Category: US

Posted on

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

2. Contribution By Organization

GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
J-Street $400,000
Zionist Organization of America $200,000
Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
Jewish American Committee $74,000
Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

This is the source (for 2018)

3. Highest Paid Puppets

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

4. Strengthening US Security In ME Act

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

5. Thoughts On Omar’s Comments

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

6. Islamic Influence

CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

7. Paid Saudi Lobbyists

Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
Cambridge Associates $8,505
Cassidy & Associates $720,000
DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

Source is here.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

3. Why This Is Important


There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    Infanticide #6: Fallout And Some Pushback

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    (1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
    (2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
    (3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/

    2. Important Links

    (1) http://toresays.com/2019/03/23/oregon-bill-passed-to-legalize-starving-mentally-ill-patients-so-they-die-faster/
    (2) https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4135/Enrolled
    (3) http://toresays.com/2019/03/21/beto-constituent-arrested-for-capital-murder-may-believe-infanticide-is-her-legal-right/
    (4) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-yorks-ultrapermissive-abortion-law-forced-prosecutors-to-drop-a-charge-against-a-man-who-allegedly-murdered-his-pregnant-girlfriend
    (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_heartbeat_bill
    (6) CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected.
    (7) ttps://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/00235
    (8) https://legislativenavigator.myajc.com/#bills/HB/481
    (9) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0933&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS
    (10) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0978&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS
    (11) https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB126/2019
    (12) http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2903&year=2019&sessiontype=RS
    (13) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text
    (14) http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/march/lsquo-defunded-of-all-taxpayer-money-rsquo-ohio-withdraws-all-funding-from-planned-parenthood

    3. Stabbing Baby Post-Birth is “Abortion”

    From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:

    The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.

    Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.

    What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “

    This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?

    Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”

    But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.

    Posted on

    Review Of Mark Bray’s Book: Antifa, The Anti-Fascist Handbook


    Yes, this came out in 2017, but still worth a read.

    Check out this amazing review of Antifa by YouTuber Matt Christiansen.

    This review will mostly focus on the opening part. This is for a few reasons.
    First: The book is fairly long.
    Second: It gets very repetitive.
    Third: You can get a good understanding just from the introduction.

    Despite a resurgence of white-supremacist and fascistic violence across Europe and the United States, most consider the dead and the living to be safe because they believe fascism to be safely dead — in their eyes, the fascist enemy lost definitively in 1945. But the dead were not so safe when Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi described spending time in Mussolini’s prison camps as a “vacation” in 2003 or the French Front National (National Front) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen called Nazi gas chambers a mere “detail” of history in 2015.”

    Assuming these details are accurate, Mark Bray lists 2 European leaders making inappropriate remarks as evidence of fascistic violence rising.

    This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right. Based on sixty-one interviews with current and former anti-fascists from seventeen countries in North America and Europe, it expands our geographical and temporal outlook to contextualize opposition to Trump and the alt-right within a much wider and broader terrain of resistance. Antifa is the first transnational history of postwar anti-fascism in English and the most comprehensive in any language. It argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years. You may not walk away from this book a convinced anti-fascist, but at least you will understand that anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition growing out of a century of global struggle.

    Okay, some points to take away from this.

    (1) The book’s author admits it is very partisan, and is a call to arms. And as he will show, he means it quite literally.

    (2) Opposition to Trump and the Alt-Right? Seems an admission that Trump himself is not Alt-Right.

    (3) Militant fascism is appropriate.

    As historian Robert Paxton argued, fascists “reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy.” Even the party platforms that fascists put forward between the world wars were usually twisted or jettisoned entirely when the exigencies of the pursuit of power made those interwar fascists uneasy bedfellows with traditional conservatives. “Left” fascist rhetoric about defending the working class against the capitalist elite was often among the first of their values to be discarded. Postwar (after World War II) fascists have experimented with an even more dizzying array of positions by freely pilfering from Maoism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and other left-wing ideologies and cloaking themselves in “respectable” electoral guises on the model of France’s Front National and other parties

    Bray seems not to grasp the hypocrisy here. This so-called Anti-Fascist movement does exactly that: it promotes the success of “marginalised people” in a struggle for supremacy. He is also correct about the “Left’s” claim to defend the working class is the first to be discarded.

