Political Cartoon: Biden Corruption in Politics, the Real Clear Story about Foreign Interference in Ukraine

Political Cartoon:

Biden Corruption in Politics

That Sinking Feeling

Biden has been well entrenched in the DC swamp for years and it appears he’s used that swampy experience to help his son make millions. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

The Real Clear Story about Foreign Interference in Ukraine

RUSH: I knew it! This is part of the same intel cabal that ran the Russia collusion mess!

Well, the bottom line is, Mueller didn’t get fired. But the prosecutor in Ukraine did, the prosecutor looking into the scandal of Joe Biden setting up his son with both the Chinese and the Ukrainians to get rich without knowing or doing anything for it! There was a prosecutor looking into it.

Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.

~Marc Thiessen, Washington Post

Who should be Investigated? The Bully, a la Obama bin Biden

Biden went over there as vice president. He has bragged about this.

We’ve had the audio on this program. He was at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting.

He was bragging to people how he bullied the Ukrainians. He said that he told them, “You’re gonna fire this guy! You’re gonna fire this prosecutor. You’re gonna put in a prosecutor that we want or we’re gonna withhold American aid — and if you think that this is just me, then you get on the phone and you call Obama and you ask him.

deep state

Biden says, “And if you think this is just me blabbering on, you call Obama. You call him right now. He’ll back me up.” So Obama has been implicated by Biden as being part of this bullying blackmail effort to withhold previously pledged American aid money to Ukraine unless the prosecutor is fired. So they fired the prosecutor! Biden got a prosecutor fired! Trump did not fire Mueller!

Who is under investigation here for meddling in elections and meddling in internal affairs? Donald Trump.

Reports: Whistleblower Is CIA Plant, One of Brennan’s Men

 

Advertisements

Abuse of Power report: Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Abuse of Power:

Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Hat Tip: Suzanne Eovaldi

Ed.  This letter was written by Mrs. Roger Stone on the day she and her husband were assaulted by 29 armed FBI Swat team members. I’ve included the requests for contributions as I believe it your decision to donate.

Roger Stone and his wife were victims of the police state tactics of power hungry thugs Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein.

By now I’m sure you have heard about the terrifying pre-dawn raid on the house in Ft Lauderdale where I live with my husband Roger Stone.

A little before 6 am twenty nine assault weapon wielding FBI agents in full tactical gear and wearing night vision goggles surrounded our home because I am hearing impaired and I was sleeping I did not hear the commotion when an FBI agent pounded on the door demanding my husband open it and I did not know he had been handcuffed and taken into custody.

I woke up only when two FBI agents burst into our bedroom and demanded that I get out of bed at gunpoint. I was marched out to the street in front of our house wearing only a night gown and in bare feet. I was instructed to stand next to my husband who was handcuffed and also barefooted. I am not charged with any crime.

This has to be the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced as FBI agents swarmed into our home after announcing they had a search warrant.

My husband has no previous criminal record, not even a speeding ticket. He is charged and pled not guilty to seven non violent process crimes. We do not own a gun and my husband’s passport had actually expired. The idea that he is a danger to anyone or a flight risk was disproved hours later when a federal magistrate released him on a surety bond.

The FBI used twenty nine agents, seventeen vehicles including two armored vehicles, a helicopter and two amphibious units because our rented home backs onto a canal. Every agent was carrying an AK-47 as well as a sidearm. This is a much larger force than used to capture and kill Bin Laden or arrest El Chapo. It must have cost U.S. taxpayers a half a million dollars.

Even more humiliating, for some odd reason, A CNN camera crew had arrived at our home only fifty minutes before the FBI strike force and was allowed to film the assault on our home and my husband’s arrest. If my husband was considered “dangerous” why was a CNN film crew in position 10 yards from our front door? How convenient that the CNN producer at our home is a former special assistant to FBI director James Comey!

Cuba police state

My parents came from Cuba. I can understand how these kind of police state tactics can happen in a communist country but it is hard to believe that the FBI Director and acting Attorney General would allow this kind of brutal assault on a U.S. citizen with no prior criminal record and charged only with non-violent process crimes here in the United States.

