Login
Employees of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, participated in the October 7 attack on Israel, raping, torturing and murdering Jews in tandem with Hamas jihadists and taking Israelis and Americans hostage. Such deadly collaboration should come as no surprise. As Paul Johnson showed in his masterful Modern Times, the United Nations has always been hostile to the West in general and the USA and Israel in particular.
“The notion that Israel was created by imperialism is not only wrong but the reverse of the truth,” writes Johnson. “Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists.” United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, the worst possible choice for the post according to Johnson, “treated Israel not as a small and vulnerable nation but as an outpost of imperialism.”
The UN boss demonstrated “the way in which the UN could be used to marshal and express hatred of the West.” That emerged in the Algerian conflict of the late 1950s, with a dynamic that went back to Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. He “outrivaled Hitler in his hatred for Jews” and “organized the systematic destruction of Arab moderates.”
In March of 1962, Johnson recalls, “a Muslim mob sacked the Great Synagogue in the heart of the Casbah, gutting it, ripping the Torah scrolls, killing the Jewish officials and chalking on the wall ‘Death to the Jews’ and other Nazi slogans.” Muslims who had sided with French were “made to dig their own tombs and swallow their military decorations before being killed; some were burned alive, castrated, dragged behind trucks, fed to the dogs; there were cases where entire families, including tiny children, were murdered together.” Decolonization of Africa brought similar horrors.
Johnson charts the atrocities of Bokassa, Mobutu, Sekou Toure et al, but “the most instructive case” was Uganda’s Idi Amin, who became a Muslim at age 16. In 1970, Libya’s Col. Gaddafi and the PLO’s Yasser Arafat pressured Amin to mount a coup against Milton Obote. Amin toppled Obote in early 1971 and quickly showed his true colors.
“Amin’s was a racist regime, operated in the Muslim-Arab League from the start,” Johnson notes, “since he began the massacres of the Langi and Achili tribes within weeks of taking over.” The dead soon included “any public figure who in any way criticized or obstructed Amin.” The victims included two cabinet ministers beaten to death by Amin himself. The Ugandan Muslim was a “ritual cannibal” who kept selected organs in his refrigerator.
Amin deployed the deadly State Research Center (SRC), operated “on the advice of Palestinians and Libyans.” Amin’s terror, “was a Muslim-Arab phenomenon” and his regime “was in many ways a foreign one, run by Nubians, Palestinians and Libyans.” The UN did nothing to stop it and “the only government to emerge with credit was Israel’s which acted vigorously to save lives when Amin and the Palestinians hijacked an airliner at Entebbe in 1976.”
As Johnson sees it, “Hammarskjold and his school were responsible for prolonging the Amin regime by six terrible years.” This was “the consequence of the morally relativistic principle introduced by Hammarskjold that killing among Africans was not the UN’s business; and Amin could be forgiven for thinking the UN had given him a license for mass-murder, even genocide.”
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) elected Amin as its chairman but the worst was yet to come. On October 1, 1975, Amin addressed UN General Assembly and called for “the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations and the extinction of Israel as a state, so that the territorial integrity of Palestine may be ensured and upheld.”
As Johnson notes, such extinction amounts to “genocide,” but the Assembly gave the Muslim cannibal a standing ovation. The UN Secretary General at the time was Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim, who remained in the office until 1981. Waldheimer’s Disease makes people forget the UN boss was a Nazi.
Amin found sanctuary in Saudi Arabia, where he died in 2003 many decades too late. The UN continued to ignore Communist dictatorships and jihadist states such as Iran. That made the events of October 2023 entirely predictable.
The small, vulnerable nation of Israel is again targeted as an imperialist “settler state,” as Johnson noted, a reversal of the truth. Like Idi Amin’s Uganda, Gaza is basically run by Iran through Hamas. Calls to free Palestine “from the river to the sea” echo Amin’s demands for Israel’s extinction, which amounts to genocide. The UN does nothing to prevent the 10/7 attack, and UNRWA employees take part in the slaughter, the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, with Israelis and Americans alike taken hostage.
The revelations prompted some countries to withhold aid for UNRWA. That move, though fully justified, falls short. The United Nations is an enemy of peace and freedom around the world. The time has come for mass withdrawal, with the United States of America leading the way.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez posts his daily cartoons on Substack at the Michael Ramirez Newsletter. He is a conservative whose genius cannot be denied. Thus the Pulitzer. Readers can subscribe here.