    Some historians have used this literal, minimalist definition to describe as “anti-fascist” a wide variety of historical actors, including liberals, conservatives, and others, who combated fascist regimes prior to 1945. Yet, the reduction of the term to a mere negation obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace. This political interpretation transcends the flattening dynamics of reducing anti-fascism to the simple negation of fascism by highlighting the strategic, cultural, and ideological foundation from which socialists of all stripes have fought back. Yet, even within the Left, debates have raged between many socialist and communist parties, antiracist NGOs, and others who have advocated a legalistic pursuit of antiracist or anti-fascist legislation and those who have defended a confrontational, direct-action strategy of disrupting fascist organizing. These two perspectives have not always been mutually exclusive, and some anti-fascists have turned to the latter option after the failure of the former, but in general this strategic debate has divided leftist interpretations of anti-fascism.

    (1) The author sees liberals and conservatives as unable to stop fascists, though he admits they are opposed to it.

    (2) An interesting admission: Apparently legal and non-violent means of stopping fascism are ineffective, hence the need to turn to violence.

    At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” After Auschwitz and Treblinka, anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.

    Thus, anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities. Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right.

    A lot to unpack in these passages:

    (1) Anti-fascism is illiberal.

    (2) Anti-fascists reject free speech ideals.

    (3) Anti-fascists don’t believe “Nazis” should have the right to speak at all in any organized way.

    (4) Anti-fascism opposes the far right, not just fascism.

    (5) Anti-fascists will drown out speakers they don’t like.

    (6) Anti-fascists will infiltrate groups they don’t like.

    (7) Anti-fascists will commit violence.

    Bray makes an interesting comment about bans being used more often against the left than the right. Bray seems completely unaware that his words make such a ban seem popular.

    So who does Mark Bray reject?
    A/ Nazis, Fascists
    B/ Far right individuals
    C/ Conservatives
    D/ Liberals, or at least liberal beliefs
    Or, to be blunt, most of the political spectrum.

    Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense.

    (1) This seems like a bogus attempt to give Antifa some legitimacy. Saying it is more than a single issue movement distracts from the harm it does to free societies. Remember, this group openly rejects free speech and liberal ideology.

    (2) Just because Antifa members have other things to do with their lives doesn’t whitewash the violence they commit against speakers they disagree with.

    (3) Collective self defense? Who is the collective? Antifa has written off everyone who is Liberal and any further right. And attacking people whose viewpoints you don’t like is not “self-defense”.

    Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-fascism has always been just one facet of a larger struggle against white supremacy and authoritarianism.

    The lack of self awareness here. Mark Bray advocates for a violent, illiberal, ideology that rejects free speech …. but at the same time rejects authoritarianism.

    For this reason, it is vital to understand anti-fascism as a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms. My focus on militant anti-fascism is in no way intended to minimize the importance of other forms of antiracist organizing that identify with anti-imperialism, black nationalism, or other traditions. Rather than imposing an anti-fascist framework on groups and movements that conceive of themselves differently, even if they are battling the same enemies using similar methods, I focus largely on groups that self-consciously situate themselves within the anti-fascist tradition.

    -Anti-fascism is just part of the bigger picture?
    -Your wording is confusing. Is BLACK NATIONALISM a good thing?
    -You just focus on the violent groups? Okay.

