Finishing Hamas: The Only Way the War Can End

A proportional response means it will happen again and again until Israel is destroyed.

The liberals want Israel to “show restraint.” The most unthinking are those calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. As long as Hamas continues to exist, this war can never end. A ceasefire would be followed by countless billions in developmental aid flowing from the globalist establishment into Gaza. It would be a huge win for Hamas. Terrorist attacks against Israel would continue. And if Israel reacted again in the future, they would immediately be attacked by the globalists. Both Hezbollah and Hamas will continue to attack Israel, provoking, wounding, occasionally killing, and the world will continue telling Israel to restrain itself.

The Covenant of Hamas clearly states Hamas’s goal of killing all of the Jews and eliminating Israel. “HAMAS” is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. The movement issued the Covenant of HAMAS on August 18, 1988. Hamas, an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization, has been designated a terrorist organization by the US and many Western powers. The group was elected as the official authority in Gaza in 2006.

Hamas operates with the expressed intent of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War). The HAMAS Covenant states: ‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.’ (Article 6). This suggests that not only does Hamas seek to eradicate Israel in Gaza, but also in the territory currently known as Israel, as well as the West Bank, where Hamas holds no authority.

Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant is interpreted as a call for genocide against Jews: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

There is no way to negotiate with a group whose aim is genocide. Liberals calling for compromise are actually just calling for Israel’s capitulation. What compromise would be possible? Hamas wants to kill 100% of the Jews. Should the two parties haggle and agree for Hamas to kill 40% instead? Given Hamas’s genocidal intent, there is no way that the two sides can coexist.

The two-state solution is complete nonsense. Gaza and the West Bank are not contiguous; they cannot be a single country. It would be impossible for Israel to ensure its security because they would be pressured by globalists to not impede Palestinians passing through Israel from one state to the other.

The liberals keep stressing that Gazaa and the Palestinians are not Hamas. However, there appears to be no anti-Hamas movement in Gaza. There is no anti-Hamas resistance. The Gazans looked very happy when they were celebrating after the October 7^th attack on Israel. So, it is unclear how the liberals see Hamas as distinct from Gaza. And if they are distinct, why have the liberals not condemned Hamas? There don’t seem to be protests in the US or Europe stating “We support Gaza, but condemn Hamas.”

Even the liberals, even the Queers for Palestine are refusing to condemn Hamas. If they do not differentiate between Hamas and Gaza, then why should everyone else?

Iran and Qatar must also be held accountable for their support of Hamas and other militias. Qatar has provided financial and political support to Hamas, and Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was based in Qatar for a period. Additionally, Qatar has hosted a Hamas office, which serves as a political bureau and facilitates communication and coordination with the international community. This office has been involved in diplomatic efforts and media relations on behalf of Hamas.

Right now, the Houthis, an Iran-backed militia, are disrupting global shipping. Hezbollah is also ratcheting up their harassment of Israel, firing missiles into Israeli territory and trying to instigate a war. Given Israel’s current posture of seeking a military solution to finally end these insurgencies, Hezbollah may get the war they are asking for.

The world must not just sit on the sidelines, but should take an active role in targeting Iran, destroying the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) preventing China from supporting Iran economically, and disabling Iran’s ability to fund and train regional militias. This would decrease China and Russia’s access to oil and drones, respectively, which would help the US achieve foreign policy objectives in Asia, as well as in Ukraine.

One way to alleviate the burden on American taxpayers funding Ukraine would be to end the war. If China’s support for Russia were cut, the end would come much sooner. If Russia did not have Iranian drones, that would also help level the field and bring the end nearer.

Attacks on Iran would also serve to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The only way that Israel can survive is to eliminate Hamas. The only way for the region to be stabilized is for Iran’s destabilizing force to be eliminated.

The post Finishing Hamas: The Only Way the War Can End appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Smoke and flames billow after Israeli forces struck a high-rise tower in Gaza City, October 7, 2023. Palestinian militants have begun a "war" against Israel which they infiltrated by air, sea and land from the blockaded Gaza Strip, Israeli officials said, a major escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Photo by Ali Hamad  apaimages

Biden Job Creation: Part-time, Government Jobs, and Distorted Unemployment Numbers

The Biden White House claims to have heralded “a great year for American workers” with more jobs created “during any year of the prior Administration.” However, most are part-time or government jobs, paid for by taxpayers. Additionally, the constant influx of illegal immigrants distorts the job market.

The March jobs report shows 303,000 new jobs added. However, most of the jobs were part-time. Meanwhile, year-over-year creation of full-time positions has been in recession territory since December. Even these part-time jobs are largely going to immigrants, including illegal immigrants. Consequently, considering both part-time and full-time employment, there have been almost no jobs created for citizens.

Nearly one-quarter of the new jobs are government jobs, paid for by taxpayers. This percentage is about double the norm for government job creation, which typically falls between 10 and 12 percent. In addition to the fact that government jobs drain taxpayer funds, they also do not represent an investment in the future. Jobs created by a private company today, if successful, will grow and create more jobs in the future. Private companies develop new industries, products, and services that facilitate investment and the development of other private companies. This is why the US economy is much more robust than the economy of a centrally planned, communist country.

Even in communist China, the rapid economic growth of the past few decades was led by the private sector, not the public sector. Another problem with a growing public sector is that it draws talent away from the private sector. People who might otherwise have been inventive or innovative, creating something new in the private sector, will be absorbed into government jobs that produce nothing.

In addition to there not being enough full-time jobs, the job market is also plagued by swings and fluctuations. Inflation is a constant feature of the Biden economy, making markets more susceptible to speculation regarding Fed policy. Usually, as election time nears, the sitting president, running for reelection, will decide that the level of inflation is too low and will cut interest rates to induce an illusory job boom. Signals from the White House and the Fed suggest that they are mulling over such a destructive move now, despite the fact that the US still faces high inflation and has suffered cumulative inflation of over 18% since Biden took office.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is an example of a shortsighted policy that will give people the illusion of a better economy. People who will have thousands of dollars’ worth of debt wiped clean will feel instant relief and forget that every product they buy is more expensive than under Trump. As a populist move, those wishing to have their current or future college debts erased will also vote for Biden.

Like any other government transfer, the student loan forgiveness program is transferring money from taxpayers—who may or may not have been able to afford college—to people who borrowed money, attended college, and will now enjoy the economic benefits of an education at the expense of others. The trillions Biden is giving away through this and other programs, which began during COVID, are driving up the deficit, increasing the debt, and eroding the dollar’s buying power.

There are areas where job creation and real economic growth could be fostered, such as by increasing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports. The energy industry creates highly paid, full-time jobs for non-college graduates, which is something this country is running short of. However, Biden caved to the climate crowd and has halted approvals for export certifications for LNG, a commodity whose price has nearly tripled since sanctions on Russian energy exports reduced the supply to Europe and the world.

Cutting these LNG jobs and revenues is considered a victory for climate activists. However, the Energy and Commerce Committee, along with more than 150 House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are working to reverse Biden’s ban on LNG. They argue that demand will remain the same, while Biden is effectively cutting the supply, thus driving up prices. Expanding US LNG exports would bring down prices, create jobs, increase the size of the US economy, and afford the US diplomatic advantages, bringing the US closer to its European allies.

If the Biden economy is considered good, perhaps we should revert to the supposedly bad economy under Trump, where inflation was low, unemployment was low, gas prices were low, illegal immigration was being addressed, and Russia dared not invade Ukraine.

The post Biden Job Creation: Part-time, Government Jobs, and Distorted Unemployment Numbers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

bec, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Hamas Refuses to Release Hostages or Bodies of the Dead

The UN, rather than demanding the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and bodies, called for a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. However, Hamas showed no such restraint, attacking Israel on October 7th, coinciding with the Jewish holy day that marks the transition from Shemini Atzeret, concluding the Sukkot festival, to Simchat Torah, a celebration of the completion and restarting of the annual Torah reading cycle. While the Pro-Palestine camp calls for an immediate ceasefire, Hamas is still holding hostages and refusing to release the bodies of those killed, including US citizens.

More than 250 hostages were captured or killed on October 7th. Israeli authorities have confirmed that at least 33 of the remaining 129 hostages are dead; however, there is evidence that most, if not all, have been murdered. Meanwhile, the bodies have not been returned. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) says that by withholding the bodies and refusing to confirm if hostages are alive or dead, Hamas is psychologically torturing the victims’ families.

By definition, this act of torture against innocent civilians, who in some cases do not even live in Israel, is an act of terrorism.

Both of Iris Weinstein Haggai’s parents, who were US citizens, were killed by Hamas on October 7th. However, Hamas has yet to release the bodies. Consequently, the grieving family has been unable to hold Shiva for their loved ones.

Shiva is a week-long mourning period observed by Jewish families following the death of a close relative, during which mourners gather to comfort the bereaved, recite prayers, and reflect on the deceased’s life. It has been described as “a time for spiritual and emotional healing.” Without the bodies of the deceased, holding Shiva becomes problematic, as the physical presence is a central aspect of the mourning process, providing closure and allowing for traditional funeral rites to be performed.

The family held a small gathering to honor the memory of the dead. However, the rabbi in attendance said that he was at a loss, as there was no prayer to address this horrific situation. He stated, “There’s nothing that really speaks to this. This is not normal.”

The family of Iris Weinstein is not alone in this dilemma; several other American families already know their relatives were killed by Hamas or are waiting for confirmation that those still held in captivity are dead. Without confirmation of death and without a body, the loss remains an open wound that the families cannot begin to overcome.

The inability to hold Shiva due to the absence of the bodies is deeply traumatic for the Jewish families affected. This is akin to the universal human need for a wake or ceremony in the presence of the deceased, allowing the family to come to terms with the loss before laying their loved ones to rest—a fundamental aspect across cultures worldwide.