Michael has also been writing weekly essays for his newsletter that I have posted in our Picks as each one was made freely accessible. Today Michael has posted an 18-minute video essay that is keyed to his recent cartoons on the Academy Awards. I found his remarks entertaining, interesting, and inspiring. He tells some inside stories and he talks about joining the protest at Columbia when he received his Pulitzer. He wraps up with a statement of his his core beliefs.
His is the voice of a free mind and a free man. I thought some readers might want to listen up.
Israel’s war on Hamas has had several side effects. One such is the exposure of UNRWA a functional arm of Hamas. As Michael Rubin puts it:
The rot surrounding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East keeps accumulating. Not only did the UNRWA allow Hamas command posts under local hospitals and the UNRWA’s own headquarters, but UNRWA employees hid weaponry in their homes and then reportedly participated in the Oct. 7 kidnappings in Israel. Some employees held Israeli civilians hostage in the aftermath of the mass kidnapping. Israel alleges that 10% of UNRWA employees are Hamas members, a figure that, if anything, seems low.
Yesterday the IDF played a recording of an UNRWA employee boasting about kidnapping an Israeli woman on October 7. The UNRWA employee is only one of several hundred UNRWA employees in Gaza who are operatives in Gaza terrorist groups. Yesterday IDF spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari held a press briefing to play the recording. Here is his introduction to it:
The information that I am about to share is distressing and some people may find it triggering, but we have an obligation to share the truth about what happened on October 7th, 150 days ago. We have a duty to expose the truth about those who took part in this brutal massacre.
Today, we are declassifying a call that we intercepted, made by Yusef Zidan Salimam Al-Khuairl, a Hamas terrorist who took part in the massacre of October 7th.
But he is not just a Hamas terrorist, he is also an UNRWA employee working as a teacher in a UN elementary school in Gaza.
The terrorist is heard speaking on the phone roughly 7 hours after Hamas began invading Israel:
Murdering; mutilating; massacring; kidnapping; raping; and burning entire families alive.On the call, you can hear him bragging about the Sabaya is a female captive that he got his hands on.
He’s talking about one of our girls. He is talking about one of the women. The term “SABAYA” used by this UNRWA worker is an Arabic term, meaning ‘female captive’ with a possession, a possession of a captor.
“Sabaya” is exactly the same word used by ISIS to describe the Yazidi women they captured, and did horrific things to.
I want you to listen to the conversation, I want you to hear the tone… how they brag…how they laugh…how they talk about women…How they call her a “noble horse”…
Listen.
The IDF has posted text and video of the briefing here. Below is the video.
Below is the recording of the call Hagari plays in the briefing. “Listen.”
This is an @UNRWA teacher.
This is a proud @UN employee.
This man's paycheque is paid by YOUR taxes.
This is a man sharing his successes.
This is a man who sees women as #sabaya, the term ISIS used for slaves.
This is the terrorism of #October7massacre
This is UNRWA… pic.twitter.com/VcPOkz49Yf— Lt. Col. (R) Peter Lerner (@LTCPeterLerner) March 4, 2024
Via Richard Kemp/X.
JOHN adds: the UN is a hopelessly corrupt and immoral organization. We should get out.
Attorney Terrence Bradley testified last week in the hearing on the possible disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Nathan Wade in the “conspiracy so immense” charges against President Trump et al. pending in Georgia state court. Bradley is Wade’s former law partner and lawyer in his divorce proceeding. He knows when the Willis/Wade romance began because Wade told him.
Indeed, Bradley had previously stated in text messages to Ashleigh Merchant (attorney for defendant Michael Roman) that: (1) the relationship between Willis and Wade started before he was appointed special prosecutor, (2) the relationship started while they were both magistrate judges, and (3) the motion to disqualify Willis, which alleged the start date of the relationship, was accurate.
However, that’s not the way it turned out on the witness stand. After long pauses, Bradley disavowed his previous statements. He couldn’t recall. He was speculating. As in the old Jack Benny joke, he was thinking about it. He knew nothing. It made for painful viewing. Everyone in the room knew that Bradley was lying. Which means that Willis and Wade had lied in their testimony, which was almost as obvious.
Judge Scott McAfee heard oral argument on the disqualification motion this past Friday. He announced that he would render a decision within two weeks. I think he left the bench knowing what he would do.
