PA, claiming that it is somehow "palestinian." 

 So the US Govt is not only recognizing a "palestinian people" that emerged after the rise of the State of Israel, it is going along with this corrupt political entity in the latter's claim to represent a "palestinian people" that existed in ancient times. To be sure, not even the Quran and traditional Arab historians make that claim. The Quran recognizes Jewish ownership --as assigned by Allah-- in several Quranic verses. The respected Arab historian Ibn Khaldun also recognizes the Jewish population of and sovereignty over the land, as well as "Syria."

By recognizing the "palestinian people", iself a notion invented in the mid-20th century by British psychological warfare experts, the US Govt is canceling the ancient Israelite/Jewish people, which is however well-documented in ancient Greek & Latin writings as well as in Assyrian and other ancient texts. 

The US Govt is now collaborating with the "palestinian authority" in  doing what the Israeli scholar, David Bukay, described as 

"Rewriting the history of the Land of Israel by erasing Jewish history and replacing it with a fabricated Palestinian history [here] & [here ]

 This is shameful of course. But it is also highly dangerous, worthy of Communists and Nazis as I indicate above. It is genocidal towards Jews. After all, if Jews are erased from their own ancient history, then what right do they have to make any territorial claims in modern times? The so-called "indigenous" people of "palestine" have the right to take back their ancient land. 
The genocidal implications for Jews are obvious. Yet the Jewish leadership --both genuine and self-styled-- has not apparently realized the harm done to Jews by the fabrication of ancient history. It needs to be acknowledged that the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a silent partner of hitler in the Shoah. Roosevelt himself hated two peoples, Jews and Japanese. Japanese Americans were put into what were in fact concentration camps though not comparable in their functioning to the Nazi German camps. Yet there is great reason to doubt any decent motive in the action of the Biden administration  by handing ancient artifacts over to the PA.

The New York Times Plays Cop of the Internet

 As we and others have shown, the New York Times is not always a dependable news source. Yet the NYT's editors believe they are worthy of helping to police the Internet and it seems that the NYT has singled out certain statements or affirmations as being lies a priori, without investigation. Here is one such lie on the NYT's part that it would have the reader believe are a rejection of others' lies:

And there is no evidence that an "overwhelming amount of fraud" tipped Pennsylvania in 2020  [toward Biden instead of Trump] . . . .  [NYTimes 5 November 2022 --NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p 8]

Well, Rudolph Giuliani, who was highly respected as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York [chief federal prosecutor for NewYork City and surroundings] and later as a two-term  mayor of New York City, produced eyewitnesses who testified on Fox TV that they had observed election irregularities in Philadelphia, the largest city in Pennsylvania. These people had been Republican election observers and complained of being kept away from the actual counting  by officials working for the city and county of Philadelphia run by a Democratic mayor and other Democrats. Of course, even eyewitnesses can be cross examined and their testimony can be judged. But that requires an impartial investigation. Until there is a proper investigation and the witnesses can testify in court, the NYT has no call to claim "no evidence." 

Meanwhile, there is significant circumstantial evidence pointing to massive voting fraud in Pennsylvania [not only in Philadelphia] in the 2020 presidential election. But before bringing out that evidence, let us quote what the NYT article quoted above writes admitting its efforts to help police the Internet in favor of its own partisan cause in which opposing arguments are called "lies," "falsehoods" having "no evidence" to support them.

Youtube said it had removed a number of videos that The New York Times had flagged for violating its policies on spam and election integrity and it had determined that other content did not violate its policies. [emph. added; NYT 5 November 2022-- NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p8]

Flagged here means identified and pointed out to others, in  this case to Youtube. The sentence above is the NYT's admission, or perhaps modest boast, that it takes part in policing the Internet.

The circumstantial evidence relating to Pennsylvania is that on the evening of 3 November 2020, after the polls had closed, President Trump was reported as having a lead of more than 600,000 in that state. Now, Pennsylvania had 9,090,962 certified registered [eligible] voters for the presidential election of 2020, with a turnout of 76,5%, adding up to 6,553,695 actual voters [according to official statistics, not necessarily reliable]. So more than 600,000 is no small or narrow margin for a state with a population of 13,002,700 and approximately 6,553,000 actual  voters. Trump's leading margin over Biden on the night of election day was nearly 10% of  actual voters [by official numbers]. That is, nearly 10% of the perhaps fraudulently inflated "final count." And would have been significantly more than 10% of the count on election day after the polls closed.  Yet in a few days of counting newly found mail-in ballots [and the like], the president's margin had been outnumbered by pro-Biden ballots whereas one would think that many of the ballots that came in or were newly found after election day would have gone to Trump and that even if his lead would had been whittled down, he would have remained in the lead with enough votes to win. 

By the way, it was reported on Fox [Evil Fox, we are to believe] a truck carrying Pennsylvania ballots set out from the New York city area and went to Harrisburg [the state capital of PA] and to the city of Lancaster. But somehow that ballots that the truck was carrying were not accepted in either city. All very peculiar. 

Now, there is also circumstantial evidence involving the country as a whole. The vote for the House of Representatives in a presidential election year almost always favors the party of the newly elected president, when the newly elected president is not the incumbent but new to the office of president. Yet in 2020, the newly elected president's party, Biden's party, lost seats to the Republicans. 

A midterm election usually favors the party out of power [that is, the party not occupying the White House]. For example, the Republicans won the 1994 midterm election when Democrat Clinton was president. The Republicans again won a majority in  the House of Representatives in 2010, the midterm elections of Obama's first term. Following the rule, the Democrats won a majority in the midterm elections of Donald Trump's presidency in 2018.

Nevertheless, in the 2020 presidential  election year, Biden's Democrats lost seats in the House. They went from 235 seats in the 2018 midterm election to 222 in the 2020 presidential election year, when  their candidate for president, Biden, presumably won election for president. Yet going by the traditional pattern of elections to the House in years when somebody new becomes president, his party gets a majority in the House of Representatives. So the 2020 anomaly suggests that there may have been much more fraud in the presidential election than in the elections for the House which elect 435 representatives in 435 congressional districts. This anomaly and others suggest the possibility or likelihood of widespread fraud in the presidential election. And for those not familiar with the United States, election fraud has a long history there. Chicago, ruled for many years by the Richard Daley Democratic Party machine, was especially notorious for voting fraud. Indeed, the Daley machine was accused of "voting the cemeteries." Why voting fraud could not also take place in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix [Arizona] and so on, is a mystery to me. Yet the NY Times denies an "overwhelming amount of fraud" in the 2020 presidential elections in Pennsylvania. Isn't it comforting to know that the New York Times is policing the Internet to protect us from fake news?

Does the New York Times Make Things Up?

 This blog was the first or one of the few blogs and news outlets that pointed out that the "august" and "respected" NY Times had put a false quote in the mouth of the Pope. The NYT article, supposedly reporting on Mahmud Abbas' visit to Pope Francis in the Vatican, had quoted Francis as calling Abbas "an angel of peace." That did not sound right. So I went into some Italian news sites, La Stampa [which covers the Vatican extensively] and others, and I saw that Francis had said [in Italian, the regular language of the Vatican] to Abbas that "You might be" [or "You could be" -- "Lei possa essere"] an angel of peace if he made peace with Israel. The words are not the same, so how could the NYT journalist have made such a mistake?

Be that as it may, I got the same feeling when reading an article about the reaction of Chinese business men to the recent Chinese Communist Party congress where Xi Jinping had reinforced his control of the Party and the country. This NYT journo claimed that after Xi's speech at the Congress, "the founder of an asset management firm in . . . Shenzhen .. . contacted me hours after the congress ended," saying, "My last,  lingering hope was dashed"

The journo, Li Yuan, went on in the same vein. A "tech entrepreneur in Beijing texted me" that the new situation was "absolutely terrifying," And "China's stocks plunged, and its currency, the renminbi, fell in value. I am hearing it ['political depression'] in the voices and messages of the many businesspeople I  have spoken to in recent weeks . . ."