Trying to grieve and honor the life of a deceased family member before getting the chance to bury their bodies is the wrenching position that numerous families of the hostages abducted by Hamas now find themselves in. So far, three American hostages have been confirmed dead, but Hamas is attempting to use the bodies and the hostages as bargaining chips. However, they have notified negotiators that they are unable to locate the 40 hostages they would need to release to begin a ceasefire.

One theory suggests that Hamas does not want to release the female hostages because they are pregnant, verifying irrefutably that they were raped. Another theory is that the hostages are dead, or that fewer than 40 remain living who meet the criteria of being female, aged, and wounded.

Hamas had already been granted a pause in the fighting back in November, during which it had agreed to release female hostages. Later, Hamas claimed they could not find the hostages, and the ceasefire broke down when Hamas launched another attack on Israel.

A statement released by the White House after a meeting with American families of hostages taken by Hamas states, “The Vice President underscored that President Biden and she have no higher priority than reuniting the hostages with their loved ones.” However, there has been no pressure by the US to force Hamas to release the hostages. The White House has also neglected to exert pressure on China to cease its support of Iran, and has taken no action to discourage Iran from supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The vice president’s claim of making this issue a priority was not substantiated by a White House Proclamation on U.S. Hostage and Wrongful Detainee Day, which mentioned Gaza only once and did not mention Hamas at all.

And while not enough has been done to release the hostages, almost nothing has been done to recover the bodies of the slain so that families can get closure.

The post Hamas Refuses to Release Hostages or Bodies of the Dead appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Posters of hostages taken by Hamas during the 2023 attack on Israel"  is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Image sourced from Wikimedia Commons

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC): Terrorists Supporting Terrorism

On April 12th, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seized an Israeli ship near the Strait of Hormuz. While this represents one of the most overt and direct attacks by the IRGC against Israel, it underscores the broader support and training provided by the IRGC to groups like the

Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militias and terrorist organizations. This support contributes to the destabilization of the Middle East and poses a threat to both Israeli and U.S. interests in the region.

Established during the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stands as a formidable military force in Iran, operating directly under the authority of the Supreme Leader, presently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Guided by an ideology vehemently opposed to Western influence, particularly directed towards the United States and Israel, the IRGC is renowned for its fervent slogans such as ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel,’ emblematic of its hostility towards these nations.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is known for its support of various militias and terrorist groups across the region. Notably, it provides assistance to Hamas in Gaza, furnishing weapons, financial aid, and training to bolster the group’s military capabilities.

Additionally, the IRGC backs Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the Gaza Strip, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq, as well as Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthis are now active in disrupting shipping in the Red Sea.

The IRGC has been designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States. This designation is significant because the IRGC is an official government entity in Iran, making it one of the few state-backed actors to be labeled as a terrorist organization.

This raises legal questions regarding whether the Iranian government’s support for the IRGC constitutes aid to terrorist organizations, which is prohibited under international convention.

Most Americans have never forgotten nor forgiven the 1979 Islamic Revolution’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the subsequent hostage debacle, which went on for more than one year. Over the past decade or so, Iran-backed militias have indeed been involved in conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, where U.S. soldiers have faced combat, encountered security threats, or lost their lives.

These militias have often been supported, trained, and equipped by the Iranian government or its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), contributing to instability and violence in these countries.

In response to Iran’s aggression, the US and its allies have launched repeated strikes against Iran-backed groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Apart from supporting Israel, the US also backs numerous local partners, including the Yazidis, Kurds, Sunni Arab Tribes, Turkmen, Arab Tribal Militias, and Chaldean Christians. Consequently, it could be argued that both the US and Israel have been engaged in a proxy war with Iran for some time.

Retaliating against Iran’s proxies has done little to curb Iran’s aggressive actions. Since October 7th, there have been repeated clashes between American and allied troops against targets in Syria and Iraq, yet Iran’s aggression persists. Despite US and UK bombings in Yemen, Houthi attacks on ships persist.

At this moment, not only are Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel, and the Houthis attacking everyone else’s ships, but it also seems that Iran is threatening direct attacks on Israel. President Biden has warned Iran that the US is committed to defending Israel.

After years of limited engagement, Israel’s strategy now appears to aim for the complete elimination of Hamas, while also showing readiness to confront Hezbollah directly in Lebanon.

The proxy model has proven costly for the US, both in terms of lives and finances, yielding no tangible gains, not even peace. Furthermore, China and Russia leverage US failures in the Middle East to caution Taiwan, the Philippines, Ukraine, and Japan about the unreliability of the US as a partner.

Israel’s new strategy of directly and unequivocally destroying the bad guys is the one that no leader has dared try up until now. But it makes the most sense. And it would seem that the most logical step would be to cut the head off the snake, in a direct conflict with Iran.

Those who oppose a direct conflict with Iran often say that it would trigger a world war. But the reality is, there are only three major armies in the world capable of waging war overseas: the US, Russia, and China.

And it would not be in either Russia or China’s interests to go to war with the US over Iran. If they wanted a war with the US, there are a million other pretexts they could have come up with, but neither country has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.

If the US and Iran went to war, Russia and China would condemn the US actions. They would bring a resolution to the UN Security Council, and the US would veto it. A war would destabilize the Iranian government, nullifying its ability to support terrorist groups.

At the same time, Iran’s support for China with cheap oil, and Iran’s support for Russia with cheap drones, would also evaporate, bringing an end to the Ukraine War much closer.

The post Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC): Terrorists Supporting Terrorism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Sure, here's a proper attribution for the image:

"Photo by Mohammad Sadegh Heydari, sourced from [YPA.ir](http://www.ypa.ir/media/k2/galleries/517/02.jpg). Image depicts the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution exhibiting its main battle tanks during the Sacred Defence Week parade on September 21, 2012. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license."

Worshiping with the Christian Insurgents in Myanmar

Antonio Graceffo reporting from inside the war zone in Burma/Myanmar.

On Easter Sunday, the Burmese army launched an airstrike against a monastery in Karen State, where an entire village had taken refuge. The bombs fell for hours, and when the smoke had cleared, numerous civilians, including women, children, and monks, were dead.

There were no soldiers in the village, so 100% of the casualties were civilians. About half of them were Christians.

Burma is predominantly Buddhist, with a significant Christian minority comprising approximately 6% of the population. Many of these Christians belong to the country’s 135 ethnic minority groups, notably including the Kachin, Chin, Karen (also known as Kayin, as featured in the movie “Rambo IV”), and the Karenni (distinct from the Karen, despite the similarity in name).

The repression against Christians and the wholesale murder of civilians have been features of the Burmese civil war, which has been ongoing for about 70 years. However, targeted attacks against churches, monasteries, Catholic, and Baptist schools have intensified since the 2021 coup, which dashed any hopes of a transition to democracy.

Previously, I had worked with the Shan ethnic group and resistance fighters. However, recently, I decided that I wanted to focus my energy on the Christian minority in Karenni State (also called Kayah State), the smallest ethnic state in Burma.

About 50% of Karenni are Christian, with the majority being Catholic and the rest Baptist. Over the past three years, roughly 80% of the Karenni people have been displaced, and 3,000 civilians have been killed, from a total Karenni population of less than 400,000 people.

Catholic priests and nuns assigned to dioceses in Burma have risked their lives to remain with their flocks, offering what help and protection they could. In November, 1,300 civilians, including Christians, Buddhists, and animists, took refuge in Christ the King Catholic Cathedral complex in Loikaw, the capital city of Karenni State.

These people were internally displaced individuals (IDPs), meaning that the Burmese army had already destroyed their villages, and they had found their way to the Cathedral, where the priests and nuns were offering them refuge.

The Burmese army threatened to bomb the complex, but the priests implored the soldiers not to attack and to allow the people, who included the aged and the infirm, to remain in safety.

However, eventually, the Burmese army attacked, using heavy weapons, fighter jets, armored vehicles, and 120 mm cannons. Many people were killed, while the rest were forced to flee into the jungle, including the Bishop of Loikaw, H.E. Celso Ba Shwe, and the priests and nuns, who were finally forced to abandon their post. After the people fled, the Burmese army took over the center and are now occupying it.

Loikaw is the site of the most intense fighting in Karenni State. According to Lt. Colonel Mei Reh, a battalion commander in the Karenni Army, the Burmese junta has laid hundreds of landmines around their positions and uses drone jammers to protect themselves from the resistance fighters.

He estimated that counting soldiers, dependents, and support personnel, Loikaw is now occupied by about 10,000 Burmese who receive resupply by air. They are also protected by helicopters and jets.

The rebels, by contrast, are on foot, carrying what small arms and rations they have, walking for weeks in some cases to reach the front lines and fight to retake their country.

When I am inside Burma, I meet with internally displaced people and soldiers, filing reports on the war. I also pray with anyone who is willing, and the reception among the Karenni is astounding. Nearly everyone I meet wants to pray together.

Over the years that I have been reporting on this conflict, I have been inspired by David Eubanks, leader of the Free Burma Rangers. The lesson that I learned from him and from his faith as a missionary/soldier is to pray not for victory, but to pray that the hearts of the Burmese army will be changed by God’s grace and that they will stop fighting.

He teaches that Christian soldiers should pray for peace and an end to the conflict, and when they kill, to kill for love. They must remember that they kill to protect their people, their land, and their country, but not out of hate.

Amazingly, when I met Catholic soldiers, including a company commander, this is what they prayed for: to kill with love and to stop killing as soon as they could find peace and establish a democracy in their country.

The Free Burma Rangers have been spreading that message in Burma for more than 20 years, among all of the ethnic resistance armies. And now that I am working with Karenni Christians, I can say the message is getting through.

The United States is one of the few countries to ever win independence and establish a democracy by way of a bloody war. Usually, after a revolution, warlords and generals replace the previous dictator, and nothing changes.

Instilling ideals of love, compassion, and forgiveness in the soldiers and officers now will hopefully help to heal the country when the war ends, so they can avoid retribution killings and animosity that would result in a fractured state.