Now comes counsel for defendant David J. Shafer to add to the lyin’ record on the matter of disqualification. According to counsel in a three-page filing setting forth Notice of Proposed Testimony, Cobb County prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager had “numerous, in-person and other conversations” with Bradley in which they discussed information about Willis and Wade. Bradley told Yeager that the two met during a 2019 judicial conference and that Wade “began his romantic relationship” with the future DA “at or around this time.”
The filing also describes a meeting around September 2023 when Bradley was visiting Yeager in her office and got a phone call. “Ms. Yeager could hear that the caller was District Attorney Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case,” according to the filing. “Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: “They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.”
The Daily Mail runs it all down along with exhibits and videos in “Fani Willis warned Nathan Wade’s divorce lawyer to stay quiet about their affair, bombshell new court filing claims: Trump prosecutor case gets another twist with NEW witness that could deliver devastating testimony.” Jonathan Turley provides a link to the new filing in the tweet below.
My guess is that Judge McAfee has heard enough. He knows how he wants to decide the disqualification motion. Anyone with half a brain could see that Bradley was lying. Bradley could not have made it more obvious if he had wanted to, although (with apologies to the great Jeremiah Denton) he might have blinked out “I-M-L-Y-I-N-G” in Morse Code if he knew it.
There is a new filing in the Fani Willis case that contradicts the much maligned testimony of Nathan Wade’s former partner Terrence Bradley. A prosecutor has come forward to say that Bradley told him with clarity of the personal relationship began earlier. https://t.co/HWtlWhdmyK
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 4, 2024
The Supreme Court has held 9-0 that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in blessing the disqualification of Donald Trump from the state’s primary election ballot under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s opinion is per curiam. Justice Barrett concurs in part and concurs in the judgment. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concur in the judgment (i.e., the result). The Court’s opinions are posted online here.
The Court’s per curiam opinion commanded a majority and its reasoning represents the law. It rests substantially on the exclusive power of Congress to enforce section 3 against candidates for federal office, “especially the presidency.”
Does the opinion leave open the possibility that Congress might refuse to certify Trump as president if he were to be elected president on the ground that he is guilty of insurrection? If Congress has not prescribed any means other than conviction of the crime of insurrection to make the determination underlying application of section 3, I doubt it. See opinion at 10. However, I may be mistaken. Perhaps the opinion cannot be read that broadly.
The opinion concludes (emphasis in original, citations omitted):
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: Although he characterizes it as a 5-4 decision, Andrew McCarthy supports my reading of the per curiam opinion: “What that means is that if Donald Trump were to win the presidential election, congressional Democrats would not be able — in the next January 6 joint session of Congress — to refuse to ratify his victory on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist. Under the Court’s holding, it is now a prerequisite to enforcement of the Section 3 disqualification that a person must have been convicted under the insurrection statute.”
In the latest episode of the Hoover Institution’s GoodFellows podcast (with Dan Senor sitting in for H.R. McMaster), Niall Ferguson joined from Jerusalem. He had some advice for Tucker Carlson regarding his misadventures in Putin’s Russia buried at about 43:00 of the video (below). Asked to assess Carlson’s interview with Putin, Ferguson responded:
I am beyond disappointed in what Tucker Carlson has become because four years ago he was an impressive and effective broadcaster whose monologues I used to enjoy. I mean Tucker — I don’t know if you listen to this — but you have a chance to admit that you made a terrible mistake by going to Moscow, that you were made use of by a fascist dictator. You don’t want to be the Walter Duranty of this story. You don’t want to be the useful idiot of American journalism who fell for a dictatorship.
So my advice is own it. You made a huge blunder and you need to admit it and recognize that you have been used by a fascist regime. The fact that Navalny was killed just after you had been made a fool of in that interview where Putin filibustered, made stuff up that you didn’t know enough Russian history to correct — all of this has all but destroyed your reputation and the only possible solution is a full and frank apology and an admission that you screwed up.
See my own “Political pilgrimage revisited,” “From glib to stupid,” and “The lonesome death of Alexei Navalny.”
Tucker Carlson has worked himself into a dark corner of which his Russian misadventures constitute only one component. He seeks to fill the niche formerly occupied by Charles Lindbergh on the isolationist wing of the populist right and has become a fool for Putin in the process. The odds of Carlson taking Ferguson’s advice asymptotically approach zero, but not because he shouldn’t take it.
Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald is our old Rathergate friend. He helped us get the ball rolling in “The 61st minute” on the morning of September 9, 2004. Writing under the screen name Buckhead, Harry observed in comment number 47 of Free Republic’s Rathergate thread: “I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.” Life has never been quite the same since we took his cue and followed up.