After the FBI took my husband away, I was allowed to dress under the supervision of a woman FBI agent who even had to watch me while I used the bathroom. I was not allowed to touch my cell phone even though I could see that my children and grandchildren were calling to see if I was alright. FBI agents tore through every square inch of our home and removed my husbands computers and iPads. They also took my computer which means they got many beautiful pictures of my grandchildren.

I wasn’t allowed to turn on the television so I did not see the angry and hateful mob that gathered outside the federal courthouse in Ft Lauderdale where I later learned that my husband was placed in hand and foot shackles and held in a holding cell after being fingerprinted and having his mug shot photos taken. The FBI spent seven hours tearing through our house as well as raiding a storage facility nearby where they also took a computer and went through financial records that are at least fifteen years old.

Although you would never know it from the fake news media, my husband, Roger Stone is not charged with Russian collusion, Wikileaks collaboration or any other crime associated with the 2016 election. All the charges against him have been fabricated in an obvious effort to pressure him to turn on President Trump who has been our friend for forty years and who attended our wedding in Washington D.C. 27 years ago. I remember how he danced with my mother.

As my husband has made clear, he simple refuses to make up stories about the President or bear false witness against him in order to please Mr. Mueller who wants to undo the results of the 2016 election and remove our President.

Two years of constant intense investigation into every aspect of our family as well as two years of constant leaks from the special councils office have destroyed our family income.

In December I cancelled our health and life insurance policies because we could not longer pay the premiums. My husband sold his car even though it was a 2006 model and we didn’t get much for it. We burned through a small fund we had put aside from the sale of my husband’s books that was supposed to pay for the college education of our grandchildren.

Now we are facing a two million dollar cost for lawyers In order to fight the bogus charges against my husband who at 66 years old is facing a potential 45 year prison sentence for crimes he did not commit.

Every day brings death threats, late night anonymous phone calls threatening to kill us and it’s gotten so I can’t even go to the grocery store without somebody screaming at me and accusing us of being Russian spys — which is funny because my parents fled Cuba and the brutal regime of Fidel Castro while my husband’s family members were mowed down my Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956.

While Mueller has unlimited tax dollars and a platoon of vicious left wing Ivy League prosecutors to try my husband we can only depend on people like you to help fund Roger’s legal defense.

Won’t you please send a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or $1000 to the Stone Defense Fund today? No amount is too small or too big.

You have been so generous in the past and I hesitate to ask but frankly I have no one else to turn to.

You can contribute now by going here.

We deeply appreciate the thousands of Americans who are praying for us and supporting our fight against a run-away federal prosecutor bent on destroying my husband simply because he supported Donald Trump for President and helped defeat Hillary Clinton.

I have to begin packing everything we own because we must move into a small apartment which is less expensive and has better security so the days ahead will be busy for me.

The same Obama appointed judge who put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement prior to his being convicted of any crime is now considering issuing a gag order so that my husband can no longer publicly raise money for his legal defense- that’s why it is important that you rush me your answer today.

God bless you

NYDIA

Mrs. Roger Stone

P.S. you can see fake news stories online that say my husband and I are wealthy and worth millions of dollars. This is totally false. Roger says these stories are planted in order to make it harder for us to raise money for his legal defense. We urgently need your help again today.

 

https://thecoachsteam.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/my-husband-roger/

 

Political Cartoon: Caravan Invasion, Caravan Rock Throwing, and Media Bias

Political Cartoon:

Caravan Invasion, Caravan Rock Throwing, and Media Bias

Central American refugees carrying Honduran flags, storming the border throwing rocks, and using children to shield themselves against the Border Patrol response. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

 

Caravan Rock Throwing

Border Patrol President Separates Fact From Fiction on the Caravan

Eye-witness account of how border agent and others seriously injured by caravan rock throwing.

7 Times Migrants Assaulted Border Patrol Agents with Rocks in Past Year

Political Cartoon: Caravan Tear Gas and Media Bias

Political  Cartoon:

Caravan Tear Gas and Media Bias

The Mainstream media is outraged at trump because tear gas was used at the border but not a peep when Obama did the very same thing over 80 times. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

 

John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.