People back in the US ask, “How can you be a Christian and a soldier?” and the answer is, “to kill with love.” They ask me, “How can you support Burmese refugees but demand a secure southern border?”

And my answer is, the Karenni and other ethnics are not requesting to be resettled in the US or some Western country. They just want safety from the war now, and they want the war to be over so they can go home and resume their lives in their own land.

The Catholic Church in the camp where I was located had been hit by an airstrike a few months ago, so the people were afraid to go to worship there. However, the Catholic Karenni women told me that during Lent, they held prayer services in their huts every day.

On Good Friday, they decided to risk using the church building, and for the first time, they held service there. The priest could not make it to the camp because of the fighting, but two Karenni catechists trained at the seminary in Karenni State led the worship.

They did the same on Easter Sunday. These people could easily have lost their faith, being displaced by war and losing their families and their homes, but they trusted that God had a plan, and they would eventually return to their homeland in peace. Their faith should be an inspiration for all the people in wealthy countries at peace.

After the Catholic service, I attended the Baptist service on the other side of the camp. Although I am Catholic and love attending Mass, I have to admit, the Baptist service is more fun and has more singing and guitar playing.

The pastor asked me to address the congregation, and I reminded them of David and Goliath. Although the people of Burma are small and weak in comparison to the Burmese army, which is armed by Russia and China, the people have faith, and since the coup, they also have unity. As David Eubanks told me, “The army is stronger than the people. But it is not stronger than ALL the people if they work together.”

On the day before Easter, I was staying in a hut with the soldiers when a batch of new recruits arrived, and they just looked so young to me. I was 17 when I joined the military, but as we get older, young people look like children to us.

On Easter Sunday, looking out at the congregation, I saw so many bright young kids who were just about military age, many of whom would soon be joining the fight. It made me sad that they would never have a prom, never get a driver’s license, never have a part-time job at Wendy’s, and some of them would be killed, and soon.

After the Baptist service, I was walking back to the house with the soldiers, feeling I had been given an amazing blessing to have spent this most crucial religious holiday with these wonderful and resilient people. I had found a moment of happiness in war and hoped to write an inspiring article about faith and happy endings.

When I reached the house and got a cell signal, I began receiving live feeds from the Free Burma Rangers, documenting the Easter massacre of the civilians at the monastery in Karen State. David Eubanks sent a message saying that in addition to the other casualties, the head monk’s body had been torn in half.

And just like that, I had no idea how I was going to end my story. What was I meant to take away from this experience?

The words of Htay Ree, the 25-year-old assistant pastor at the Baptist church, came to mind. He said, “God is love. God is for our spiritual health, not our physical being. We can get sick or even be killed.

God only guarantees our spiritual life; if we believe in Jesus, we can get eternal life.” He went on to say that God never said it would be easy. “But people who blame God for their physical suffering just do not understand. And this is an opportunity to teach. So, for me, it is not a problem,” he concluded.

The people of Burma have lost everything — their homes, their freedom, their money, their food, their loved ones — and some even lose their faith. But the assistant preacher didn’t see any of that as a problem, just an opportunity to teach. And now I can pass that lesson along to the readers.

The post Worshiping with the Christian Insurgents in Myanmar appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Karenni Catholic Church inside the war zone in Burma/Myanmar, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Karenni Army recruits, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Karenni Catholic cross damaged by bomb blast, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Credit Card Defaults, Inflation, Part-Time Jobs: The Economy Is a Disaster

Biden talks up the economy’s strong growth but doesn’t address the fact that the inflation rate he’s given us surpasses the GDP growth rate. He also doesn’t mention that much of this growth was funded directly by government stimulus and other financial aid given to the public.

The White House claims the economy is roaring, and mainstream media suggests only Republicans doubt it. However, consumer sentiment is declining, albeit with a slight recent uptick, which both the White House and mainstream media quickly seized upon as a positive trend. Inflation also rose this month, but the White House contends it’s down compared to 2022 levels. It appears the White House chooses to cite macro or micro data depending on what makes them look better.

The average gas price increased by 7% this month compared to last month. However, it remains lower than the $4.90 it hit in 2022. So, I suppose the White House can chalk up another win.

The reality is, both the average American and business owner perceive the economy as dismal and lack confidence in the future. Despite high inflation, the specter of recession still looms large, suggesting stagflation may become a reality in the near future. We could easily find ourselves grappling with growing unemployment alongside escalating prices. Technically, we’ve been in a recession for some time now, but Janet Yellen’s assertion that a recession isn’t defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth was surprising to me and most university economics professors, as it contradicts the textbook definition of a recession.

Regarding stagflation, it’s defined by rising prices and growing unemployment. In the strictest sense, the White House is correct that we haven’t reached that point yet. More jobs are being created each month. However, if you’re looking for a job, the difficulty in finding one is obvious. This is largely due to the fact that 70% of the new jobs being created are part-time, while about 20% are government jobs. Depending on one’s definition of “jobs,” an argument could be made that significant numbers of new full-time private sector jobs are not being created.

The truth is, the economy has been on shaky ground throughout Biden’s entire administration. The only thing preventing a complete collapse is government stimulus and government job expansion, both of which add to the deficit and debt, merely postponing the inevitable. And that inevitable end is fast approaching.

Several US municipalities have implemented excessively high minimum wages, reaching up to $20 an hour. As a result, retailers, fast food chains, and ride-hailing apps like Lyft and Uber are exiting these markets. Grocery stores are transitioning to self-checkout systems, while fast-food establishments are introducing order kiosks. Moreover, many CVS and Walgreens drugstores have significantly reduced their floor staff, in some instances to just one employee.

Under Bidenomics, we’ve witnessed a 46% increase in gas prices, with mortgage rates inching closer to 7%. Meanwhile, the demand for new mortgages is dwindling.

Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by an average of $371. The White House’s deception on this matter lies in presenting a chart of inflation that peaked in June 2022 and has since been declining, while wages have been on the rise. At first glance, it may seem that the worst of inflation is behind us and wages now surpass inflation. However, it’s crucial to remember that prices have not decreased.

The rate at which wages are increasing, at 5%, now exceeds the rate of price increases, at 3.2%. However, over the past four years, we’ve seen cumulative inflation of nearly 20%. So, whereas you once earned a dollar, you now earn $1.05, while goods that previously cost $1.00 now cost $1.20. As a result, your real wages, adjusted for inflation, have decreased.

In short, the money you earn buys you less stuff.

Due to a decline in inflation-adjusted income, US savings rates have dropped to 3.6% from the pre-pandemic level of 6%. Credit card delinquencies and car loan defaults have reached record highs. Many Americans report borrowing money each month just to cover their cost of living.

Bidenomics is a disaster, and the White House is still considering cutting interest rates, which would cause inflation to skyrocket.

The post Credit Card Defaults, Inflation, Part-Time Jobs: The Economy Is a Disaster appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Illegal Immigrants Do Jobs Americans Collecting Benefits Won’t Do

The California economy should serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation, showcasing the negative impact of illegal immigration combined with liberal social welfare programs that discourage citizens from working.

The ‘Californication’ of the United States would exacerbate illegal immigration, depress market-driven labor rates, expand welfare rolls, significantly raise taxes on those employed, and prompt the government to address the diminished standard of living by imposing an exorbitant minimum wage.

Increasing the labor pool through illegal immigration drives down wages. The most basic law of economics, supply and demand, states that when supply increases and demand remains the same, price goes down.

You need water to live, but water is cheap because there is a large supply. Gold and diamonds are less of a necessity for maintaining life, but they are expensive because there is a large demand and limited supply. If tomorrow a new goldmine was discovered which quadrupled the supply of gold, the price of gold would go down.

Illegal immigrants increase the supply of workers, which brings down the price of labor, i.e., the wage. And although it is true that illegal immigrants are concentrated in certain industries, the decline in wages affects all industries.

The industries with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants are construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. The Americans who were displaced from those industries went to work in other industries, increasing the quantity of labor and driving down wages.

Using California as an example of what some people want to do to the entire country: illegal immigrants comprise 9% of the population. The market wage for workers was low because of the large pool of immigrants.

The Democratic legislation addressed this issue by imposing a draconian minimum wage of $16 an hour for all workers and $20 for those working in fast food.

The state also has liberal unemployment and welfare rules. As market wages drop and unemployment or welfare benefits increase, people are disincentivized to continue working.

In many Democrat-led states, workers can earn more on benefits than they can working. And a minimum wage of $20 an hour will not fix this problem. Jobs like landscaping and construction used to pay more than $20 an hour.

And jobs in maintenance and janitorial services, while not the highest paid, used to have job security and benefits when they were done on the books, by legal workers.

The Americans who lost those career jobs to illegals cannot make up the lost income by flipping burgers. Removing the illegal immigrants from the labor force will cause the natural rate of wages in landscaping, construction, and maintenance to increase, motivating people to go back to work.

Not surprisingly, as a result of its socialist policies, California has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is considered (the supplemental poverty measure).

The high taxes, high minimum wage, and lack of law enforcement have caused a steady exodus of companies, resulting in rising unemployment. However, the minimum wage only applies to legal workers, not illegals, so many of the unemployed citizens were replaced by illegal immigrants.

And now, the taxpayers are paying for it in the form of unemployment or welfare benefits. However, the illegals do not pay taxes. So, the tax burden on each legal worker is increasing, which then disincentivizes people from working. And the circle goes on and on, spiraling steadily downward.

At the national level, Democrats in favor of illegal immigration claim that low unemployment rates in the US are proof that “we need illegal immigrants” to fill those jobs. However, this claim ignores the labor force participation rate, which took a nosedive in 2020 and has never returned to pre-pandemic levels.

The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of the working-age population (usually defined as individuals aged 16 and older) who are either employed or actively seeking employment.