The present political and public atmosphere in China may be as described but why does there seem to be something phoney here? 

China is reputed to be a police state. And a friend who often goes to China on business told me and others that the government of China is relentless and cruel when it wants to obtain some end. Now in such a situation, such a repressive atmosphere, would Chinese businessmen  knowingly contact a NY Times journalist to complain about their own government? Would they not be suspicious that their phones may be tapped? At this point, I would add that wiretapping goes on in many countries, including in the West and in the United States, among Western states. So if they fear their own powers that be, would not well informed Chinese be all the more wary of contacting precisely a journalist for the NY Times which is notorious for being the house organ of the American Establishment, also given that the USA is widely considered an adversary of China?

Hence I doubt that Mr Li Yuan got the quotes that he relays or reports or alleges in the way that he says he did. 

Indeed, towards the end of the article, the NYT journo confirms that Chinese business people are wary of electronic eavesdropping performed by their own government against them. Li Yuan writes: "At social gatherings, hosts are asking friends to surrender their phones [mobile phones in this case] to be kept in a separate place for fear of surveillance." These Chinese business people are afraid of electronic surveillance. They fear that the Chinese authorities might learn how they really feel and think. Or these Chinese authorities might see their frank conversations as conspiracy. Therefore, these people would be most unlikely to simply contact an NYT journo to complain about conditions in their country. Hence Li Yuan indirectly confirms my suspicions that the quotes are made up or came to him in ways other than the ways he claims they reached him. Or perhaps he altered and improved quotes that he received in ways other than what he claims. Or maybe the quotes are wholly made up. In the case of any of these possibilities, this NYT journo makes things up and the NYT publishes them.

[Quotes come from New York Times, "China's Business Elite See the Country that Let Them Thrive Slipping Away," 7 November 2022; "Chinese Business Leaders see country slipping away," NY Times Int'l edition, 10 November 2022, p 9; emphases added]

Save-the-Planet Hysteria: Is It a Pretext for Impoverishing the People?

UPDATED 11-4 & 11-14-2022

It was about 40 years ago when all of a sudden you started to hear talk about the environment and the climate all over the press and media and from some of the school teachers who seemed to be "connected." I was suspicious right then. A coordinated blast about a previously low profile topic. Very curious.

 Now I ask; Do you believe everything that you read in the press or hear and see on the electronic media? 

Do you agree that there are a lot of lies in politics? How about Global Warming? Is it for real? Let's look at the whole discourse about "climate change" and "global warming" and the need to stop it by 2050 or 2030 or whenever.

Let's ask a few questions about the save-the-Planet hysteria:

1-- Is there climate change? In fact I agree that there has been climate change since my childhood.

2-- How does climate change take place or how does it show itself? What form does it take? How is it manifested? In what ways does it present itself?

3 --What causes these changes?

4 -- Do the measures commonly proposed to "solve" the problem or save-the-Planet match or correspond to the real or alleged causes and have the capacity to deal with the supposed phenomenon of Global Warming? Or do these measures have other motives, other purposes, other intentions?

If climate change is displayed through global warming, then why did the Middle East have a heavy blizzard in early December 2013 [before the scientific start of winter on 21 December]? The snow was piled up on my balcony in Jerusalem to a height of about a foot and a half or half a meter. There was snow in Cairo --much less than in Jerusalem to be sure, but still snow-- whereas it had not snowed in Cairo since 1904.

Another example is the summer weather here in Jerusalem in 2020, 2021, and 2022. It was very hot here in July and August of 2020 --when we were largely restricted to home because of the pandemic. It was so hot that we bought an air conditioner, for the first time while living here, and we used it often. However, the summer of 2021 was not as hot as the one of 2020. We used the air conditioner much less and in this past summer of 2022 we used it for only a few days in early  August and at the end of that month  continuing into early  September, as I recall,

So the summers have been getting cooler here in the past few years compared to 2020. Now what about that blizzard of nine years ago?

Maybe in other parts of the world the temperatures have been getting warmer but why has the Middle East or Levant been an exception? Can the true believers in global warming please explain that blizzard?

Do the examples above prove global warming OR put that notion into question?

Next let us take up the proposed causes of "global warming" and climate change.

We hear about automobile carbon dioxide emissions and even cow farts. But when the powers gathered in Paris to try to legislate supposed measures to stop global warming, much of Chinese and Indian industry were exempted. 

Before the 2015 Paris climate conference India & China had jointly called for differential treatment --as they were supposedly "developing" countries-- while  jointly calling on the "developed" countries to do the "equitable" thing and shoulder the main burden [". . .  the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, reflecting different historical responsibilities, development stages and national circumstances between developed and developing countries"; May 2015]. 

And China --an industrial giant-- uses lots of coal, acknowledged to be the dirtiest of commonly used fossil fuels. Now if China and India --an  upcoming industrial giant-- are allowed to keep on using great amounts of coal [a use likely to increase in both countries (re China, NYTimes 5 November 2022)], then what good would it do to restrict the use of less polluting fossil fuels by other countries, whether industrial giants like the USA, UK, Germany etc or smaller industrialized countries, assuming that there is global warming and that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions?

If carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions are the main cause of "climate change" & global warming, then projects to control emissions such as the Paris Accords will not get far, when major industrial countries --such as  China or India-- are allowed to do what is "equitable" in their own eyes.

Those two countries have become major industrial powers yet their industries were exempted from the agreed on restrictions. So if those two large countries are exempted from restrictions in the 2015  Paris climate accords, then does that mean that the Powers are really not all that concerned about burning fossil fuels? Indeeed, if major users of fossil fuels like India & China are exempted, how will restricting other lands solve the alleged problem of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and/or other sources of carbon dioxide? And since natural gas yields much less CO2  than coal and petroleum, then why ban natural gas along with coal and oil, the other two main human-controlled sources of CO2?

Now, if global warming as conventionally asserted is not taking place then what form does climate change --and I agree that there has been climate change-- take? And if global warming is not happening in a simple sense, then what is the role of carbon dioxide [CO2]? Some argue, including a founder of Greenpeace [the ostensibly pro-environment organization], now a dissenter, that humans and their acts do not control the climate and that there is natural climate change, such as the beginnings or ends of the ice ages, which mankind did not control.

Now if climate change consists of other phenomena than global warming caused by causes other than CO2 emissions then what about --why-- the supposed efforts to limit these emisions? As I said above, I do believe in climate change. What I have noted since the early 1960s is that Spring and Fall seem shorter than before, and that winter lasts longer into what is scientifically supposed to be the Spring [March 21 until June 21]. I have definitely noted that here in Jerusalem there can be chilly weather into early June. Could the change in climate be a move to the extremes in winter and summer both? Global Warming anyone?