NEXT:

Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control

 

School Shooting Facts: Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

School Shooting Facts:

Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

How Obama and Holder Changed Broward County Law Enforcement for Racial Reasons

Rush Limbaugh

December 4, 2013, issue of the American Prospect magazine. Headline: “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

The article is about efforts undertaken to avoid arresting students. And the article speaks to the concern that Broward County might have turned a blind eye to the behavior of Nikolas Cruz because they wanted to lower the number of student suspensions, which is a big part of Obama-Holder prison reform. So this is five-year-old story. Well, four and a half years old. It’s December of 2013.

So you see the way this works if you’re a leftist, you don’t count the crime. You look at the percentage of arrests and imprisonment, and you compare that to the population at large, and you find racial bias. And the only way you can do that is if you assume that many of these crimes being committed by minorities are not really being committed, that they’re only being charged because there’s a racial bias in the police department or the sheriff’s department. And that racial bias is indicated by the exorbitant percentage of African-Americans and minorities in jail or in prison and your belief that it wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for racism.

So you start out by claiming that law enforcement is corrupt because they’re targeting minorities who aren’t committing crimes, they’re arresting them and imprisoning them, and you want to fix it. That’s the starting point for this. They say, “Look, the black population is, what, 15% of the country, but in the prisons it’s 70%, that proves bias.” It doesn’t, unless you’re a liberal.

It’s a fascinating piece, but the primary assertion here is that in order to obtain money from the federal government and programs that were instituted by Obama and Eric Holder, local governments were rewarded with these grants if they kept school arrests down. Let’s stop the pipeline from schools to prison. Right here in this 2013 story, “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

American Prospect: Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline – 12.04.13

Ann Coulter: The School to Mass Murder Pipeline

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other “red flags.”

Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz’s terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, “security specialist,” and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC.

At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., “I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,” “Im going to watch ypu bleed,” “iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn’t referred to law enforcement. He wasn’t even expelled.

Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school — six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday!

The moronic idea behind the “school-to-prison pipeline” is that the only reason so many “black and brown bodies” are in prison is because they were disciplined in high school, diminishing their opportunities. End the discipline and … problem solved!

It’s like “The Wizard of Oz” in reverse. The Wizard told the Scarecrow: You don’t need an education, you just need a diploma! The school-to-prison pipeline idiocy tells students: You don’t need to behave in high school, you just need to leave with no criminal record!

Removing Consequences Encourages Bad Behavior

Of course, killjoys will say that removing the consequences of bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

But in this case, we have a paper trail. In the pursuit of a demented ideology, specific people agreed not to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students like Nikolas Cruz.

These were the parties to the Nov. 5, 2013, agreement that ensured Cruz would be out on the street with full access to firearms:

Nikolas Cruz may be crazy, but the parties to that agreement are crazy, too. They decided to make high school students their guinea pigs for an experiment based on a noxious ideology.

The blood of 17 people is on their hands.

 

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

History Facts:

Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the ISIS Islamofascists

 

key“Hitler’s Mufti,” as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil. ~Mathew E. Bunson

Rush Limbaugh

Caller: Why is it nobody seems to see the parallel between ISIS and Nazi Germany?  What were the Nazis doing?  Destroying books –that did not agree with their –

Rush:

but I, for years have been drawing the comparison of militant Islam to Nazi Germany. For years I have pointed out how a famous imam back during World War II actually met with Hitler, that their objectives, the extermination of the Jews, are identical.

We’ve now uncovered Jihad John.  Jihad John from a well-to-do London family by way of Kuwait.  We actually now have the first civilian adult picture of Jihad John with his face uncovered.  He’s wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap.  I just saw the picture.

obama-stand-w-muslimsBut because he doesn’t fit the [Obama] Regime’s characterization of terrorists, it’s being undersold, it’s being under-reported.  He’s not poor.  He’s not unemployed. He’s not a militant extremist because he doesn’t have any economic opportunity, so who he is does not fit the profile that’s given us by Obama.  There are a lot of people that want ISIS taken out.  This is a major debate raging within the elites of our government.  You have certain elites testifying before Congress that they’re a serious threat, that their ultimate target is us.