People who are on unemployment are still counted as being part of the labor force because they are allegedly looking for a job. Only those who give up or go on permanent welfare or benefits are no longer counted.

There are two important points here. By liberalizing unemployment benefits, increasing the amount and the duration of the payments, the Biden Administration gets to count these people as part of the labor force.

And yet, the labor force participation rate is declining. This brings us to the second point. The federal government spent $1.3 trillion on welfare programs in 2023. If social benefits were not plentiful, more people would remain in the workforce.

In California, the labor force participation rate has been trending steadily downward since 1989. Currently, only 62% of legal adults are part of California’s labor force. Meanwhile, California has one of the highest incidences of tax in the country.

It also has 28% of the total homeless population of the United States, with the number having increased by 40% over the past 5 years. In short, California is a mess of outcomes that could not happen in a free-market economy that enforced immigration laws and was tough on crime.

According to Pew Research, 87% of Democrat voters agree that illegal immigrants only do jobs Americans won’t do. This notion is completely false. The reality is, there is no job Americans won’t do if they are paid for it.

Removing the illegals and canceling the benefits programs will bring about an equilibrium between wages and labor force participation. Taxes could be cut, and the minimum wage for unskilled work could go back to a reasonable market rate.

People would be incentivized to work and to better themselves, while the burger-flipping jobs would revert to the high school and college students who previously held them.

The post Illegal Immigrants Do Jobs Americans Collecting Benefits Won’t Do appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Subsidizing the Fentanyl Crisis

The investigation by the Select Committee on The CCP’s Role in the Fentanyl Crisis reveals that the CCP subsidizes PRC companies producing fentanyl precursor chemicals for export, thus knowingly exacerbating the US drug crisis.

In his State of the Union Address on March 7, 2024, President Biden acknowledged Fentanyl as one of the most significant threats confronting the United States.  The president’s assertion aligns with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Annual Threat Assessment for 2024, which identifies fentanyl as the second-largest threat, following terrorism. The report also states that DHS expects “illegal drugs produced in Mexico and sold in the United States will continue to kill more Americans than any other threat.”

According to a DHS Fact Sheet regarding the State of the Union Address, the fentanyl crisis “originates with China-based entities that manufacture and distribute the chemicals used to produce the fentanyl fueling American overdose deaths.” The CCP manufactures 98% of the global supply of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl. The select committee not only uncovered CCP subsidies for fentanyl but also for numerous other synthetic and illicit drugs.

The DHS Fact Sheet provides additional details, stating that “DHS participated in the development of a new Counternarcotics Working Group with China to disrupt the manufacture and flow of illicit synthetic drugs.” Given the emerging evidence of CCP’s direct involvement in the fentanyl crisis, this initiative appears ironic and likely ineffective in halting its spread.

In 2023, the US House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act, which amends the Fentanyl Sanctions Act. The latter calls for sanctions against Chinese entities as “foreign opioid traffickers” if they produce, sell, finance, or transport synthetic opioids or precursors.” It is evident that numerous government agencies, along with Congress and the White House, recognize fentanyl as one of the most pressing issues facing the US, responsible for the most American fatalities. They all acknowledge China as the source. Despite this consensus, the president continues to pursue efforts to ‘work with’ Beijing rather than directly holding the CCP accountable.

US law enforcement entities have reported informing their Chinese government contacts about the companies manufacturing and exporting fentanyl, yet the CCP has not taken any action. The Bill specifies that Chinese entities could face sanctions if they “fail to take credible steps to prevent opioid trafficking, including through cooperation with U.S. counternarcotics efforts and know-your-customer procedures.” It appears that the CCP is now subject to sanctions, given its lack of cooperation with US law enforcement and failure to halt the fentanyl flow.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a warning in 2017-2018 through a report titled ‘TACKLING FENTANYL: THE CHINA CONNECTION,’ identifying China as the source of the fentanyl crisis. However, to date, the White House has not held the CCP accountable.

The CCP denies any knowledge of or culpability in the problem. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the PRC embassy in Washington D.C., stated in an email, “It is very clear that there is no fentanyl problem in China, and the fentanyl crisis in the United States is not caused by the Chinese side, and blindly blaming China cannot solve the U.S. own problem.” These are not the words of a government willing to cooperate. It is astounding that this statement came from an official CCP source, just weeks after the President’s State of the Union Address where he claimed his administration was working closely with the CCP on this issue.

The PRC Embassy’s statement underscores the folly of the Biden administration’s continued belief that they can work with the CCP to stop fentanyl and to fix a number of other global issues caused by the CCP, everything from China trade cheating to threats against Taiwan and the Philippines, to Beijing’s support of Russia in Ukraine, and ongoing support for Iran and the legitimization of Hamas. Given the CCP’s active involvement in these activities, it’s evident that Xi Jinping is aware of and likely orchestrating them, suggesting they won’t simply stop.

The CCP: An Enemy, Not a Competitor or Partner

The US Intelligence Community (IC), in its Annual Threat Assessment, and the Department of Defense (DoD) in its China Military Power report, both identify China as the primary threat to the US. Both reports from the IC and DoD elaborate on how the CCP’s strategy involves a whole-of-government approach known as Military Civil Fusion (MCF), which utilizes for-profit private entities across various industries and fields to further the state’s policy objectives. Evidently, this strategy extends to the chemical industry, which is being exploited to harm Americans and undermine American society through the distribution of deadly and illicit drugs.

Given that US intelligence and defense authorities are unequivocal about the CCP’s intent to supplant the United States, it is illogical to believe that the two countries can cooperate or that the CCP will take steps to improve America’s position.

The manufacture and distribution of chemicals in China is regarded as a sensitive domain, tightly regulated by the CCP, requiring permits and government approval for manufacturing or exporting. This implies that the CCP was aware of the production and export of fentanyl precursor chemicals. Now that the Select Committee has uncovered not only the CCP’s awareness but also its subsidization of the manufacture and export of fentanyl precursors, it becomes evident that the CCP is endorsing this activity and actively contributing to the deaths of Americans. With two hundred Americans dying of fentanyl overdoses every day, the CCP is killing as many Americans as the 9/11 terrorists, every two weeks.

Up to this point, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act of 2023 has only cleared the House and has not been signed into law. Should it become law, it appears that the entire CCP would be deemed in violation. Regrettably, although the media, the public, and some congressional representatives express outrage over the recent revelations, it seems improbable that the Biden administration will undertake meaningful action against the CCP.

The post Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Subsidizing the Fentanyl Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

365 Days Without a Murder: Why Liberals Hate El Salvador’s President

The man who transformed El Salvador from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest, President Nayib Bukele, is despised by liberals.

When he won reelection in a landslide, liberal media outlets ran headlines stating that democracy had ended in El Salvador and that the country had become a one-party state. However, El Salvador is not Cuba.

Bukele did not eradicate opposition parties, nor did he imprison them or seize control of the press. Instead, he delivered on his promises. He made the country safe by locking up criminals.

President Bukele claimed that his country went 365 days without a murder. And while the exact number has been called into question, it is an indisputable fact that the country now has the lowest murder rate it has seen in 30 years, plummeting by 70%, and now stands at only 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023, making it the second lowest in the Americas, just behind Canada.

In 2022, after a gang war resulted in the deaths of 87 people over a period of just three days, Bukele took action against crime. He constructed the country’s largest prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT), with a capacity for 40,000 gang members. And he began filling it.

Out of gratitude for restoring peace in the country, voters reelected him with 85% of the vote. Human rights groups, who live in safe, wealthy Western nations, have criticized Bukele for violations of the rights of suspects.

But the logic is flawless. Only gang members have gang tattoos. If anyone else gets a gang tattoo, they will be killed by the gang. The same is true for tattoo artists.

They would be killed for giving gang tattoos to non-gang members. Additionally, part of the initiation to joining a gang is to commit a serious crime, often murder. Once they become a member, their full-time job is to commit crimes. So, logically, anyone with a gang tattoo is a gang member and has committed crimes.

In the U.S., it is not a crime to be affiliated with an organization, even a criminal one. To secure a conviction, there would need to be proof that the person committed a specific crime.

However, that system, while acceptable for a high-trust society, was being exploited in El Salvador, where repeat offenders and murderers were being set free by crooked judges and jailers.

So, Bukele decided to let logic prevail, arrest the gang members, and put them in prison. He was more concerned about the rights of street vendors, business owners, school children, working people, and ordinary citizens than he was about the rights of violent criminals.

The state of emergency he declared in 2022, and has renewed several times since, suspends the constitutional rights of the gang members and bypasses the corrupt courts and justice system, which had allowed the criminals to reign for decades. Since then, 75,000 gang members have been arrested, and 7,000 have been released.

According to reported data from human rights groups, since 2022, there have been 78,000 arbitrary detentions. This is likely because they consider nearly all of the arrests to be arbitrary detentions.

The rights groups are also upset that “approximately 102,000 people are now deprived of their freedom in the country,” disregarding the fact that these people are criminals.

Additionally, they are upset that the prisons are overcrowded by 148%, which is absolutely true. The prisons are not pleasant, and a sane person would avoid going there by not committing crimes.

They also lost sleep over 235 deaths in state custody. There is no mention of how many of these deaths represented prisoners being killed by other prisoners, nor have they stopped to consider that five times that number of innocent people would have died during the same time period if these gang members were not in prison.

Rights groups have claimed that Bukele’s New Ideas party winning 58 of 60 seats in the country’s legislature has turned the country into a one-party state, with a “dangerous” concentration of power.

They are missing the point that the country had a fair election and the people were free to vote for the horrible system they had before, or law and order, which is now making their lives livable again. And they chose the latter.

According to Gabriela Santos, director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Central America (IDHUCA), “Bukele’s popularity underlines how some Central American countries have struggled to launch sustainable democratic models.”