What took place in the early 1960s that might have caused longer winters and summers and shorter Springs and Falls? In 1962 [8 July] the USA exploded a hydrogen bomb in the Van Allen Belt, or belts of radiation around the earth, made up of electrons and protons trapped in the earth's magnetic field. When the USA announced that it would set off an H-Bomb explosion  in the Van Allen Belt, a certain controversy was aroused among legislators, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. The New York Times --a more trustworthy publication at the time-- covered the controversy and published its coverage in at least one article [30 May 1962; which I read] which quoted from a number of  scientists,  both favorable and critical of this strange project. Some, as I recall, warned that the explosion might or would have a harmful effect on the world's climate. Others felt that that was not a concern. However, most of the scientists surveyed insisted that something like an explosion in the Van Allen Belt should be a matter for an international consensus of scientists and governments, not a matter for one government to decide unilaterally.             [by the way, Time magazine also covered the controversy, apparently using the NYTimes article as the source for most of its material, while distorting some of the quotes in order to yield the argument or "proof" that Time wanted which was to defend the unilateral US action. Distorting a quote meant, in one case, chopping a sentence in two parts in order to use the part that was favorable to Time's position and discarding the unfavorable part].                            The effects on the earth's weather patterns might be caused by what are called "geomagnetic storms" or "electromagnetic storms" originating in Van Allen Belts. Of course that is just a layman's speculation.  Be that as it may, Steve Koonin & Bjorn Lomborg, both academic experts, are skeptics towards the Save-the-Planet claims.

Now to get back to the Paris Accord. If it does not seem to be a serious international effort [because China & India are left out], if in fact carbon dioxide emissions [or "greenhouse gas emissions"] are causing global warming or, on the other hand,  if CO2 emissions are not the cause, assuming that there is global warming, then what is the purpose of all the restrictions on human activity in the various signatory countries. If purported climate change and/or global warming is caused instead by that 1962 explosion in the Van Allen Belt, instead of by carbon dioxide emissions and cow farts and the like, then what is the use or purpose of the many restrictions on fossil fuels enacted or proposed by the Biden regime in the USA, for example? The very fact that India & China are exempted from so many of the Paris accord restrictions may indicate that the massive present and future use of carbon-based fuels by those countries are not of real concern because some influential folks seem not to really believe that carbon-based fuels are the major concern.

Now if global warming is not a reality or much less significant than commonly asserted in the mass media and by bien-pensant politicians [and by Greta, let's not forget Greta], then the question of the real purpose or real ends of the restrictions on fossil fuels becomes much more salient.

We know that countries that have gone far in enforcing restrictions [and sometimes high prices] on fossile fuel have seen much harm to the standards of living of ordinary people. In Sri Lanka protests against measures supposed to "protect the environment" [forbidding chemical fertilizers]  led to massive increases in prices for food grown in the country and the fall of the government after protesters broke into the presidential palace, among other acts of mass protest. In the Netherlands too [followed by Italy, Germany & Poland] there were mass protests by farmers against restrictions on chemical substances making farmers labor and livelihoods more difficult.

In the USA inflation initiated by the restriction on gas and oil production has led to suffering and a clear lowering of the standard of living of ordinary folks. Yet   Larry Summers, a Democrat and economist for  President Obama, pointed out that shutting down building the Keystone pipeline --one of Biden's first acts as president-- made no sense because the oil that it was meant to carry would have to be transported instead by truck and/or train, less safe, less clean, more expensive means of transport for petroleum. The working class in many countries have been impoverished. Apparently, the "save-the-Planet" measures are meant to impoverish masses of people and to lower their standards of living by means of general inflation and indeed to change what has been the modern way of life what with the loss of mobility for ordinary  people due to the higher prices of fuel. Will the ordinary American family still be able to drive to a vacation in a far off place because of fuel price inflation? And we have already seen that so-called "renewables" and "sustainables" cannot replace fossil fuels, although I too dislike the soot, the filth produced by burning coal, but natural gas again is relatively clean. The "renewables" and "sustainables" have shown their incapacity. For instance in Texas several years ago, the windmills in the windfarms to generate electricity froze in a blizzard, unusual in Texas to be sure [thereby also supplying an argument against global warming since Texas is normally relatively warm], and causing suffering from the cold for millions whose electricity depended on those windmills. Of course, the sun does not always shine nor does the wind always blow. So those "renewables" and "sustainables" would need to be backed up by fossil fuels. Nor will the infrastructure for "renewables" and "sustainables" be in place for years. Yet Biden's gang --Susan Rice, Brian Deese, Jennifer Granholm etc-- want to implement a so-called Green Economy next week while conditions are not ready for that and may not be ready for a very long time, if ever.

So Save-the-Planet Hysteria is  a Pretext for Impoverishing the People.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

More Examples of Misguided --Or Misanthropic-- Measures to Limit Fossil Fuel Use

1- The Biden Regime in its  anti-fossil fuel policy, seems to have hurt poor populations such as American Indians [also called Native Americans], breaking treaties in the process. The US Government in the 19th century signed peace treaties with various Indian tribes, recognizing them as nations with sovereignty over the lands left to them, the so-called reservations. Yet the Bidens seem to have violated that sovereignty by forbidding these tribes/nations  to issue leases to oil exploration companies to explore for oil and natural gas on their tribal lands. Thereby the Biden regime prevents these peoples, often poverty stricken, from improving their economic situation both from fees paid for the leases and for potential royalties for the oil or gas found, as well as well-paying jobs for the tribal members living on these reservations. Of course, the Bidens claim to be forcing an eventual changeover to the "renewables" and "sustainables" by this policy. Meanwhile, the people on the Indian lands may be poor and may stay poor because of the regime prohibitions which are the fruit of executive orders  rather than laws passed  by Congress.

2- Electric vehicules, the divine demigods of the Save-the-Planet cultists, may be a paradoxical savior from these enthusiasts' point of view. After all, electrcity has to be generated. And EVs will require much more electricity than now being generated,  if EVs become widespread. And the "renewables" and "sustainables" are not yet up to the job of generating the needed extra electricity for EVs, if they ever will be, certainly not alone, as it seems. Moreover the batteries for the EVs require rare earths, rare minerals. Such as lithium. Now these minerals must be mined, in China or wherever else they are found. And mining requires heavy excavating and/or tunneling  equipment. Which requires fossil fuels -- unless we now have heavy equipment powered by heavy batteries. But which comes first, the chicken --as it were-- or the egg?

Is the Biden Gang Preparing the Way for a Renewed Azerbaijani Attack on Armenia?

 To answer the question in the  title above, Armenian-American organizations seem to think so.

Here is some what they are saying. They also mention US military aid to Azerbaijan:

ANCA pressures President Biden to stop arming Azerbaijan as Artsakh gas crisis continues

WASHINGTON, DC – The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) has once again issued a national call to action urging President Joe Biden to enforce Section 907 restrictions and block all US arms and aid to Azerbaijan, as the Aliyev regime continues to choke off gas supplies to Artsakh’s Armenian population. The campaign also calls for $50 million in US aid to Artsakh to help families rebuild their lives and resettle in safety upon their indigenous Armenian homeland following the 2020 Turkey/Azerbaijan attacks.

Thousands of pro-Artsakh advocates have already contacted President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris through the ANCA’s online portal sharing, “We remain deeply troubled that you have waived Section 907 sanctions against Azerbaijan and call on you today to immediately end any and all US military or security aid to this oil-rich and openly racist regime.” They go on to urge the White House to condemn Azerbaijan’s aggression, hold its leaders accountable for war crimes and call upon all Americans to support the national and democratic aspirations of the Armenian people. Advocates are also calling the White House comment line – (202) 456-1111; this line is open Tuesdays to Thursdays from 11:00am to 3:00pm EST..

Note that the Biden administration is disregarding congressionally mandated sanctions against Azerbaijan by waiving enforcement of the relevant statutes of US law. At the same time, the Biden State Department is offering cash grants to organizations that will uncover alleged Israeli "human rights abuses." More than half the states in the world are guilty of human rights abuses. But only alleged abuses by Israel are of concern to the State Department. Azeri violations of the human and national rights of ethnic Armenians are of no concern.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See the press reports on the renewed Azeri attacks: here & here

Bloody Western Hypocrisy Once Again [including Uncle Sham]

Wars usually bring out a goodly share of hypocrisy, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is no exception. Here and now we see tremendous upset and concern in Europe, North America and elsewhere over the horrors and injustice of the war and invasion. But there have been many  other fairly recent cases of invasion, occupation, mass slaughter, population expulsion or displacement that do not seem to get much attention or rouse much concern at all. 