John Kerry who says, no, no, no, no, no, no, the world is safer, Americans are safer today than at any time in history.  And then you have Clapper, who looks like a Clapper, by the way, James Clapper.  I mean, you know, people associate looks with names.  They just do.  And this guy looks like a Clapper.  He testified yesterday that ISIS is a huge threat, and it’s a major threat.  So two different people, high-ranking in the Regime, characterize ISIS as entirely different.

Catholic Answers Magazine

Hitler’s Mufti

By: Matthew E. Bunson

Haj_Amin_al-Husseini_mufti_SS_nazi_firing_rangePhotograph © U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Recent work by historians and apologists has revealed that an influential, international religious leader was also an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. His name was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited whole divisions of fanatics to fight and kill in the name of extremism.

Revered in some circles today as one of the fathers of modern radical Islam, al-Husseini has been the subject of a number of modern studies. Scholars such as David Dalin, John Rothmann, Chuck Morse, and others have courageously brought al-Husseini’s actions to light. “Hitler’s Mufti,” as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil.

A Radical Shaped by War

Al-Husseini was born sometime in the late 1890s in Jerusalem when that city was in the hands of the dying Ottoman Empire. He belonged to an old family of nobles and was the son of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Tahir al-Husseini. Sent to Cairo for his education, he studied Islamic jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University and then at the Cairo school Dar al-Dawa wal-Ershad (The Institute for Propagation and Guidance) founded by a Syrian member of the Muslim Salafi sect (one of the most extreme in Islam). The school, a haven for radical thought, gave al-Husseini an early grounding in practical revolutionary planning. Al-Husseini went on to the College of Literature at Cairo University and then the Ottoman School for Administrators in Istanbul, which trained future leaders of the then far-flung Ottoman Empire.

After taking the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca (the Hajj) in 1913, al-Husseini was drafted into the Ottoman Army. He was assigned to the College of Reserve Officers and subsequently named to an infantry regiment as a non-commissioned officer. With the onset of World War I in 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered into the bloody conflict as a member of the Central Powers with Germany and Austria. Al-Husseini found himself in an inefficient army that, compared to the highly mechanized forces of the West, was lacking in leadership and modern equipment. He soon heard of the genocide of the Armenian people—one of the most horrendous incidents in the terrible global conflict.

In 1916, al-Husseini departed the Ottoman Army on disability leave and spent the rest of the war in Jerusalem. Angered by the decision of the Allied victors to deny Arab participation in the discussions leading to the Treaty of Versailles, al-Husseini was even more infuriated by the sudden increase of Jewish immigrants into British-controlled Palestine. An ardent anti-Semite who hated Jews with a deep fervor, he first came to the attention of the British in 1920 when he organized riots against Jews. Charged with inciting violence that left five Jews dead and another 211 injured, he fled to Syria and was sentenced in absentia to 10 years’ imprisonment.

The Grand Mufti’s Ascent

In April 1921, however, British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, seeking to achieve some semblance of peace in the Holy Land, granted amnesty to Arab nationalists. Al-Husseini was allowed to return to Jerusalem, and the British officials—disregarding his long record of anti-Semitism—named him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This title was granted to a Sunni Muslim cleric, granting him oversight of the holy sites of Islam in Jerusalem, in particular the Al-Aqsa Mosque. For Sunni Muslims, the Grand Mufti is honored as the chief religious authority in Jerusalem. Notably, from the appointment of the first Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1860s, the position was customarily filled by the governing power in charge of Jerusalem.

After the death of the first Grand Mufti, Mohammed Tahir al-Husseini, in 1908, the position stayed in the family when the Turks awarded the title to his son Kamil al-Husseini. Although the British assumed control of Jerusalem during World War I, Kamil al-Husseini remained in his post until his death in 1921, when the British decided that Kamil’s brother Hajj Amin would be an acceptable choice—despite his criminal past and known extremist ties. Al-Husseini remained as Grand Mufti under the British in spite of his activities and was removed only in 1948, when King Abdullah I of Jordan banned him from Jerusalem and named Hussam Al-din Jarallah as Grand Mufti.