Again, there appears to be no flaw in El Salvador’s democracy. The critics just do not like the way the vote turned out. Santos went on to say that countries never recovered their democratic principles “in the aftermath of civil conflicts between left-wing guerrillas and U.S.-backed right-wing authoritarian regimes.”

There is no indication that the people voting for Bukele had any connection to the US or to right-wing regimes.

Liberals are claiming that there is a frightening move toward fascism in Latin America because 2 of 32 countries now have a president who is not a socialist. The other bright spot is President Javier Milei in Argentina, whom the liberals also hate.

He is cutting the government down to size, waging a war on debt and waste. He told school children that abortion is murder. He is pro-gun and is considering deploying the military to take on the gangs.

The shocking lesson we can all learn from El Salvador is that if you arrest all of the bad guys and keep them in jail, and if those who remain free are made to believe that crime has consequences and jails are horrible places, the streets become safer, and people can live their lives.

The other takeaway here is that if a president is tough on crime and wants to cut government spending and improve the lives of citizens, the liberals attack him.

It is also incredibly condescending that liberals in Europe or the US or elsewhere believe that 85% of Salvadorians do not know what is best for their country and voted for the wrong person.

The post 365 Days Without a Murder: Why Liberals Hate El Salvador’s President appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Narcan and Liberal Drug Policies Worsening Drug Crisis

Liberal drug laws and government-funded interventions to make drug use safer normalize drug use and fuel the drug crisis.

Last year, 112,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, and American taxpayers are funding the crisis. Millions of dollars in Biden’s $1.9 Trillion pandemic Relief Bill went towards funding so-called “harm reduction” programs, which help people use drugs more safely but do not encourage them to stop using. This year, Biden-Harris allocated $39.4 million toward the President’s Unity Agenda, which includes harm reduction programs.

Meanwhile, a congressional committee discovered that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been subsidizing the companies that provide the precursor chemicals to Mexican drug cartels, who manufacture fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other drugs, which they smuggle through the Southern border. So, American taxpayers are not only funding the drug crisis but also funding China.

A backlash among liberals against the “war on drugs,” which they consider a racist failure, has caused a number of jurisdictions to take the opposite approach, liberalizing or decriminalizing drug use. Some have intentionally increased access to alcohol by allowing to-go sales and lowering taxes. Tax revenue has been one of the arguments Democrats use when trying to convince Republicans to legalize and tax marijuana, which is now legal in at least 37 states. But now, even those taxes are being removed because they were preventing some people from obtaining drugs.

Rather than trying to convince people that sobriety is the better way, liberal drug and alcohol programs have shifted their focus toward “harm reduction,” which seeks to mitigate the public health risks of drug use without stigmatizing users or requiring them to stop. By definition, removing the stigma means normalizing. It also nullifies the deterrent effect for first-time users who will believe that they can use drugs and still be a productive member of society, despite the evidence to the contrary.

As part of harm reduction, there has been increased funding for the distribution of Narcan and other overdose reversal medications, as well as programs that provide sterile drug paraphernalia and teach people how to use drugs safely “without requiring them to stop or reduce their use.”

Narcan is now available without a prescription, and last year, approximately 22 million doses were distributed in the US and Canada, at taxpayer expense. Narcan and other interventions only decrease the number of deaths, not the number of overdoses, which is many times higher.

Overdosing has been made “safer” by these drugs. They do not resolve the drug crisis. Even worse, by decreasing the number of deaths, the interventions allow the problem to disappear from the front page. Deaths remain on people’s minds; addiction doesn’t. Removing the lethality also removes the deterrent for young people.

The Democrats are disinterested in stopping drug use, so by legalizing drugs, they can claim to have reduced crime. In many American cities, irrespective of the law, progressive prosecutors refuse to prosecute what they consider low-level drug crimes.

A good example is the state of Oregon, which voted in 2020 to liberalize drug laws, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of even hard drugs. The measures were passed by the Democrat-led legislature, and the police stopped arresting offenders. Instead, officers gave users a ticket and a slip of paper with a phone number they could call to get into a treatment program. Records show that Portland police handed out 7,000 of these slips, but only a few hundred users ever made the call.

Marijuana was already legal in Oregon, so tax money from marijuana was put towards treatment programs. Three years later, the drug crisis in Oregon was worse.

Advocates for liberal drug policies argue, “the criminal justice system didn’t effectively treat addiction.” They also said it disproportionately harmed people of color. By ceasing drug arrests, they hoped to be able to decrease the racial disparity among prisoners. Decriminalization also brought down the crime rate by no longer counting drug offenses. However, other forms of crime increased, perpetrated by people trying to get money for drugs.

Before decriminalization, Portland’s violent crime rate was below the national average. By 2022, Portland saw a record number of homicides. This dropped off a bit in 2023, and there were claims that other crimes dropped as well, but traffic fatalities increased to record levels, while shoplifting arrests increased by 88%. Portland’s property crime rate is higher than the national average and rose steadily until 2023, when it came down slightly. But it is still higher than pre-drug legalization. And most predictably, from 2019 to 2022, the rate of opioid deaths increased by 241%.

While many sources claim that overall crime rates have dropped in cities that legalized drugs, the statistic is misleading. This is evidenced not only by Oregon, but also by other municipalities that decriminalized drugs or liberalized enforcement and have seen an increase in drug use, overdoses, and certain kinds of crime. This has been true in Seattle, where the claim was that overall crime was down, but there was an increase in homicides and auto thefts.

San Francisco has seen an increase in drug-related crimes, as well as the prevalence of dealers and violence. Crime is up in New York, where the liberal governor wants to deploy the National Guard to keep order in the subways. Philadelphia is now known as the capital of the Xylazine zombie drug crisis, and Los Angeles is a fentanyl hub, experiencing rampant shoplifting, theft, and an increase in property crime.

One way that the statistics are being misrepresented is that many of these cities are claiming a decrease in violent crime in 2023, and this may be true, but only because 2022 experienced a severe spike in crime. This may have been the final effects of lockdowns and COVID restrictions which, in some cases, were not completely eliminated until the middle or end of the year. However, in most cases, the 2023 numbers are not lower than 2020 or pre-drug-liberalization figures.

No matter how they try to spin it, drug usage and deaths are up. In 2020, 27 million Americans reported being drug users, including marijuana, opioids, or amphetamines. Last year, the number climbed to 37.3 million. About 10% of Americans now have problems with alcohol abuse, and 6% are drug addicts. Most heartbreaking, nationwide, 22 teens are dying each week of drug overdoses.

The post Narcan and Liberal Drug Policies Worsening Drug Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

LGBTQ Rules Are Still Confusing to Many

There are no anti-LGBTQ rules or policies in schools, and no anti-LGBTQ laws at the state or federal level.

What activists label as “anti-LGBTQ” are rules and laws that say “everyone” or “every student” must adhere to certain requirements or prohibitions.

President Biden and Vice President Harris have touted their pro-LGBTQ rights stance. The issue with discussions about LGBTQ rights, or other minority rights, is that LGBTQ and other minorities already possess full rights under the law. Consequently, enacting legislation or policies that specifically name LGBTQ or other groups is extending them additional rights while restricting the rights of people not named in the legislation.

In a report titled “20 states passed anti-LGBTQ legislation,” the Point Foundation, a foundation dedicated to empowering LGBTQ students, published a list of anti-LGBTQ laws identified by the American Civil Liberties Union. An examining the list, however, suggests that none of these laws or rules prevent LGBTQ students from participating in education, sports, or activities.

One example of allegedly anti-LGBTQ rules identified in the list is “11 bills include language prohibiting transgender and nonbinary or other gender-diverse students from joining sports teams that align with their gender identity.” These rules do not prevent LGBTQ students from participating in sports. They only stipulate that girls play sports with girls and boys with boys. A boy who identifies as a girl and changes his name to Sally would be allowed to play sports with other boys.

“Nine bills allow staff at schools to deadname and use the wrong pronouns for students.” This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. Students at schools are called by their legal names. And this is true for all students, regardless of orientation. If a boy named Tyler wants to be called Loretta, he will need to change his name legally. And if the teacher accidentally calls him Tyler, the student can remind the teacher that his legal name is Loretta now. If it really gets to be a problem, a complaint can be filed. But current legislation addresses all of this.

Forcing people to use specific pronouns is a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against forced speech.

“Six bills specifically prohibit students from using bathrooms that align with students’ gender identities.” Correct, all students have to use the bathroom according to their birth gender. It is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It applies to everyone.

“Two bills allow parents to remove any materials they personally deem inappropriate from classrooms or schools.” In addition to not mentioning LGBTQ, this statement accurately describes how parents have the right to influence their children’s education. In the US, there is no federal curriculum and there are very few federal requirements in schools. For the most part, each state has its own Department of Education responsible for setting education standards, curriculum frameworks, and assessment policies. School districts, which are typically organized at the county or municipal level, have considerable autonomy in determining curriculum, instructional materials, and educational programs. Local school boards, composed of elected representatives, usually parents, make decisions on behalf of the community regarding school policies and practices.

“Two laws forbid staff and administrators from addressing sexuality or gender in schools.” Once again, there is no mention of LGBTQ. Apparently, parents in those districts do not want sex taught in school. That is their choice, and parents are allowed, under US law, to influence what is taught in local schools.

“Two laws require staff and administrators to out their students’ sexuality.” This is an exaggeration. Some districts have rules requiring school staff to inform parents if a child is identifying as trans. This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It just says that parents have a right to know what is happening with their children.

“One law specifies that no speech, including anti-LGBTQ hate speech, is restricted on campuses.” This rule is not anti-LGBTQ. It is pro-free speech.

“A law that removes funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, which commonly supports LGBTQ students.” This law is not anti-LGBTQ. It is anti-DEI programming.

From the list provided by the Point Foundation, it seems there are no laws or rules that are anti-LGBTQ. Examining problems faced by LGBTQ students in the GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students, it appears the chief complaint among LGBTQ students is that other students do not accept them. And this is something that legislation cannot change. Additionally, the list of harassment and bullying complaints did not demonstrate that LGBTQ students were harassed or bullied at a greater rate than other students.

The GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students states, “Most LGBTQ students have experienced harassment and discrimination at school.” However, this harassment does not appear to have been the result of school rules but rather fallout with classmates. The survey reports that 85 percent of LGBTQ students “experienced verbal harassment based on a personal characteristic.” And while this is unfortunate, every kid who ever attended school experienced “verbal abuse based on a personal characteristic.”

The survey doesn’t specify “verbal abuse because of being LGBTQ.” So, this includes the LGBTQ kid who was teased along with the fat kid, tall kid, awkward kid, late bloomer, early bloomer, weird kid…the kid who was too into dinosaurs or Dungeons and Dragons, or the kid who always wore a bowtie.

The survey also said that “Due to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable, nearly a third (32 percent) of LGBTQ students missed at least one day of school in the last month.” The question here is, were they actually unsafe, or did they feel that way? If they felt unsafe because of school policies requiring them to play sports in their birth gender, be called by their birth name, or parents being allowed to remove materials they found objectionable from the school, perhaps they just need some encouragement. But legislation won’t help.

The post LGBTQ Rules Are Still Confusing to Many appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Undermining Burma’s Freedom Fighters: Debunking Harmful Conspiracy Theories

Antonio Graceffo Reporting from the Burma border

In the heart of Burma, where tens of thousands have sacrificed their lives, and millions have been displaced by the ruthless attacks of the junta forces, ethnic resistance armies, and people’s self-defense forces fight to establish a federal democracy with equal rights for the 135 ethnic minorities.

Sadly, misguided conspiracy theories about the 2021 elections and the ensuing military coup have cast a shadow over the noble efforts of those fighting for democracy. These groundless allegations have unfortunately led many Americans to mistakenly perceive the pro-democracy camp as villains, falsely accusing them of attempting to steal the election. Such misconceptions not only undermine the legitimate struggles of pro-democracy forces but also deter Americans from supporting the rebels or taking a more proactive stance against the junta.

On November 8, 2020, Myanmar witnessed its second consecutive democratic election. In a landslide victory, the pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), secured re-election.

However, in February 2021, the military staged a coup, annulling the elections and detaining Aung San Suu Kyi along with prominent members of the party, including parliamentarians.

The most prominent conspiracy theory suggests that Burma utilized Dominion voting machines, alleging that Aung San Suu Kyi manipulated the machines to secure her victory. Some conspiracy theorists have even linked the Burmese election to the U.S. election, portraying the junta as the “good guys” in this narrative.

Firstly, Myanmar did not employ Dominion voting machines. Instead, they relied on paper ballots placed in wooden boxes, with approximately 80% of polling stations lacking electricity, let alone internet access. Secondly, aside from several very small ethnic minority parties that garnered minimal votes beyond their local regions, the election featured only two major parties: the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), backed by the military.

The people held a deep disdain for the army and harbored great admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi. It defies logic to suggest that after enduring a decades-long civil war to overthrow the army, they would then elect the very institution they sought to depose.

In 2021, following her arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi faced a range of charges leveled by the military junta. These accusations included illegally importing walkie-talkies, violating COVID-19 restrictions during the 2020 elections, and breaching a natural disaster law. The junta, albeit belatedly, asserted irregularities in the electoral process. However, international observers confirmed that while certain issues arose, such as ethnic minorities being denied voting rights due to lack of identification, there was no evidence of fraud. Furthermore, those unable to cast their votes would likely have supported Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. These charges were widely perceived as politically motivated and aimed at undermining her and her party.

A broader conspiracy alleges that Aung San Suu Kyi was involved in a nefarious alliance, purportedly collaborating with figures such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The conspiracy extends to suggest that American Democrats stood to gain from Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory, with the term “deep state” frequently invoked in this narrative. Such claims border on absolute madness. In my interviews with numerous rebel soldiers, leaders, and civilians displaced by the junta, none were aware of any deep-state connections or the notion that they were somehow working for the Clintons. Their common sentiment revolved around their disdain for the junta’s violence and torture, all while longing for a democratically elected government.

Regarding the connection with Hillary Clinton, it’s important to note that the American Secretary of State regularly undertakes visits to numerous countries, with one of their key responsibilities being to advocate for democracy and monitor elections worldwide. Consequently, the Department of State releases reports evaluating the integrity of elections in various nations and the overall status of democracy globally. In this context, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi before the 2015 elections holds significance, marking Myanmar’s inaugural democratic election, which saw Suu Kyi’s party secure a significant victory. Similarly, following Suu Kyi’s decisive win in the 2020 elections, then-Secretary Pompeo promptly issued a congratulatory message to Myanmar, acknowledging it as a pivotal moment in the country’s democratic progression.

Some of the more informed conspiracy theorists assert that Aung San Suu Kyi’s popularity waned between the two elections, pointing to the Rohingya genocide as evidence of her mismanagement of the country.

What actually occurred is that, prior to the 2015 election, the generals revised the constitution, allocating certain parliamentary seats as appointed positions. While the NLD secured the majority of democratically elected seats, the military maintained veto authority. Consequently, Aung San Suu Kyi found herself unable to pass any legislation without the army’s approval.

When news of the Rohingya genocide received sudden coverage in the international press, many Americans pointed fingers at Aung San Suu Kyi. To be fair, she did make controversial statements at the International Court of Justice, deflecting blame from the government. Some interpreted this as a shrewd political move to steer clear of conflict with the military, enabling her to stay in power and aid the country. While external observers often viewed this as complicity, she retained her popularity in Burma.

What I personally observed was a transition from unwavering support for Aung San Suu Kyi to a more pragmatic stance of choosing the better of two options. Many ethnic minorities, who previously revered “The Lady,” began to view her as preferable to military rule but recognized her imperfections. However, the crucial constant remained: nobody was willing to vote for the army.

The genocides targeting numerous ethnic groups have persisted long before Aung San Suu Kyi’s electoral victory and continue even as she remains imprisoned. Over one million Rohingya still languish in internally displaced people’s camps (IDP) within Burma and in dire refugee camps in Bangladesh. Neither Aung San Suu Kyi, Dominion, Hillary, Barry, nor Dizzy Joe played any part in the Rohingya genocide.

The people of Burma have been sacrificing their lives for 70 years to overthrow the military regime and establish a federal democracy. They are not affiliated with the deep state, nor are they in collusion with the Clintons or any external forces. They are simply individuals who seek an end to the government’s violence and the destruction of their villages. Moreover, they yearn for peace and the fundamental right to vote.

The post Undermining Burma’s Freedom Fighters: Debunking Harmful Conspiracy Theories appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

US vs. Russia in the Middle East and Africa: Clash of Policy Agendas

The US and Russia are already embroiled in a de facto proxy war in Ukraine. Now, with the escalating conflict in the Middle East, US foreign policy goals clash with Russia’s, effectively opening a second front. While it’s clear both Washington and Moscow pursue self-interest, their objectives and methods diverge significantly.

Both undertake military interventions and endorse proxy armies in the region. The distinction lies in Russia’s covert military involvement in the Middle East and Africa, primarily through private military companies (PMCs) like the Wagner Group. The US, however, overtly sends uniformed troops to the area. Russia’s PMCs have a notorious history of severe human rights violations, including rape, murder, and torture, leading to their designation as transnational terrorist organizations.

Another contrast in the policy objectives of the two countries lies in their motivations. While it’s often argued that the US only goes to war for oil, this assertion doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Firstly, the US is among the nations with the largest proven oil reserves globally and is effectively energy independent.

Moreover, the US has participated in numerous conflicts in regions with minimal oil resources. For instance, during World War II, the US didn’t take on Japan and Germany because of their oil. Since 1945, the US has been involved in conflicts spanning Greece (1947-1949), Korea, Haiti (1959), Vietnam, Central America, Kosovo, Croatia, and many other countries. The most significant recent wars fought by the US were in Afghanistan, which lacks significant oil reserves, and Iraq, which is oil-rich. However, even in Iraq, the US didn’t seize control of the oil fields. The fields remain the property of Iraq, while they are operated by international companies, with China expanding its share.

Moscow’s interventions in the Middle East and Africa, on the other hand, are primarily driven by a quest to secure resources and strengthen the Russian economy. While the US typically backs the UN-recognized leader of a nation, the Wagner Group aligns itself with whichever strongman or dictator commands valuable resources such as gold, diamonds, or oil, funneling the proceeds back to Moscow through clandestine shell companies.

The U.S. typically ties its economic and military assistance to conditions aimed at enhancing democracy and human rights within a country. While one could argue that these conditions serve U.S. interests, they also contribute to the betterment of people’s lives.

Because Russia neglects human rights and democracy in the countries where it intervenes militarily, Moscow provides diplomatic and military backing for nefarious regimes such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar, or the coup leaders in the Sahel region of Africa. As a consequence of Russia’s support for these dictators, the standard of living and quality of life for the average citizens in these countries sharply decline.

Another contrast between US and Russian intervention lies in the aftermath: when a country aligns with Russia, it often severs ties with the West, as seen in the coup belt of Africa. This termination of Western influence not only hinders potential political and social transformations but also designates Russia as the principal export market, thereby reducing resource prices and exacerbating poverty.

On the other hand, countries aligning with the US effectively align with the EU, G7, and the world’s wealthiest and most developed nations. This alignment enables them to engage in international trade, access funding from traditional lenders like the IMF, World Bank, and Paris Club, and receive aid from Western sources.

Moscow and Washington have cooperated on counterterrorism issues, related to Islamic extremism, but once again, the motivations are different. Putin was quick to join US counterterrorism initiatives after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, however, he was doing so, to cover for his war against separatists in Chechnya and Dagestan. Moscow’s alleged interest in counterterrorism is just the next step in a long history of repression and war against Russia’s domestic Muslim population.