In 2020 we saw the Armenia-Azerbaidjan war/ Thousands were killed and parts of historic Armenia were conquered by the Azeris. Ancient and  medieval Armenian buildings were damaged in the war and afterwards by the Azeri forces.

In 1974, Turkey occupied about 35% if the island of Cyprus. Neither the Europeans --inside and outside of the EU-- nor the Americans make much of a fuss over the continued occupation and the expulsion in that year of an estimated 200,000 ethnic Greek Cypriots from their homes plus the Turkish vandalism to age-old Greek buildings/monuments in the occupation zone in northern Cyprus. 

Then there is the Syrian civil war, going on since 2011. In the course of this civil war, an estimated 600,000 Syrians have been killed [Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]. Moreover, millions of Syrians have fled or been driven from their country by their own government or the jihadi Sunni mlitias, now mainly sponsored by Turkey or by ISIL [DA'ESH] or other forces on the ground. With more than four million Syrian refugees estimated in Turkey plus a million or so in Lebanon and another million in Jordan, the number of refugees is only exceeded by the number from the war in Ukraine. 

Now some may note that a great deal of world attention is focussed on the Palestinian Arabs. This, just parenthetically, reminds us of a rule of the "international community": Arab lives do not matter -- unless somehow the blame for the Arabs' deaths or refugee status or other plight can somehow be attributed to Israel and Jews, with some plausible degree of honesty, however minor, or without any grain of truth at all. Compare the media treatment of the Syrian Arab victims of the Syrian civil war [as well as Palestinian Arabs living in Syria] with media treatment and coverage of the Palestinian Arabs in areas under Israeli jurisdiction -- often fashionably depicted as somehow a separate nation or people but somehow connected to the Arabs in general, and as perennial victims, even as a collective Jesus in much journalistic blather.

Then we have the massacres of Kurds in Syria by Turkish-sponsored Sunni Arab militias and by the Turkish airforce, plus de facto expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Kurds from areas controlled by Turkey and those militias in northern Syria. That Kurdish suffering has not gotten much attention in the media.

All of the above is part of the general hypocrisy.

However, the USA has shown its own unique and special hypocrisy. Back in late 2013-early 2014, the USA encouraged "right-wing" or "neo-nazi" Ukrainian parties --Right Sektor & Svoboda -- to revolt against the pro-Russian Yanukovich government.  Eventually Yanukovich fled and the new rulers, the extreme nationalist parties named above, made declarations that were felt as highly threatening to the ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, such as honoring Stepan Bandera, who had led a German-sponsored Ukrainian militia during WW2, which slaughtered Jews and ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. These provocative declarations gave Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, the pretext that he needed for invading eastern Ukraine and annexing the Crimea [which truth be told, had been a part of the Russian republic in the USSR but was transferred to Ukraine by the post-Stalin Khrushchov govt in 1954 although its population was overwhelmingly non-Ukrainian ethnically]. 

Now after the Russian government showed its hand after the overthrow of Yanukovich, the Obama administration refused to sell or give the Ukraine weapons needed for its self-defense against Russia. And this after the State Dept's Victoria Nuland had gone to Kyiw [pronounced Keef]  to  encourage the rebels. Trump and his administration were the first to supply real weapons to the post-Yanukovich govts. 

Then there was Joe Biden's shakedown of the Ukrainian leadership [Poroshenko & Yatseniuk] by threatening to withhold needed loan guarantees if a state prosecutor looking into the Burisma company that had placed Biden's son Hunter on its board, were not dismissed. The prosecutor was fired, as Joe boasted later on.

After Trump, the ill-fated Biden presidency resumed the Obama Ukraine policy. Biden & Co. have been stingy about sending weapons to Ukraine. Maybe if Washington had sent the needed weapons [such as Javelins & Stingers] when Russia began its military build up on the borders of Ukraine in the first half of 2021. Maybe it would thus have dissuaded and deterred a Russian invasion. Even when the invasion began it took some time for Joe B & Co. to decide to send needed weapons.  But then how do we explain that on the third day of the war when the Ukrainian resistance was holding up, the Biden national insecurity crowd [Susie R, Brian D, Tony B, Jake S] offered President Zelensky of Ukraine sanctuary outside of the Ukraine? Did they not understand that if the leader ran away the resistance was likely to collapse? Was this offer of sanctuary not hypocrisy? Was it not an effort to undermine the Ukrainian struggle against Russia?

Indeed we may wonder whether Biden's foreign affairs gang were keeping Ukraine relatively weak and lacking the most important self-defense weapons in order to lure the Russians into invading Ukraine [which Putin had apparently long wanted to do]. Does this sound too bizarre, too far-fetched, too unreasonable? Yes, it would -- if we did not know that a major theoretician of US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's advisor for national insecurity, had not boasted of luring the Soviet Union into making war in Afghanistan around 1978. Now Brzezinski was Barack Obama's mentor in foreign policy matters and Obama was planning to make him his own national insecurity advisor, as Carter had done. Indeed Brzezinski was the favorite foreign policy advisor of the Democratic Party. Now, when a big donor to the Democratic Party, Penny Pritzker, told Obama that she would not donate and  manage fund-raising for his campaign if Zbig were to be made national security advisor [Alan  Dershowitz, then a prominent Democrat, also opposed a role for Zbig in an Obama presidency], Susan Rice was brought in as a replacement. We may assume that Susan Rice's views on foreign policy, on issues of war and peace, etc, were not and are not far from Zbig's views and theories and understandings and desires. Now since Biden's foreign policy team are retreads from Obama's administration, we may assume that they all [Tony, Susie, Jake etc] share Zbig's basic proclivity for warmongering. Hence if the Ukraine were left weak and lacking needed defensive weapons, it may have been by design in order to lure the Russians into an invasion. As Zbig did in Afghanistan.

The P5+1 Powers Are Pushing for a Newer, Weaker Nuke Deal with Iran

Although the war in the Ukraine monopolizes the world's attention as the cold winter of 2022 drags toward its end  on March 21, what seems to be the quiet push towards a new and worse Nuclear Deal with Iran is now going on as most of the world is distracted by the war.

Me'ir ben Shabbat, former head of Israel's National Security Council, warns that 

"the old-new accord that the USA is now marching towards will pave a sure path for Iran towards a nuclear weapon. after expiration of the limitations [sunset clause]. It has no tools that will force it [Iran] to sit in on discussions for 'a longer and stronger agreement,' And there is no reason to believe that it [Iran] will volunteer to do that on its own initiative. The ayatollahs' regime . . . will maximize what is possible for it to obtain through the agreement and it will do what it is capable of doing -- even against the agreement. [Yisrael HaYom 4 March 2022]

After all, the new accord shaping up has a weak inspection regime which fact seems to be frustrating Raffaele Grossi, head of the IAEA [international atomic energy agency], but he can do nothing without the support of the major powers who make  up the P5+1 group. The major sunset on the limitations supposedly imposed by the accord on Iran will take place in just a few years. If and when the accord is signed, Iran will get lots of dollars and other benefits with which it can finance its terrorist militias in several Middle Eastern countries which regularly cause havoc and suffering in countries where they are hosted, willingly or unwillingly, by the host state. To get some idea of the havoc and suffering consider Lebanon where Hizbullah --an Iranian cats paw-- has a chokehold on the state and most Lebanese are suffering for it.