Harry is the managing partner of Atlanta’s Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach law firm. He represents defendant Jeffrey Clark in the “conspiracy so immense” case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. We have followed defendants’ motion to disqualify Willis from prosecuting the case. It turns out that Willis appointed her boyfriend Nathan Wade as special prosecutor in the case. Willis, Wade, and others have testified under oath on the facts underlying the conflict issues raised by defendants. I commented, most recently, in “Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on.”
Yesterday Judge Scott McAfee held a three-hour hearing for oral argument by the attorneys on the disqualification motion. Harry was the star of the show. His thirteen-minute argument begins at 01:12:40 of the video of the hearing at the bottom. Students of ancient history may recall the role of CBS News in Rathergate. It has posted a decent account of the hearing.
I have my doubts that Judge McAfee will grant the disqualification motion, but I have no doubt that he should or that Harry accurately captured the essence of the evidence before the court. Referring to the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney and the Willis/Wade matter, Harry concluded: “This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.”
I reached out to Harry for a comment after the hearing yesterday. He declined to comment one way or the other on the hearing, although he did comment favorably on Power Line. My comment is that Harry was right about Rathergate and he is right about the disgrace to be resolved by the court on the pending motion.
Liberals really are extremely fragile people. This helps explain why they need “safe spaces” with cuddly stuffed animals, grief counselors, and warning labels against “microaggressions.”
The latest evidence is a completely unironic and totally un-self-aware piece in the New York Times about the anguish of liberal law professors having to teach constitutional law at a time when the Supreme Court leans right. It’s so upsetting that some professors are moved to tears and can’t conceive of continuing. The New York Times thinks this is actually “a crisis.”
Seriously, you can’t make this up:
Rebecca Brown, at the University of Southern California, has been teaching constitutional law for 35 years. “While I was working on my syllabus for this course, I literally burst into tears,” she told me. “I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense. Why do we respect it? Why do we do any of it? I’m feeling very depleted by having to teach it.”
I’m skeptical that she “literally” burst into tears, though I expect she literally misused the word “literally” here. In any case, shouldn’t the phrase, “I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense?” have been applied to Wickard v. Filburn ever since it was put to paper in 1942? And yet somehow the few conservative law professors that existed behind enemy lines in law schools managed for 80 years now to explain Wickard (and dozens of other ridiculous liberal Court rulings) with a straight face and without bursting into tears, or having anxiety attacks.
The Times inadvertently gives away what’s really going on here (beyond general liberal fragility):
“The people who taught us were all Warren court people,” said Pam Karlan, a constitutional and voting-rights expert at Stanford law school, referring to Chief Justice Earl Warren, who through the 1950s and 1960s led a court of both Democratic and Republican appointees to expand civil rights, equalize political representation and liberalize the criminal justice system. “They’d clerked on that court. They valorized it. There was this notion that judges were these heroes who would save us all. Our students do not have that view.”
Ah yes, the glory days of the Warren Court, which invented new “rights” left and right (actually just “left”). There’s never been an era with more result-oriented jurisprudence that the Warren Court, but it delivered results liberals liked. But now that the Court is delivering rulings liberals don’t like, it’s the end of the world. Or at least their world.
It gets worse:
“We’re witnessing a transformation in the New Deal consensus,” said Mark Graber, a leading constitutional scholar and Regents professor at the University of Maryland.
Oh please, don’t get my hopes up like this!
There’s a serious irony here. Back in the late 1990s, after the Supreme Court had once again botched a significant case in Romer v. Evans, overruling a precedent on sodomy laws from just 1986, the conservative journal First Things published as symposium on “The End of Democracy” that called into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the wake of its serially bad decisions in Casey v. Planned Parenthood and Romer v. Evans, among others. It caused a huge ruckus on the right, and several leading conservatives attacked First Things and resigned from its editorial board, including Gertrude Himmelfarb, Peter Berger, and Walter Berns. This “smash the Court” enthusiasm didn’t gain much acceptance, and quickly passed from the scene.
I see no such intramural argument on the left about the Supreme Court. Now it is the left that is bent on delegitimizing the Supreme Court. It is all toddler temper tantrums and hair-on-fire freakouts that some jurists, many with Ivy League law degrees, have a different opinion from theirs.
Prediction: I know that a lot of liberal law professors can’t stand it that Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, and J.D. Vance all went to Harvard or Yale for law school. There is likely before long to be an effort to screen out conservative applicants to elite laws schools so that they don’t have an Ivy League credential.