Countries in the Middle East and Africa face a choice between the US and Russia as their counterterrorism and security partner. While the US seeks to balance counterterrorism efforts with maintaining relations with other Middle Eastern nations, Russia takes a different approach by indirectly supporting terrorism through its backing of Iran, which in turn supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Russia provided Hamas with weapons taken in Ukraine and has sold weapons to authoritarian regimes all over Africa. Moreover, due to human rights violations committed by Moscow-sponsored groups, Russia has been labeled a state sponsor of terror by the EU Parliament.

Additionally, in response to the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Russia obtained an agreement wherein the Houthis would refrain from attacking Russian vessels. In contrast, the US response involved forming an international coalition to prevent the Houthis from targeting ships of any nation.

The two countries have markedly different approaches to arms control. While the US collaborates with the international community to prevent states like North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Russia takes a contrasting stance by providing technology to Iran that could advance its nuclear ambitions. Russia also purchases missiles and drones from Iran, as well as assorted munitions from North Korea, despite international sanctions prohibiting such arms trade. Moreover, supplying Iran with the means to develop nuclear weapons is banned, but Russia declared last year that it no longer felt obliged to adhere to UN restrictions.

Russia maintains its position on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has consistently vetoed interventions against dictators and despots. Recently, Russia vetoed a resolution aiming to ban nuclear weapons from space. This aligns with Russia’s track record of vetoing resolutions related to nuclear proliferation as well as interventions in the Middle East.

While critics may argue that the US seeks to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world to maintain its military supremacy, it’s undeniable that a world without nuclear-armed states like North Korea and Iran would be significantly safer than the alternative presented by Russian policies. Moreover, in the Middle East, a scenario where the region’s UN-recognized and democratically elected leaders, supported by the international community, aren’t embroiled in endless conflicts against Russian proxies would undoubtedly lead to greater stability, prosperity, and, most importantly, the well-being of the Middle Eastern population.

The post US vs. Russia in the Middle East and Africa: Clash of Policy Agendas appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Inflation and Unemployment Rising: Stagflation Likely

High unemployment plus high inflation equals stagflation. This is Bidenomics in action.

The White House and mainstream media can spin the unemployment numbers any way they want, but spin doesn’t change the reality; things are bad. The official unemployment rate is 3.8%, up from 3.5% last year. Meanwhile, under Biden, as much as 25% of the jobs created are government jobs. That is at least double what it should be for a free-market, capitalist country. Despite this boom in taxpayer-funded government job creation, employment fell again last month by 50,000 jobs. This year, about 1.8 million full-time jobs have disappeared.

Ironically, the workforce participation rate has been falling under Biden. This means that even though a greater percentage of the population has decided to give up and no longer look for a job, there still aren’t enough jobs for those who want to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023 ended with 4.2 million Americans reporting that they were working part-time jobs for economic reasons, which was an increase of 333,000 from the previous year. This includes people whose hours have been cut from full-time to part-time. The jobs report showed that the number of part-time jobs is growing, while the number of full-time jobs is decreasing.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics defines employment as any individual aged 16 or older who has worked as a paid employee for at least one hour per week. Consequently, the number of unemployed individuals wouldn’t change if someone who previously held a full-time job with benefits, earning $124,000 annually, transitioned to working just a single hour per week at a fast-food establishment for $7.25 an hour without benefits. Following this logic, the White House could claim it created a job when a single part-time position is added to the economy.

Bidenomics has magically transformed full-time jobs into part-time jobs and private sector jobs into public sector jobs. And that will not grow the economy or make people’s lives better.

Another achievement of Bidenomics is inflation. Biden was able to grow that number much higher than Trump ever did. During the four years of the Trump administration, the highest average inflation rate was 2.4%, which occurred in 2018, and the lowest was in 2020 when inflation dropped to 1.2%. Biden scored a high of 8% in 2022 and is currently running at about 3.5%.

While 2024 so far has been better than 2023, which hit an average of 4.1% inflation. At the same time, inflation has been rising month on month. So, we may get back to 4% at some point soon.

The reason why the Trump economy was so amazing is that he had low inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates—a trifecta that is almost impossible to achieve. Normally, a high inflation rate results in a low unemployment rate and vice versa. So, the government has to balance between job creation and inflation, and the Federal Reserve regulates inflation by raising or lowering the interest rates. However, Trump was able to deliver low unemployment and low inflation while keeping interest rates below 1%.

As of last month, the Federal Funds Rate was at a 23-year high of 5.25% to 5.5%. At that rate, it is no wonder that job creation is low; however, there should be no inflation. But even with this decade’s high interest rate, inflation is rising and employment is falling. And this condition matches the definition of stagflation.

The reason why stagflation is such a scary monster is that it defies most of the tools the Fed has in its arsenal to regulate the economy. The Fed can raise interest rates to fight inflation, but that will cause unemployment to rise. Alternatively, the Fed can cut interest rates to create jobs, but that will cause inflation to rise.

In an election year, a sitting president may want to cut interest rates in order to create the illusion of growth, and this is exactly what Democrats are calling for. In fact, even the Fed has said it might cut interest rates if that would give Biden a boost for the election.

Nearly all countries around the world have some type of central bank. Many of them are government-owned, while others are private. The US Fed is not owned by the government. As such, it is meant to be independent of government influence, making monetary policy decisions based on mathematical and economic models, irrespective of politics. However, this year, the Fed has admitted that they may change US monetary policy to influence the election. Not only would this be a violation of the public trust, but it would also be detrimental to the economy.

The Federal Reserve Chairman who played a key role in curbing the stagflation of the 1970s was Paul Volcker. And the way he did it was by aggressively raising interest rates, which peaked at 20%. The high interest rates caused a great deal of hardship, but that is what it took to tame 10 years of high inflation and high unemployment.

If the Fed cuts interest rates to help Biden in the election, we could be looking at several more years of skyrocketing inflation and rising unemployment.

The post Inflation and Unemployment Rising: Stagflation Likely appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guatemalan Poppy Farmers Suffer as Fentanyl Overtakes Heroin in the US

Many Americans are concerned that over 150 of their fellow citizens overdose on fentanyl every day, but do they ever stop to think about how this shift to fentanyl negatively affects the lives of opium and cocaine growers in Latin America? This seems to be the question being asked by human rights groups, and as always, the blame and the cost are put on the United States.

Fentanyl makes better business sense for the Mexican cartels compared to opium. It can be easily manufactured using chemicals sourced from China. Highly potent and compact, fentanyl is easy to transport and distribute. Unlike opium, its production is not affected by weather conditions, making it a more reliable option. Additionally, fentanyl labs can avoid detection and eradication efforts, unlike poppy farms, which are easily spotted by authorities using drones.

The decrease in demand for opium has resulted in a drastic drop in prices. Opium, which previously fetched $64 an ounce, is now trading for $9.60 an ounce. According to a Guatemalan poppy grower interviewed by the New York Times, “Poppies used to help a lot of people make ends meet.” The report further states, “Now.. the steep decline in poppy prices inflicted so much economic pain that ‘before the money runs out, people depart for the United States.’”

Apparently, the price of coca leaves used to manufacture cocaine is also declining, affecting 200,000 Colombian households that depend on the drug to make a living. Rights groups are focused on these people, missing the larger point that Latin American governments should be taking care of their people and that they should never have reached a point where a large percentage of the population is dependent on the drug trade.

According to the Congressional Research Service, “criminality related to drug trafficking has replaced political and regional conflicts as the primary source of citizen insecurity in the Americas.” Now, a drop in drug prices is adding to the hardship.

Across Latin America, governments fail to address their own economic and social problems or curb crime, often blaming the US instead. Some advocate for the legalization of hard drugs, mistakenly believing it will solve all their issues. They argue that drug legalization in the US will lower prices, weakening cartels and reducing violence in Latin America.

However, evidence from marijuana legalization and hard drug decriminalization in parts of the US shows increased drug use and overdoses. Moreover, because legal drugs are taxed, tested, and certified, illegal drugs remain cheaper, and the criminal gang-controlled illegal drug market persists unchanged.

Meanwhile, from Mexico to Colombia, corruption among law enforcement, courts, and politicians is facilitating the drug trade. Legalizing drugs in the US or Latin America will not resolve these countries’ issues.

Even with the decline in drug prices, opium continues to be cultivated in the poorest, mountainous region of Guatemala, where mature plants are processed into gum. This gum is then transported across the border to Mexico, where cartels refine it into heroin for distribution in the United States. And the US continues funding drug eradication programs because local governments are either unable or unwilling to control the cartels.

Since the 1970s, the US has allocated billions of dollars to Latin American governments to combat drug production and smuggling. American taxpayers fund the provision of weapons, training, equipment, and vehicles to local security forces. In Guatemala alone, the US is granting $10 to $20 million annually in aid to the military and law enforcement. With this funding, Guatemala succeeded in eradicating 7 acres of opium farms in 2023, down from over 2,000 acres in 2017.

The US was also financing aerial spraying of herbicides in drug-growing regions. However, human rights groups sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to cease funding these programs. They argued that such actions convey “a message of cruelty and callousness with which the United States should no longer be associated.”

The villagers in Guatemala are complaining that spraying and other eradication efforts are stripping away their livelihoods. Lucky for them, Guatemala still acts as a transit country for cocaine smuggled from the Andes and for fentanyl precursor chemicals from China. Given that the US is footing the bill for everything else, it’s surprising that no one has suggested having the US finance a retraining program for displaced opium farmers, teaching them to smuggle other drugs into the United States.

The post Guatemalan Poppy Farmers Suffer as Fentanyl Overtakes Heroin in the US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

China Supports Pro-Palestine Protests on US Campuses

Xinhua, Chinese state media, ran the headline, “U.S. police brutality against student protesters exposes hypocrisy on free speech.” The article begins with, “As the world watches in horror at the footage of U.S. police viciously suppressing student protests.” Chinese state media is providing daily coverage of the protests, painting the US as authoritarian and the police as evil. Many of the articles have the number of arrests in the title, such as “Over 100 arrested at UT-Austin amid pro-Palestinian protest.”