It is hard not to conclude that the USA and perhaps some of the other powers WANT Iran to have The Bomb.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADDED 6-23-2022

https://carolineglick.com/time-to-stop-lying-to-ourselves-about-qatar/

Caroline Glick on Iran's nuke project, Qatar etc

Behind the Fog of War in Ukraine, Biden & Co. Prepare the Way for Iran to Get The Bomb

 David Weinberg agrees that war in the Ukraine is a very important issue. But he sees the upcoming agreement of the P5+1 powers with Iran, a "deal" allowing the ayatollahs to pursue their nuke bomb program, an ever greater danger to world peace and stability.

See below:

SO, YES, UKRAINE is a big story, and Putin is a menace to Western stability. But I will argue here that allowing Iran to march merrily forward with its nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs and its hegemonic regional ambitions is an even worse threat to world security, and certainly to Israel’s security.

The about-to-be signed nuclear deal with Iran is “shorter and weaker” than president Barack Obama’s bad 2015 deal with the ayatollahs. The old/new deal maintains soon-coming sunset clauses; does not guarantee IAEA supervision of Iranian nuclear installations “anywhere and anytime”; and does not give global powers the actual ability to activate the “snapback mechanism,” which allowed president Donald Trump to reimpose sanctions.

It will whitewash all of Iran’s nuclear program violations to date (like enriching uranium to the 60% level) and allow Iran to keep its advanced centrifuges. It will pave a certain path for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb in the coming years.

Reportedly, the just-round-the-corner agreement also lacks any mechanisms that will force Iran to engage in additional negotiations over a “longer and stronger” deal before the old/new deal expires – something the Biden administration had promised to Israel and the American public when it set out its goals.

Chillingly, the deal also will grant Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, allowing Tehran to rehabilitate its economy and continue funding its terrorist proxies and hegemonic aggressions. Instead of reimposing maximum economic pressure and building a credible military threat against Iran, Biden is surrendering to Iran.

See more of this article in the Jerusalem Post of 24 February 2022.

Why to Not Reconcile with Erdogan? Why in the first place?

Erdogan is an enemy of Israel. Will playing up to him and making concessions to him make him less of an enemy? Obviously not. So why does the present Israeli government seem ready to accept his command/invitation that President Herzog of Israel come to Turkey to meet him? Given all that Erdogan's Turkey has done to undermine Israeli control of our capital Jerusalem and to harm Israel in world public opinion [Mavi Marmara, for example], a visit by Herzog to Ankara would be humiliating for Herzog and for Israel as a state and for Israelis. It weaken Israel in the eyes of our friends in Greece, Cyprus, and the Gulf, etc.

Seth Frantzman explains the reasons not to let Herzog go to Ankara here: 

"Turkey’s pitch regarding Israel relations is rooted in a 1950s outlook. In this analysis, Turkey believes Israel is completely isolated in the region and therefore needs it. Turkey can thus benefit from Israel’s isolation while reaping profit. In essence, in all the discussions with Ankara or claims of reconciliation, the only narrative that comes out is that Turkey profits and Israel gets nothing.

"For instance, Turkey hosts Hamas, which murders Israelis, and it has backed Hamas extremism. Turkey’s religious authorities increasingly incite against Israel, vowing to “liberate” Jerusalem. When it reconsecrated the Church of Hagia Sophia as a mosque, its leadership compared this to helping Palestinians take over Jerusalem." [read the rest]

It might be good to send an ambassador back to Ankara, whereas now Israel is  represented there by lower level diplomats. But even in that case, we need to demand expulsion of all Hamas personnel from Turkey and end to demonizing Israel in the state-controlled Turkish press/media.

And much more.

Of course, Turkey has been a protege of Western diplomacy since  1922 [Smyrna Affair]. And Washington may be behind Erdogan's efforts to pretend to make nice with Israel --as well as behind our government's failure to dismiss Erdogan's commands out of hand.

For more on his issue, read Frantzman's articles in the JPost: here.

Syria's Assad Regime Goes Humanistic -- Everybody Is a Humanitarian Nowadays

 The quote below has to be the quote of the month -- or near the top in the most astounding quote contest. It appeared in The Economist for 16 October 2021 in a report on the current Expo in Dubai:

    "We believe that every human being is part of the collective conscience."

Doesn't that sound great? How humane and how humanist? The Economist goes on about this statement: 

    ". . . a message on the walls of the Syrian pavilion . . . Why the Syrian government has spent         years dropping bombs on many of those humans is not explained."

Who knew that The Economist or its journos had a sense of humor?

Anyhow, not even The Economist asks why the Syrian regime has been accusing Jews throughout history of bizarre and horrid crimes.

Obama-Biden's Wretched Foreign Policy Legacy -- Does Biden's Supervisory Team Want to Give Us More?

addition 10-10-2010 at bottom

Obama-Biden's worst foreign policy aggression against the world was the so-called Iran Nuke Deal, officially denominated the JCPOA.  In eight years of sanctimonious hypocrisy and bloodthirsty Realpolitik in foreign affairs, the JCPOA was the poisoned cherry at the crown of the cake. We could point to other Obama-Biden offenses: the encouragement of the Muslim Brotherhood [an Islamic supremacy movement notorious for massacres of native Christian Copts in Egypt inter alia], the racist demand on Israel to stop letting Jews make their homes in Judea-Samaria beyond the Green Line [parts of the Jewish National Home erected under international law by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations], encouraging the aggressive Turkish Islamist dictator, Recep Tayip Erdogan [who tirelessly threatens war and incites war against Israel and other eastern Mediterranean and Caucasian neighbors, etc], and so forth and so on. But all in all, the Iran Nuke Deal that allowed Iran to keep working towards a bomb because the JCPOA lacked an effective  inspection regime, plus it had a "sunset" clause that would let Iran openly continue to work for a bomb or increase its numbers of nuke bombs after eight years, plus a gift for Iran's insincere agreement to the Deal of a mere $150 billion [including a billion or so in cash, allowing Iran to surreptitiously fund its terrorist cats paws in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen], seems the most dangerous for the world. 

Biden took willing, perhaps eager, part in these destructive, warmongering policies. It was Biden who came to Jerusalem to promote the policy of apartheid against Jews in Judea-Samaria ["West Bank"], while Zbigniew Brzezinski --Jimmy Carter's national insecurity advisor-- traveled to Damascus during the 2008 presidential election campaign to let the bloody Bashar Assad know that if Obama were elected, he would have a friend in the White House. So Biden too was morally responsible for the Obama-Biden administration's foreign policy aggressions, while Biden's foreign policy [or "national security" staff] openly boast of going back to the JCPOA from which President Trump had withdrawn. Despite their planned Afghanistan fiasco in August 2021, the Biden foreign policy team still want to make it easier for Iran to achieve its longed for Bomb. They and their supporters claim that somehow a new agreement with Iran to stop working for a nuke Bomb will stop Iran from getting that nuclear bomb. But treaties do not enforce themselves and Iran has already violated the JCPOA in letter and spirit. 