Once in power in Jerusalem, al-Husseini was appointed by the British to head the newly established Supreme Muslim Council, created to prepare the way for Arab self-governance in Palestine. Al-Husseini took the chance given to him by the appeasement-minded British to call for the deaths of Jews and set out on a campaign of terror against the Jews in Palestine. In subsequent years, al-Husseini was involved in plots to massacre Jews, among them 60 Jewish immigrants in Hebron and 45 more in Safad in 1929. In 1936, he helped lead a rebellion in Palestine against the British. The following year the British condemned al-Husseini (though permitting him to retain the title of Grand Mufti), and he fled to Syria once more. From there he continued to plot against the British control over Palestine.

Fascist Bedfellows

Events outside the Middle East were presenting new opportunities for fanatics to find allies and possible patrons. The 1930s witnessed the rise of National Socialism in Italy under Benito Mussolini and in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Soon after the appointment of Hitler as German Chancellor in 1933, the German Consul-General in Palestine, Heinrich Wolff, expressed his belief that many Muslims in the Holy Land would be supportive of the new Nazi regime. This view was confirmed when Wolff met with al-Husseini and other radical local leaders. For al-Husseini, the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis were appealing, and he hoped for German help in ousting the British from Palestine.

Al-Husseini deepened his outreach to the Nazis in 1937 when he met with two Nazi SS officers, including Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust in Damascus, Syria. The SS representatives had been sent at the express order of Reinhard Heydrich, the deputy head of the SS under Heinrich Himmler and chief of SS Intelligence and the Nazi security services, including the Gestapo. Heydrich recognized immediately that al-Husseini was a potentially valuable asset for Nazi interests in the Middle East and worked to cultivate him.

Four years later, al-Husseini threw his support to a pro-Nazi revolt in Iraq against the British-backed prime minister, Nuri Said Pasha. Going to Baghdad, al-Husseini issued a fatwa for a jihad against the British. Barely a month later, British troops ended the coup and occupied the country, whereupon al-Husseini fled to Iran. Although given sanctuary in the embassies of Japan and Italy, al-Husseini was again forced to be on the move when Iran was itself occupied by the British and Soviet armies. Al-Husseini made his way out of Iran with Italian diplomats who provided him with an Italian passport. He shaved his beard and dyed his hair to avoid being recognized by British agents and Iranian police.

Al-Husseini reached Rome in October 1941 and began serious discussions with the Mussolini regime. The result was twofold. First, he secured a meeting with Mussolini himself and then completed a practical agreement with the Italians. In return for Axis recognition of an Arab state of a fascist nature that would encompass Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and the Transjordan, he agreed to support the war against Britain. The Italian foreign ministry also urged Mussolini to grant al-Husseini one million lire.

hitlermuftiThe Mufti Meets the Führer

Over the next few days, al-Husseini drafted a proposed statement of an Arab-Axis cooperative effort by which the Axis powers would recognize the right of the Arabs to deal with Jewish elements in Palestine and in the other Arab countries according to their own interests. The declaration was approved by Mussolini and sent to the German embassy in Rome. Pleased with the declaration, al-Husseini was invited to Berlin as an honored and useful guest of the Nazi regime. He arrived in Berlin on November 6 and met with Ernst von Weizsäcker, German secretary of state under Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. Two weeks later, he met with von Ribbentrop himself, a prelude to his triumphant reception on November 28, 1941, with Adolf Hitler.

At their meeting, al-Husseini requested German assistance with the Arab independence movement and Nazi support in the extermination of any Jewish homeland. For his part, Hitler promised to aid that liberation movement, but went still further, promising that the aim of Nazi Germany would be the elimination of all Jews living under British protection once such territories had been conquered. This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.” (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, “The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud”)

The Axis’ Kept Man

For the Nazis, al-Husseini was an ideal propaganda tool, a powerful spokesman among radical Arabs, and an excellent instrument for their anti-Jewish campaign in Europe and in the Holy Land. Portrayed by the Nazis as the spiritual leader of all Islam, al-Husseini was given a grand formal welcome in Berlin. The official Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, proudly published a photo of Hitler and al-Husseini, and Radio Berlin proclaimed on January 8, 1942 that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had consented to take part in the effort against the British, the Communists, and the Jews.