Attorney Terrence Bradley testified yesterday in the hearing on the possible disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Nathan Wade in the “conspiracy so immense” charges against President Trump et al. pending in Georgia state court. Bradley is Wade’s former law partner and lawyer in his divorce proceeding. He knows when the Willis/Wade romance began because Wade told him.
Indeed, as Techno Fog notes, Bradley has previously stated in text messages to Ashleigh Merchant (attorney for defendant Michael Roman) that: (1) the relationship between Willis and Wade started before he was appointed special prosecutor, (2) the relationship started while they were both magistrate judges, and (3) the motion to disqualify Willis, which alleged the start date of the relationship, was accurate.
However, that’s not the way it turned out on the witness stand. After long pauses, Bradley disavowed his previous statements. He couldn’t recall. He was speculating. As in the old Jack Benny joke, he was thinking about it. He knew nothing.
Mr. Fog offers pierces the fog with this clear summary of Bradley’s testimony: “[Bradley] speculated about the start of the relationship, only had one meeting with Wade about the relationship, and has no personal knowledge as to when the relationship started. All of that, of course, was contradicted by his prior representations to Ms. Merchant.”
It made for painful viewing. Everyone in the room knew that Bradley was lying. Which means that Willis and Wade had lied in their testimony, which was almost as obvious. Below is an excerpt of Bradley’s testimony that ran in full over two hours. As I say, it makes for painful viewing.
The Great Sort is under way, as normal people move to red states and liberals move to blue states. (That last is hypothetical and hasn’t actually been observed.) When massive numbers began leaving blue states like California and New York for red states like Texas and Florida, many conservatives worried that those blue staters might bring their bad voting habits with them. Happily, that doesn’t seem to have happened.
This Wall Street Journal story is headlined: “Blue-State Residents Streamed Into South Carolina. Here’s Why It Stayed Ruby Red.” But it deals with more than one state:
A Wall Street Journal analysis of census data found that a third of [South Carolina’s] new residents between 2017 and 2021 hailed from blue states and a quarter from red ones, according to census data. …
Yet the new arrivals are disproportionately Republican. Estimates from the nonpartisan voter file vendor L2 suggest about 57% of voters who moved to South Carolina during that time are Republicans, while about 36% are Democrats and 7% are independents. That places them roughly in line with recent statewide votes in South Carolina.
It shouldn’t be surprising that when conservatives leave liberal states, they likely will move to conservative ones. The same thing is happening in states other than South Carolina:
The Palmetto State is a prime example of why a yearslong wave of migration to the South has largely failed to change its partisan tint. Many people who leave blue states are Republicans gravitating toward a more politically favorable new home.
In Florida, for instance, 48% of people who moved there between 2017 and 2021 came from blue states while 29% came from red states, Census figures show. Among those who registered to vote, 44% are Republicans, 25% are Democrats and 28% are nonpartisan, according to L2 data. Texas also has a heavier flow of newcomers from blue states but a greater share who L2 data estimates are Republican.
There is much more at the link; it is fun to see Democrats try to spin the numbers:
McDougald Scott and other South Carolina Democratic officials are working to target these new voters and persuade them to vote Democratic by focusing on issues like education…
I live in a blue state (for the time being, anyway) where the public schools are almost unbelievably bad. To be fair, though, the schools in New York and California are likely worse.
…infrastructure…
Have these people never driven on a highway in California?
and healthcare…
What about healthcare? Most people get health insurance through their jobs, and jobs are much more plentiful in red states. Blue states spend incomprehensible amounts of money on Medicaid, but that isn’t exactly a magnet for desirable new inhabitants.
…which she believes the Republicans are neglecting.
Apparently millions of Americans who are moving from blue to red states do not agree. Perhaps this is what it comes down to:
She said South Carolina’s limited access to abortion—which is banned at six weeks of pregnancy—is also something that crosses party lines.
Right. Hey, blue state economies may suck, crime may be rampant, taxes may be too high, government may be corrupt–but if the occasion arises, you can always kill your baby. This is the sales pitch my state’s liberal government is actually trying to implement: come here to get an abortion or a sex change operation, especially if you are a kid! Somehow, it doesn’t seem to be working.
The bottom line is that the Great Sort continues to benefit Red America. The question is, to what extent is the out-migration of normals locking liberalism into the blue states?
Vaunce News 