We also know that in the 1990s, the USA under Bill Clinton negotiated a nuclear bomb freeze with North Korea. The Communist dictatorhip of North Korea was supposed to not make a nuclear bomb, according to that agreement with Clinton's administration. But guess what!! North Korea now has a nuclear bomb. The agreement with Clinton and his team did not in fact prevent North Korea from getting the Bomb. Even worse for the JCPOA, some of Clinton's team when he made the acccord with North Korea are now back and working on nuke negotiations with Iran [such as Wendy Sherman] as part of Biden's team. Only a fool could believe that either a new and improved JCPOA or a wholly new agreement wth Iran would actually prevent the fanatics in Teheran from getting The Bomb.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Addition 10-10-2021 --- Michael Singh, Wall Street Journal (30 December 2015). A summary of Obama administration failures abroad in 2015

The Obama administration frequently cites the Iran nuclear deal as a marquee accomplishment. Achieving U.S. objectives through diplomacy would have been laudable, but the nuclear deal was possible precisely because the U.S. laid aside its objectives. Iran made concessions but also largely achieved its strategic aims: retaining its nuclear weapons capability and resisting demands for a broader “strategic shift” in its support for terrorism and regional policies. Iran also received sanctions relief that is broader in practice than on paper, all in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear fuel-cycle activities.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said that “diplomacy is the art of the possible.” Yet administration officials fail to comprehend how U.S. action, or inaction, can shape what is possible. This was clear in Afghanistan, where President Barack Obama was forced to face the consequences of prematurely announcing a U.S. withdrawal. It is increasingly clear in Syria, where the White House, despite foreseeing the dangers posed by the conflict, is shifting objectives in response to others’ actmangingions rather than taking the initiative.                                      Michael Singh was at that time the managing director if the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2005 to 2008, he worked on Middle East issues at the National Security Council.

Where Did Zbig Brzezinski & Susan Rice Disappear To?

 The past couple of weeks the TV news programs and the printed press have been full of stories about the tragedy enfolding in Afghanistan, about thousands and thousands of terrified people, Westerners and Afghans, trying to leave the country just lately delivered into the hands of the jihadi Taliban by courtesy of Joe Biden's administration. But in all the jabber and hand-wringing about that country located between China, Iran, Pakistan and a few Central Asian countries, I have not heard or seen --in all the TV, radio and print press that I have consumed-- a single mention of the man who started the ball rolling for more than forty years of bloodshed and mayhem in that country nor of the woman who kept it going during Obama's unhappy eight years in office as US president [years unhappy for most others affected, if not for Obama himself].

Zbig actually boasted about his cynical deception which led to the Afghan-Russian war in the late 1970s and eventually to the wars and Afghanistan-based terrorist attacks that we look back on with dread. Up till this very moment. Zbig was a mentor of Barak Hussein Obama and was quite willing to continue his career of war contriver into Obama's administration, Indeed he was slated for a high foreign policy-making post under Obama. However, as luck would have it, one of the Democratic partys' big donors, threatened to withhold her support if Zbig were given another role in government, another chance to cook up wars and massacres, large and small, across the globe.

Nevertheless, Zbig's spirit did take up residence in Obama's regime in the unexpected form of a young woman, Susan Rice. She was designated to become Obama's national insecurity advisor. During the 2008 presidential election campaign, she advocated that the USA get of Iraq. That was the wrong war, that was Republican George W Bush's war. So many folk may have seen her as a peacemonger. She wanted to get America out of Iraq, right? But she declared that there was a right war, a good war that America and its allies ought to send more troops to. That war was the one in Afghanistan. During Obama's miserable eight years in office, with Joe Biden as vice president and Sue Rice as national insecurity advisor, I do not recall talk of getting out of Afghanistan, although maybe there was, but if so, it was rather quiet.

As we all know to our sorrow, Joe is now president and commander-in-chief and Sue is Director of the Domestic Policy Council. True, her role is now "domestic," not foreign policy. But does anyone really believe that she no longer has a foreign policy role, whereas foreign policy is her area of expertise?

In any event, throughout this tragedy unfolding in Kabul, I have not heard or read any mention of either Susan Rice or Zbigniew Brzezinski. Why not? Are the media covering up for them?

International Media Falsify the Housing Dispute in Jerusalem's Shimon haTsadiq Quarter

One of the chief ways in which international media, such as BBC, France24 or even Foxnews and i24, falsify the situation and the issues involved is by wrongly calling  the area Sheikh Jarrah. Traditionally, the area or large plot of real estate was called the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter. That is how it appears, for instance, in Dan Bahat's historical atlas of Jerusalem, and  in the Palestine Post before Israeli independence.

Simon the Just [Shimon haTsadiq] was an ancient Jewish high priest and his tomb is believed traditionally to be found on this site in Jerusalem, along with several other ancient Jewish cave tombs on the site. For that reason, the real estate around the Tomb --considered a holy place-- was bought jointly by Ashkenazi and Sefardi leaders in 1878. Besides enhancing the physical aspect of Simon's tomb, houses were built for poor Jews on part of the lot while part of it, including the location of the houses now at issue, was left undeveloped. 

Jews were driven out of the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter in December 1947-January 1948. They were the first refugees in the war who could not go home after it, since Jewish refugees from south Tel Aviv, for example, could go home after the war. Just by the way, the first refugees in the war were Jews, probably those from south Tel Aviv which was subject for months to sniper fire from the minaret of the Manshiyyah Mosque in nearby Jaffa/Yafo.

The Jewish homes on the plot were occupied by Arabs in 1948 or after. The houses now at issue were built in 1954-55 on Jewish-owned land by Jordan. 

When the whole city returned to Jewish control in 1967, Arabs living around the tomb of Simon were allowed to stay. However, Israeli courts recognized the Jewish ownership through committees of the old Ashkenazi and Sefardi religious communities in the city. Eventually Arab residents in the houses at issue were told to pay  rent to the rightful, legal owners. They could stay and not be evicted if they paid rent, which would be low because of Jerusalem's tenant protection law. Some took money offered to them to move out while eventually others, directed by the Palestinian Authority, refused to pay rent and were taken to court. In these court cases they claimed ownership supposedly granted to them by Jordan. But the courts found against them and the owners added the condition that they not only pay rent but recognize that they were not the legal owners. At this point we should say that it was very clever on the part of Abu Mazen's Palestinian Authority to direct these people not to pay rent or to acknowledge that they had to pay rent to Jewish owners. In this way, the PA created a deceptive issue or narrative: Supposedly poor Arabs, called "Palestinians," were being evicted by cruel Jews, who were labeled with the pejorative term "settlers" who wanted to sadistically take over Arab homes for their nefarious purposes when in reality, it was Jews who were driven from their homes by Arabs in 1947-1948. As said, the first refugees in the war who could not go home after it were the Jews of Shimon haTsadiq Quarter. Yet various news outlets are collaborating in justifying the Arab imperialist conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter in 1947-48.

Media coverage of the situation in and around Shimon haTsadiq Quarter is generally characterized by ignorance, lack of historical context or false history by insinuation or assertion, as well as moral obtuseness. For instance, the Foxnews journo in Jerusalem said that the "settlers" were taking over the houses and evicting the Arabs ["Palestinians"] by an "obscure law." Nothing obscure. The courts just recognized the rightful owners. Of course it is never mentioned that the area's Jews were driven out in 12/1947 and 1/1948. 

Something else never mentioned is that the traditional tomb of Simon the Just is located on the same lot. That would acknowledge a Jewish presence there in antiquity. And one must not do that in the age of frequent distortion of history and widespread Israelophobia, the latest version of traditional Judeophobia.

Now Simon's tomb used to be considered an ideal destination for Jewish pilgrimages on Lag B'Omer, like Meron. The site appears on the list of Jewish holy places in the Rhodes armistice accords of 1949. Jordan [then Transjordan] was supposed to allow Jews access to their holy places but Jordan always violated that part of those accords, as you would expect.

The ethnic cleansing of the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter in 1947-48 is now forgotten by ignorant or deceitful journalists and presumed news outlets.

- - - - - - - - - SOURCES

Yits'haq Levi [Levitsa], Tish'a Qabin [Hebrew]

Palestine Post [forerunner of the Jerusalem Post] for 30 November 1947 through 31 January 1948

Zeev Vilna'i, Encyclopedia of Jerusalem [Hebrew]

[here] [here] [here] 

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Jerusalem, a neighbor of Shimon ha Tsadiq Quarter [here]

Jewish property in Jerusalem seized by Arabs & Jewish property taken by Arab governments [here]

Is It Legitimate for Biden to Become President?