Satisfied with his newly concretized relations with the Nazis, al-Husseini chose to remain in the service of the Axis and settled in Berlin in a lavish mansion that had been confiscated from a Jewish family. The Nazis paid him a monthly stipend of 62,500 Reichsmarks (approximately 20,000 dollars), payments that continued until April 1945, when only the fall of Berlin to the Red Army ended Hitler’s financial support. From his post, al-Husseini headed the Nazi-Arab Cooperation Section and helped build a network of German spies across the Middle East through his followers. Scheming for a desired dark future of Nazi-Islamic leadership, the Mufti founded an Islamic Institute in Dresden to provide training for young radical Muslims who would serve as chaplains for his field units and also head out across the Middle East and the world to sow the seeds of jihadism and anti-Semitism.

The Mufti’s Final Solution

Scholars have long studied how actively engaged al-Husseini was in the implementation of the Holocaust. There is no question that he supported the aims of the Nazis in perpetrating genocide and believed perversely that all Arabs should join that cause. He declared on German radio on March 1, 1944: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you” (qtd. in Norman Stillman, “Jews of the Arab World between European Colonialism, Zionism, and Arab Nationalism” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communications, and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner).

According to the testimony of Adolf Eichmann’s chief deputy Dieter Wisliceny (who was hanged for war crimes) the Mufti played a role in encouraging the Final Solution and was a close friend and advisor to Eichmann in the Holocaust’s implementation across Europe. Wisliceny testified further that al-Husseini had a close association with Heinrich Himmler and visited the gas chambers at Auschwitz, where he exhorted the staff to be even more dedicated in its important work.

To assist the practical slaughter of Jews and Christians, al-Husseini built an army of Muslim volunteer units for the Waffen-SS (the combat units of the dread SS) to operate for the Nazi cause in the Balkans. While the appeal for volunteers from among Muslims always struggled to meet the demands for new recruits, al-Husseini was able to organize three divisions of Bosnian Muslims who were then trained as elements of the Waffen-SS. The largest radical Muslim unit was the 13th Waffen-SS Handzar (“Dagger”) division that boasted over 21,000 men. They were joined by the Bosnian 23rd Waffen-SS Kama Division and the Albanian Skanderbeg 21st Waffen-SS Division. The Muslim Waffen-SS forces fought across the Balkans against Communist partisans and then assisted in the genocide of Yugoslavian Jews and in the persecution and slaughter of Gypsies and Christian Serbs in 1944 and 1945. The brutality extended to Catholics as well, for the Muslim Waffen-SS cut a path of destruction across the Balkans that encompassed a large number of Catholic parishes, churches, and shrines and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Catholics. By the end of the war, al-Husseini’s fanatical soldiers had killed over 90 percent of the Jews in Bosnia.

Meanwhile, in Rome

While al-Husseini carried out his decimation of Jews in Eastern Europe, the situation facing Jews in Rome in late 1943 was also grave. Following the deposition of Mussolini by his own people, Hitler invaded the country and briefly re-installed Il Duce. Then followed the first mass arrests of Italian Jews and a planned deportation of all Italian Jews to the death camps. Pope Pius XII protested these arrests and used the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to speak out further against the Nazi campaign against the Jews of Italy. Among his many acts during this dangerous period, the holy pontiff sheltered 3,000 Jews at his summer residence, Castel Gandolfo, and hid thousands more in some 180 convents, monasteries, parish buildings, rectories, churches, and even in Vatican City itself. Through his leadership, Pius ultimately helped to save or rescue 80 percent of the Jews of Rome. In June 1944, the pontiff sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the leader of Hungary, and implored him not to proceed with the planned deportation of the country’s 800,000 Jews.

As Pius was risking his safety and that of the Church in Italy, al-Husseini continued to call for the extermination of all Jews. On November 2, 1943, as the Nazis tried to press forward with the roundup of Italian Jews, the Grand Mufti declared on German radio of the Jewish people, “They cannot mix with any other nation but live as parasites among the nations, suck out their blood, embezzle their property, corrupt their morals.”

The Untouchable Cleric

With the collapse of the Third Reich, al-Husseini fled from Germany to Switzerland and then to Paris. Incredibly, he was not a target of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. He was sentenced merely to house arrest in Paris on the basis of charges made by the Yugoslav Supreme Military Court, which sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and two years of deprivation of civil rights because of his involvement in the atrocities throughout the Balkans. As for Nuremberg, despite the testimony of Eichmann’s aide, there was scant interest in the mufti because of his assumed immense sway in the Middle East.