    Mark Bray’s Fall 2017 Book Tour
    9/16 Philadelphia: Wooden Shoe Books (w/ George Ciccariello-Maher)
    9/18 Durham, NC: Duke University
    9/19 Chapel Hill, NC: Flyleaf Books
    9/23 Atlanta: A Cappella Books
    9/25 Richmond, VA: Babes of Carytown
    9/26 Highland Park, NJ: Reformed Church of Highland Park
    9/27 Brooklyn: Powerhouse Arena (w/ Kim Kelly)
    9/28 Baltimore: Red Emma’s
    9/29 DC: Politics and Prose
    10/5 Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College
    10/7 Rochester, NY: Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley
    10/8 Pittsburgh: National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 84
    10/9 Detroit: The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
    10/10 Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Friends Meeting
    10/11 Flint, MI: University of Michigan at Flint
    10/12 Chicago: (info tbd)
    10/15 Minneapolis (info tbd)
    10/16 Madison, WI: A Room of One’s Own
    10/17 Detroit: Wayne State University
    10/18 Toronto: Workers’ Action Center, 720 Spadina Ave., Suite 223
    10/19 Ottawa: Dalhousie Community Center
    10/26 Woodstock, VT: Yankee Bookshop
    10/27 Montreal: CÉDA, 2515 rue Delisle
    10/30 Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University (see below)

    No one tried to shut him down. Weak fascists.

    This guy is a lunatic, who supports violent, illiberal policies, and opposes free speech. Ironic that he relies on free speech to sell his book, and to promote his ideas.

    That was just the introduction covered. But Bray repeatedly conflates speakers and ideas he doesn’t like with fascists. He also conflates right wingers with Nazis and fascists.

    Could Antifa Logic Shut Down Antifa?
    Serious thought: if you say that violence must be used to prevent violence from happening, could groups of people not pre-emptively attack you? This is the precedent you set.

    Posted on

    Florida Judge Rules Using Fake Documents To Get Driver’s License Isn’t Illegal

    CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
    CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.

    “BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. [53]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. [54], and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

    The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
    In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).

    It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. [22].

    Accordingly, it is
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. [53], is DENIED.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.

    This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

    Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.

    Posted on

    UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression


    (Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).


    (A critique on the problem with veto power)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
    CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
    CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
    CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

    2. Stated Mission

    Peace and Security

    The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

    The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

    Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

    The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

    In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

    3. Non Military Options

    What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

    (From Article 41)

    “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

    From the page on sanctions:

    “Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

    The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

    4. UN Contributing To World Peace?

    Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
    Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

    Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

    Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
    Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
    Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
    First Indochina War (1946–1954)
    Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
    Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
    Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
    Balochistan conflict (1948– )
    Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
    Korean War (1950–1953)
    Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
    Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
    Algerian War (1954–1962)
    First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
    Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
    Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
    Lebanon crisis (1958)
    Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
    Central American crisis (1960–1996)
    Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
    Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
    Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
    First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
    Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
    North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
    Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
    Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
    Sand War (1963)
    Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
    Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
    Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
    Dominican Civil War (1965)
    Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
    Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
    Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
    South African Border War (1966–1990)
    Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
    Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
    Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
    Operation Condor (1968–1989)
    Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
    Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
    Yemenite War (1972)
    Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
    Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
    Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
    Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
    Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
    Cabinda War (1975–present)
    Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
    Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
    Shaba I (1977)
    Ogaden War (1977–1978)
    Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
    Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
    Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
    Shaba II (1978)
    Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
    NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
    Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
    Yemenite War of (1979)
    Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
    Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
    Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
    Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
    Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

    This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

    Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

    This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

    5. What Does UN Say About It?

    Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
    .
    -to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
    -to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
    -to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
    -to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
    -to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
    -to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
    -to take military action against an aggressor;
    -to recommend the admission of new Members;
    -to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
    -to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

    There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

    Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

    6. Who’s Behind US Military Aggression?

    In a word: Israel.

    The State of Israel has been influencing US military policy, particularly in the Middle East, for decades. Western (Christian) nations go to war against Muslim nations. This in turn creates refugees who are forced to take shelter in other countries. Of course Israel won’t take them, but will help ship them off to the West.