 

Before examining political, diplomatic and foreign affairs issues affecting Biden's legitimacy, let's deal first with the more personal and moral issues.

The man is now in 2020 a shell of a man, a manikin, an empty suit guided and manipulated by others. His gaffes are the stuff of legend, like: We choose truth over facts; You're a dogfaced pony soldier [said to a young woman who had asked a friendly question that, it seems, did not agree with Biden], etc. For those who thought he would get progressively worse, his stable if uninspiring performance in the first debate indicates that he may be heavily medicated to stop the advance of his dementia or alzheimer's. Earlier in 2020, the eminent, respected American journalist, Britt Hume, had described Biden as "evidently senile." However, in that first debate his acceptable if pedestrian performance was not without another gaffe, perhaps one not as blatant as earlier ones and thus not noticed. He said during that debate: The polls should stay open until all the votes are counted. Now it seems that this gaffe was overlooked. In any case, the votes are supposed to be counted after the polling places are closed. Further, Biden's physical appearance does not look healthy. Hence, on physical and mental grounds he is not fit to be president. 

Of course, the moral reasons why he is unfit to be president are equally compelling. As vice president under Barack Obama, he ran an influence-peddling racket, using principally his son Hunter Biden but in which other family members such as his brother James were involved. The influence-peddling took place in far flung parts of the world where his duties as vice president took him. Indeed, Obama made him his "point man" or liaison for relations with the Ukraine. This particular fact was fateful for Israel since Obama used Biden to "persuade" or "convince" Ukraine not to abstain from the Security Council vote on UN SC resolution 2334, a very hostile anti-Israel resolution which US diplomats were promoting behind the scenes but which the US [= Obama and his team] was itself planning to abstain on. Obama wanted a uniform anti-Israel vote in the Security Council,  with all countries but the USA voting in favor, in order to show Israel that it had no friends but for the USA and that even the USA wanted Israel to capitulate to PLO/PA demands for anti-Jewish apartheid in what diplomats and journalists customarily call The West Bank. Biden was used by Obama to bring the Ukrainians into line, because their original decision on the UN SC vote was to abstain. Obama wanted only the US to abstain.

Besides Ukraine, Biden ran his racket in China, Rumania, Russia, and other countries, customarily traveling on Air Force 2, the official plane designated for the vice president [Hunter Biden traveled to China with Dad on Air Force 2 at least once]. Now, the truth be told, many persons in lands outside the USA were eager to pay money into Biden's racket, thereby purchasing influence. This paid off for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, which offered Joe's son, Hunter, a seat on its board of directors, at a generous salary for someone who knew little about the energy industry and did not know the languages commonly spoken in the Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian. When the Ukrainian state prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was going to investigate Burisma, Joe arrived in Kiev [pronounced Keef], the Ukrainian capital, and threatened the top Ukrainian leaders, Poroshenko the president and Yatsenyuk the prime minister, that he would withhold one billion dollars in badly needed US loan guarantees if that prosecutor --a corrupt man according to Biden-- were not dismissed in six hours. Biden told the Ukrainians that Obama supported him in this matter, and  if they thought he was lying then they could call Obama. Biden boasted of this extortion in his talk before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in January 2018. 

Biden's worldwide influence peddling, also involving his family, led  Rudy Giuliani, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who had prosecuted Mafia gangs as a senior Federal prosecutor, to speak of "The Biden Crime Family" as one might speak of the Genovese Crime Family. 

At this point, some background about US-Ukraine relations in the Obama and Trump periods might be helpful. After the fall of Communism in 1989-1990, many of the states emerging from the long Soviet and Communist winter found themselves burdened with corrupt governments where the new leaders were out to enrich themselves, as just coincidentally, Joe was too. In 2013-14 US govt officials, such as Victoria Nuland of the State Depatment, encouraged and aided a sometimes violent protest movement led by two neo-fascist parties, Right Sektor and Svoboda. After Washington had secured the fall of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich through these Ukrainian allies, the new government found itself at war with Russian proxy forces in the east of the country, partly due to their own nationalistic arrogance and political ineptitude. Nevertheless, despite these Ukrainian allies having helped the USA achieve the foreign policy goal of eliminating and/or reducing Russian influence in the Ukraine, Obama's administration --which had encouraged them against the pro-Russian Yanukovich-- refused to give them major or lethal weapons in the war which followed Yanukovich's fall. Instead, Obama and his administration were pleased to supply the Ukraine with blankets and such like minor help. It was the Trump administration which first supplied lethal, major weapons to the Ukraine. This meant in particular the Javelin anti-tank missile that the Ukraine had been asking for for several years [Le Monde, 23 December 2017, updated 12-26-2017online]. This fact among others indicates that the widespread claim  by leading Democrats and its media allies that Trump was a cats-paw for Russia, for Putin, was simply vile political slander, a hoax, since Trump was sending weapons to a country with which Russia was at war, the Ukraine. Biden was part of this slander since he took part in a White House strategy meeting in early January 2017 [before Trump's inauguration] at which Biden suggested charging Trump with violating the Logan Act, a law from the late 18th century forbidding private US citizens from negotiating with foreign powers. However, in the much more complicated international politico-military-diplomatic situation of the 20th century, it became customary for foreign policy officials of incoming administrations to meet foreign counterparts and representatives in order to find out what was important and less important to both sides, etc. Yet General Flynn, Trump's candidate for National Security Advisor, was persecuted by the FBI and Federal prosecutors for meeting the Russian ambassador to the US in the interim between the 2016 election and Trump's inauguration.

Another place where Trump acted counter to presumed Russian interests was in Syria where Trump gave orders to bomb Syrian military targets to deter future Syrian gas and chemical weapons attacks on Syrian civilians, as at Douma on 7 April 2018 [Le Monde, 14 April 2018]. Russia objected to this bombing of Syrian targets at the Security Council. Obama broke his own promise, his own "red line" when he decided not to attack Syria after all for a poison gas attack against civilians in Syria several years before. And Biden too promoted this Russia Collusion Hoax.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

QUESTION of the day: Does anybody remember Tara Reade? Is it true that she had a "relationship" with Senator Joseph Biden? And why has she been so soon forgotten?

Is Joe Biden a Legal or Legitimate President?

Is it legal for Biden to be president? First of all, his widely alleged majority of electoral votes is due to vote cheating by his supporters, that is, the Democratic Party machines of several big cities: Philadelphia, Detroit, Las Vegas (Clark County, Nevada), Atlanta, Milwaukee, etc. The vote counting in those places, particularly Philadelphia and Detroit, was not transparent and supervised by representatives of both parties. In Philadelphia, local Democratic election officials refused to obey a court order to allow Republican representatives   close enough access to observe the counting where and while  it was going on. They were kept far away. There are many instances of the lack of proper observation or inspection of vote counting by both parties. Rudy Giuliani led the legal fight of the pro-Trump forces, especially in Philadelphia. Giuliani is a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and later mayor of New York. He is not some irresponsible, uneducated demagogue. He discusses methods of cheating by Democrats, and not just in Philadelphia. Giuliani also pointed out that the cheating methods --including those meant to prevent Republican inspection of the counting process-- were remarkably similar in various parts of the USA, in several cities. The vote fraud to come must have been planned months in advance.