With little effort, al-Husseini escaped from his comfortable house arrest. From there he traveled to Cairo, where he considered himself safe thanks to the patronage of Egypt’s King Farouk. Even with the fall of Farouk and the rise of Gamal Abdel-Nasser as head of Egypt in 1952, al-Husseini remained safe. His influence was felt throughout the Arab world, most so in galvanizing opposition to Zionism and the birth of Israel. He supported the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was involved in the assassination of King Abdullah I of Jordan in 1951, and served as president of the World Islamic Congress. His last public appearance came in 1962 when he delivered a speech to that conference. He used his final opportunity to speak to the world to call for the ethnic cleansing of the Jews. He died in Lebanon in 1974, a beloved and revered figure among radical Muslims all over the world.

Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s legacy was to inspire generations of terrorists, Islamic jihadists, and such dictators as Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The foremost exemplar of his influence was a young terrorist and distant relative who became one of his most ardent students: Yasser Arafat, the future leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Rabbi David Dalin—one of Pope Pius XII’s greatest defenders—offers a fitting final word:

The “most dangerous” cleric in modern history, to use John Cornwell’s phrase, was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini, whose anti-Jewish Islamic fundamentalism was as dangerous in World War II as it is today . . . The grand mufti was the Nazi collaborator par excellence. “Hitler’s mufti” is truth. “Hitler’s pope” is myth. (The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, 137)

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hitlers-mufti

SIDEBARS

Child Murderer

In late 1942, Heinrich Himmler gave his permission for 10,000 Jewish children to be transferred from Poland to Theresienstadt with the eventual aim of allowing them to go to Palestine in exchange for German civilian prisoners, through the International Red Cross. The plan was abandoned, however, because of the protests of the Grand Mufti.

The following year, al-Husseini blocked the emigration of 4,000 Jewish children and 500 accompanying adults to Palestine that was proposed by the governments of Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. The children were sent instead to the gas chambers.

Further Reading

  • Dalin, David and John Rothmann, Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam (Random House, 2008)
  • Elpeleg, Zvi, The Grand Mufti: Haj Amin Al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement (Frank Cass, 1993)
  • Morse, Chuck, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini (iUniverse, 2003)
  • Perlman, Moshe, Mufti of Jerusalem (Pavilion Press, 2006)
  • Dalin, David, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope (Regnery, 2005)

Matthew E. Bunson is a former contributing editor to This Rock and the author of more than 30 books. He is a consultant for USA Today on Catholic matters, a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum, and the editor of The Catholic Answer.

 

Science Facts: US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Science Facts:

US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Every Bad Thing We Will Avoid By Rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement

The biggest cause of “Global Warming” is from the Hot Air of politicians, not from hardworking Americans. ~C.D.

John Carney

The president formally announced this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1.Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2.Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

3.Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4.Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5.Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 

6.Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climat

Critical Thinking: Defining Church and State

Critical Thinking:

Defining Church and State

C.A. Davidson

    TODAY IN OUR SOCIETY, WE HAVE PEOPLE LITERALLY GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, because many of us do not understand the line of demarcation between church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at our topic in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

church-state3-first-amendmtCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

I hope by the time we conclude here that you will understand more precisely what “establishment of religion” means. In 1963, the Supreme Court established the religion of atheism by banning the Bible. Congress didn’t even make that law—the Supreme Court did. How unconstitutional is that?

Today, Congress has not made laws establishing a religion, in this case Islam. Political Correctness, with the help of Barack Obama, has done that. How unconstitutional is that?

Only Congress can make laws. Congressman Trey Gowdy explains:

We make law and while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you. I will never stand and clap when ANY president no matter whether it’s your president or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE MAKE LAW. 

Church Laws

Most Christian church laws deal with the moral standing of an individual. They can exile or excommunicate a member of their faith for moral transgression, which is violation of a moral law.

U.S. Laws

church-state2-madison-quote          U.S . laws are based on the biblical Ten Commandments. The Constitution guarantees protection of innocent life and property. Therefore, if a member of any religion in the United States steals or commits murder, that member must be tried and punishable by a civil court, because the person has infringed upon another’s liberties and is a threat to society. Most holy writ condemns murder. The religious books of some countries justify murder in the name of their religion. Murder is still against the law in the United States, and is not justified or protected by freedom of religion.

Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the individual states provide for equality among all religions, in order to encourage a moral fiber in society.

Before the Civil War, some states were persecuting certain religions and favoring others, even though the First Amendment of the Constitution spells out the right to freedom for all religions. After the Civil War, amendments were established so that the states could not overrule the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Now, First Amendment rights are guaranteed on a national level to all American citizens, no matter what state they reside in.

Dallin H. Oaks, legal scholar and Christian leader, clarifies:

Jefferson’s “wall” was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of the metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, 1963: The Wall Between Church and State, pp.2-3)

church-state1-reagan-quote          Under the United States Constitution,  we have freedom of religion, and anyone can worship whom, where, or what they choose, or not worship anything, if they so choose—as long as their religious opinions don’t cause them to infringe upon the liberties of others. The Constitution is the charter for a civil government, not a religious government, but it requires that the government protect our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property.

Sharia Law, on the other hand, is administered by the Islamic State, in which religion and state are inseparable. Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property, and denies First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and press as well. Sharia Law allows killing, stealing, and enslavement in the name of their man-made religion.

Should Church Doctrine determine National Policy?

Christians believe in being kind to the wayfaring stranger. The motives are pure, Christ-like love. Does this mean that governments should apply this doctrine on a national scale, and dispense with the vetting process for immigrants?

ImmigrationInvasionOfAmericaThe motives of Islamists, on the other hand, are to use immigration as an invasion tactic, to conquer the target nation, with no intention of assimilating into our Judeo-Christian culture and respecting our values. Obviously, for national security reasons, America can’t assume that the motives of all immigrants are pure, especially when those immigrants hold to religious doctrines that are inimical to the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our nation is founded.

(See Constitution OK with Immigration Tests on Religion

Ed Vitagliano, of the American Family Association, provides some important insights into this issue:

welfare-government-charity-madisonHere is the principle: Biblically speaking, the government is not the same as the individual Christian, and it is not the same as the church. Therefore, believers must be careful not to apply to government Scriptures intended for the church.

For example, Jesus said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14).

So, we must conclude that individual Christians are to forgive their enemies. But must we also conclude that governments should forgive their enemies? Must we demand that criminals convicted of crimes be released and not sent to prison?

The application of this principle is that individual Christians should help refugees who are in our nation. But the issue of who we allow in – and how many – is not a biblical matter. It is a political matter. (Please see this related post for additional important information:

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

 

            You decide: The line of demarcation between Church and State     

Here are some other examples. Use critical thinking to determine whether these cases deserve the protection  of freedom of religion, or whether they violate unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property,  threatening public safety, thereby being subject to prosecution and punishment by civil law.

Child Sacrifice

moloch_the_god1) In ancient times, some people worshipped a god named Moloch. These worshippers practiced human sacrifice, throwing their babies into a fiery furnace in the belly of the statue of  Moloch.

  • Should those worshipers have been granted license to destroy innocent life because it was a religious ritual for them?

Slavery and Slave Trade

2) In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

slave-trade-ISIS“Trading in black African slaves, the [Islamic] magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

(Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ Breitbart.com)

  • Should Islamists be allowed to traffic in slavery and protected by freedom of religion because they do it for “religious reasons?”

Murder

3) Jihad is not a product of extremist fringes; it is a core religious doctrine of Islam today found in their Koran. Jihad requires that Islamists kill or enslave innocent people—anyone who does not convert to their religion.

MuslimWarriorTrading in black African slaves, the magazine [Dabiq] notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter his enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”[1]

  • Should Islamists be protected by freedom of religion so they can “slaughter [his] enemies”, or anyone who doesn’t agree with Islam?

Critical Thinking  

  • When is freedom of religion limited?
  • What actions, even if done in the name of religion, require the perpetrator to be subject to civil law?

Related Post:

 Islamic State approves Slave Trade

 

[1]  Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ (Breitbart.com)