On another legal point, Biden is prima facie involved in crimes involving using his power, influence and authority as vice president for personal purposes, including personal gain, including in foreign affairs. He appears to have committed felony crimes. However, he has not been convicted, indicted or even officially investigated [although it seems that his son Hunter is under FBI investigation]. Biden openly boasted of his ability to extort a foreign government, that of the Ukraine, to dismiss a prosecutor preparing to investigate a Ukrainian company on the board of which his son Hunter was sitting for a generous monetary consideration. According to emails found on a laptop computer belonging to Hunter Biden which were seen by the New York Post, his father Joe got a large share of the younger Biden's takings from the Ukrainian company, Burisma, as well as from Chinese sources, etc. Now since no legal action has been taken in these several cases involving Biden influence peddling, it may be legal on those grounds that Biden become president. However, the large-scale and widespread vote fraud against Trump by Democratic party officials makes Biden's "votes" illegal.                                                                  

Of course, Biden supporters in the media make claims of "no evidence" of vote fraud or "unsubstantiated allegations." This reminds me of the repeated denials of the Armenian genocide by the Turkish government, including by the sinister tyrant, Erdogan. "No evidence" is claimed by the Turks too. Or the genocide was only the usual mass killings taking place during a war. And so on and so forth.                        

Further, the phenomenon of vote fraud has a long history in the United States. Chicago used to be notorious for "voting the cemeteries" and also for the slogan "vote early and often." In recent years Philadelphia has become notorious for the same thing. But it did not start there just in 2020.

So much for the legality of Biden becoming president of the USA. In the next blog post, we will take up the illegitimacy of the election of Biden. Illegitimate means something wrong, not right, or unjust that may not necessarily be illegal.

Biden's Crookedness in the Ukraine Is Also Linked to His Anti-Israel Mission for Obama

 So much new info has lately come out about Joe Biden's corruption, which also involved his son, Hunter, and his brother James, that there is little left to prove directly. Of course the Democratic Party and its media allies claim that everything is Russian disinformation. The New York Times and other major media outlets have totally or almost totally ignored the new revelations about Joe's corrupt doings. Yet the NYT is an old recidivist perpetrator when it comes to overlooking or omitting facts that do not fit the narrative that the NYT wants to support. Hence, you cannot trust the NYT to bring you all of the important and significant news. It might not fit. 

It has been a rival New York newspaper, the New York Post [go into the Post web site for several articles], that has brought to light extensive new information about Biden's corruption, although some of what the NY Post has revealed could have been and should have been inferred years ago. After all, in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in January 2018, he openly boasted about getting the top officials of the Ukrainian govt to fire a prosecutor. He told them, blackmailing them, that he was giving them six hours [at that point in the speech he pointed at his watch] to fire this prosecutor or he would withhold a billion dollars in American loan guarantees that the Ukraine desperately needed.  That sounds like extortion to me. And sounds like something that US judicial authorities ought to be investigating. It sounds like something improper. Why would a US vice president want a prosecutor dismissed in a foreign land? Was Biden using his power and influence as vice president for personal gain? Were Biden and his son Hunter doing influence peddling? The questions seem obvious but Biden's very open and overt and public speech did not lead to any investigation of him. And when President Trump asked President Zelensky of the Ukraine about this matter, Trump was accused of improper activity and eventually impeached whereas it was Biden who was in the wrong!!!

So here is what I wrote a year ago on Biden's pressuring the Ukrainian govt on the matter of the prosecutor --who stated that he was preparing to investigate a Ukrainian company, Burisma, which had invited Hunter Biden to sit on its board of directors for a generous monthly salary. Although Hunter knew little about the company's field of activity, energy and natural gas, and did not know the Russian or Ukrainian languages. See the video of his speech of boastful admission in the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018.

So the question remains: Just why did Biden want that particular prosecutor removed? Of course, he is telling the CFR in his talk that the prosecutor [indeed, the prosecutor-general of Ukraine] was corrupt. But most Ukrainian voters apparently thought that Pres. Poroshenko and PM Yatseniuk were corrupt. That is why they elected in 2019 a non-politician, a Jewish actor who had played in a TV drama about corruption in Ukrainian politics to be their next president. So if Biden were truly concerned about corruption in that country, why did he not go after Poroshenko and Yatseniuk who were considered corrupt in their country, instead of the prosecutor-general? So was Joe Biden trying to protect the object of that prosecutor's planned investigation [his name was Viktor Shokin], Burisma, on the board of which sat his own son Hunter Biden? If so, was Biden then using the power and  influence of the USA to benefit his own son's company, Burisma? All in the name of anti-corruption? Biden's display of arrogance towards the officials of another country is shocking as is his boasting about his successful extortion in front of the CFR.

And here is what I wrote about Biden pressuring the Ukraine in December 2016 to vote in favor of the racist anti-Jewish Security Council resolution 2334. Also see this Elder of Ziyyon: here

The Problem of Joe Biden & the Jews & Israel

  LINK ADDED 11-17-2020 

To give full disclosure, I have disliked Joe Biden since 1975. I heard him at a dinner in the city where I lived at that time speaking to a pro-Israel organization and --I assume-- he was getting a generous speaking fee. At first I was inclined to be sympathetic because everyone knew at the time that he had lost his wife and one of their children in a traffic accident. Yet his speech to the group broadcast a nasty anti-Israel undertone. He made several snide anti-Israel insinuations, nothing too overt or specific. At the end of course he urged the audience to offer monetary support to this organization. So I suppose he, as  a US senator, had earned his fee for this organization. And I like others contributed what I could afford, although his answer to my question was somewhat irritating. I disliked him afterwards although I thought that he was basically OK as long as he voted right on issues that mattered to Jews.

Years later, I came to dislike him even more. That was when he came to Jerusalem representing Obama. But first let's go forward seven years from 1975 to 1982. In that year, when Prime Minister Begin spoke before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Back [in] 1982, Senator Biden (D-Delaware) threatened to cut off aid to Israel. In subsequent years he hotly denied this but Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s late right-hand man Yechiel Kadisha’i unequivocally confirmed Biden’s bullying in many conversations we held [Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post 30 April 2015]

 Begin responded to Biden's threat:

“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.” [ibid. Jpost]

By the year 2010, Biden had risen to the level of his incompetence as Barack Hussein Obama's vice president. He came to Jerusalem on Obama's behalf  and promoted the Obama administration's policy of enforcing apartheid against Jews in Judea & Samaria, expressing support for Mahmoud Abbas' demand that Israel stop any activity enabling Jews to take up residence in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, called Judea [IVDAEA] by the Roman Empire. On the day that Biden arrived the Interior Ministry announced plans for 1600 new homes for Jews in an already existing Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem that happened to be north of the 1949 armistice line [called "East Jerusalem" in the media, to be sure]. Both the palestinian Arab leader Abbas and the American VP Biden expressed hostility to homes being built for Jews who were often living in crowded conditions in older areas of the Holy City. And this was in a city that had had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before. Biden stated:

“It is incumbent on both parties to build an atmosphere of support for negotiations and not to complicate them,” Biden said in a media statement alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “Yesterday the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem undermines that very trust, the trust that we need right now in order to begin ... profitable negotiations,” Biden said. [Reuters, 10 March 2010: "Biden Scolds Israel over Settlement Plan"]

 There is so much more to say against Biden and against his anti-Israel actions and positions over the years that I will stop here for now, only promising to continue tomorrow with his support for Obama's dangerous Iran nuke deal, that did not stop Iran's move towards a nuke bomb for even one day, endangering both Israel and most Sunni Arab states. I will also cover Biden's work for Obama to force the Ukraine to vote in favor of the anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution 2334 of December 2016 which exemplifies the pro-apartheid [against Jews] anti-Jewish, anti-Israel policy of Obama and much of the old US foreign policy elite. And other matters.

- - - - - - - - - -                                                                                                                                                  LINK ADDED 11-17-2020

Biden's Anti-Israel Escapade in Ukraine:  here  by Elder of Ziyyon