In light of the fact that there are no First Amendment freedoms in China, it is ironic that Beijing is outraged that “Peaceful student demonstrators were framed by armed police and U.S. media as ‘perpetrators’ deserving ‘crackdown.’” Peaceful student demonstrators would be quickly subdued and shipped off to camps in China or killed, as happened at Tiananmen Square.

China was publishing these articles while Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Beijing, but he raised no objection. Even US politicians and business leaders are succumbing to China’s will, either wittingly or unwittingly.

This all has the feel of the US-USSR Cold War and the Vietnam era when liberals were protesting in favor of the Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge. The difference was that during the Vietnam War, the government was largely in favor of America.

The blocs of the new Cold War are China-Russia-Iran vs. the US and the West. However, in addition to proxy armies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Beijing is weakening our country from within. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) subsidizes the companies making fentanyl precursor chemicals and exporting them to Mexican drug cartels. By doing so, the PRC is killing 150 Americans a day, physically destroying the nation.

China is also using media campaigns, disinformation, online campaigns, and indoctrination to undermine the West from the inside. Amplifying liberal narratives about drug legalization or decriminalization, China is able to convince Americans that drugs and overdoses are normal. The liberal solution of handing out free Narcan is a good example of reducing deaths while failing to address the fact that a large swath of the population is destroying themselves slowly.

The climate agenda is another narrative Beijing encourages the left to push. China is happy to see Europe and the US adopt green restrictions, which make their products more expensive, while China, the world’s largest consumer of coal, continues to increase emissions year on year, so they can undercut the world’s exports. An added bonus is that by getting the rest of the world to stop using coal, China gets coal at a discount. Additionally, China manufactures solar panels and EV batteries, which are too polluting to produce in Europe. So, by pushing the climate agenda, China makes a market for their own exports.

Beijing follows around behind Washington, playing the role of “the friend of the friendless.” After the US pulled out of Afghanistan, Beijing accepted the credentials of the Taliban’s ambassador. Afghanistan is sitting on about a trillion dollars’ worth of rare earth minerals, and China is likely to be the country that gets to extract them.

By supporting Iran, which in turn supports the Houthis, China is disrupting global shipping. Coincidentally, the Houthis have agreed not to attack Russian and Chinese ships. Global shipping is getting more expensive, while China’s shipping remains cheap.

Blocs are forming globally, and at the same time, a fifth column is growing within Europe, Canada, and the US among the liberal left. The pro-Palestine protester, woke mobs, and leftist outrage are all promoted and amplified through social media accounts tied to Beijing and Moscow to incite discontent and division.

Among all of the many ironies is the concept of Queers for Palestine, given that homosexuality is outlawed in many Muslim-majority countries and may even be punished with the death penalty. The fact that China and Russia are posing as friends to the Muslim world, despite Putin’s two wars in Chechnya and crackdowns in Dagestan, as well as the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, and don’t forget China’s genocide of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Another irony is that the same liberal women who believe they have the right to kill a baby because “my body, my rules” are protesting in favor of a system where they would have no rights at all. Additionally, Muslims are also against abortion, which is illegal in many Muslim countries. Even the way that many of the female protesters are dressed, or the fact that they are outside without a male member of their family, would land them in sharia jail in some Muslim countries. And of course, protesting against the government would be prohibited in those countries as well.

China didn’t mastermind every strife and debate in America; however, Beijing is watching closely. It utilizes social media and other forms of influence to latch onto, promote, or amplify those issues that work best for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

As for the Middle East, Beijing has normalized relations with the PLO. They are poised to recognize whatever government emerges in Gaza, and at this point, it suits Beijing to align with Iran and just have Israel and the US out of the way. By undermining the US, weakening our people and our unity, by encouraging us to fight amongst ourselves, Beijing is getting the heavy lifting out of the way before the shooting starts.

But if the propaganda campaigns are successful, and it certainly seems that they will be, indoctrinated Americans, Europeans, and Canadians will give Beijing everything they want, without a shot being fired.

The post China Supports Pro-Palestine Protests on US Campuses appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Pro-Hamas Protestors: All They Are Saying is Give Jihad a Chance

Pro-Palestine protests have broken out on university campuses across the United States. Some have turned violent, while others have resulted in the destruction of public property. Many have laid siege to public buildings, and there have been repeated instances of crowds chanting antisemitic or even genocidal slogans.

The pro-Palestine protesters have been compared to the anti-Vietnam War protestors by their supporters. But other than the fact that they are protesting, the two groups share little similarity. Several fundamental differences are: they are not championing women’s rights or minority rights; they are not protesting for peace, the US is not at war in Gaza; Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. And these kids are not in danger of being drafted.

The hippie protestors in the 1960s were closely aligned with the Civil Rights movement, fighting for women’s rights and minority rights. The pro-Palestine mobs, however, are protesting in favor of a system where women have almost no rights. Additionally, there are 1.9 billion Muslims and only about 16 million Jews. So, they are protesting in support of the majority, not the minority.

Some of the anti-Vietnam protestors felt war was morally wrong, so they wanted peace, as reflected in songs like, “All that we’re saying, is give peace a chance.” Representative Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., mistakenly characterized the pro-Palestine protestors as wanting peace. She said, “Contrary to right-wing attacks, these students are joyfully protesting for peace and an end to the genocide taking place in Gaza.” But this is a misrepresentation. The pro-Palestine protestors do not seem to have a peace agenda. Furthermore, a lot of them are calling for violence against Jews and Israel, shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

Even if a few of them use the word “peace,” they aren’t really calling for peace. They just want Israel to stop defending itself.

One of the main reasons that the hippies opposed the Vietnam War was because of the draft. The college students of that era were draft age and stood a good chance of being conscripted and sent to fight in Vietnam. However, the US has not had a draft since 1973. These kids are not in danger of being sent to war.

The connection between the anti-Vietnam War protests in America and the Vietnam War was direct: America was in a war, and the young people wanted America to no longer be in that war. The pro-Palestine protests, on the other hand, seem to have a less logical connection.

Hamas attacked Israel and killed 1,200 civilians. Israel finally had enough and is decimating Gaza. So, liberal college students in the USA shut down their universities, broke the law, threatened people, damaged property, preached antisemitism… The connection is difficult to see.

According to a PBS interview with protestors at UCLA, they want the university to be transparent about its ties to Israel. This raises an important difference between the 60s and now: the hippies were protesting against the Vietnam War. These kids are protesting against Israel, against a country. And although many of them wouldn’t admit it, the reality is that they want Israel to no longer exist.

The students are demanding that the university “divest the endowment from corporations that profit off of Israel.” Basically, they want the university to give back donor money and ostensibly raise tuition. And the corporations are likely to be American corporations. This seems incredibly far removed from the war in Gaza.

A UCLA professor explained that protesters wanted “transparency in their universities’ relationships with Israeli institutions.” A professor at Columbia University said that they wanted “an academic boycott of Israeli institutions via the cancellation of the Tel Aviv Global Center and dual degree program.” So, the boycott with Israel would not be limited to financial ties but academic and cultural as well. There is a big difference between Vietnam protestors wanting the US to stop fighting the war in Vietnam and the pro-Palestine protestors wanting the US to stop engaging with Israel.

On a cultural note, a glaring difference is that the anti-Vietnam protest movement gave birth to some of the greatest music ever recorded: Creedence Clearwater Revival, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Buffalo Springfield, Jefferson Airplane, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. Hamas tunes, by contrast, are not quite as catchy.

One similarity might be the possibility of terrorism. The anti-Vietnam War movement led to the birth of groups like the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), Black Liberation Army (BLA), Red Army Faction (RAF), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Today we are looking at Antifa, but given the connection with Palestine, Islamic extremist terrorism is also possible, ranging from Hamas to the PLO, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

The post Pro-Hamas Protestors: All They Are Saying is Give Jihad a Chance appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Let’s Be Clear on What We Are Witnessing: Terrorists, Not Freedom Fighters

Hamas and the pro-Palestine rioters in the US laying siege to campuses are terrorists, by definition, not freedom fighters. They both target civilians with violence and threats of violence to bring about political change.

There is an old saying: “The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is victory.” The idea being that the victor gets to write the history and can convert terrorists to heroes. A similar saying is, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The meaning here is that terrorist or freedom fighter is a matter of perspective, and that if you were trying to gain your freedom, you would see the terrorists as freedom fighters. Both of these sayings are wrong, however. Terrorism is a malign methodology, which can be directed at a variety of goals from achieving independence to bringing about Armageddon, or preventing deforestation. The ends do not justify the means, and they certainly do not change the nature of terrorism.

One of the problems with terrorism is that it lacks a single, universally accepted definition. In the US, various federal agencies, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, state and city governments, and courts all operate on differing definitions of terrorism. On a global level, foreign countries and international organizations also have differing definitions of terrorism.

The academic consensus definition of terrorism is one of the most widely accepted, and it incorporates the primary elements present in most other definitions of terrorism used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Terrorism involves the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians or non-combatants. The goal of these violent actions is to achieve political, ideological, or religious objectives. Terrorists seek to intimidate or coerce the government or society into altering policies to better suit the terrorist organization. Finally, terrorism is usually committed by non-state actors.

By the above definition, the American colonists who fought against the British would be freedom fighters, not terrorists. The reason is that they targeted British soldiers, not British civilians. The colonists formed a new national government and created a uniformed army. Consequently, it could be argued that they were not non-state actors.

The 9/11 terrorists, by contrast, did not wear uniforms, were non-state actors (arguably), and specifically targeted civilians. Furthermore, the civilians they targeted had no authority to enact the political changes the terrorists demanded. If US soldiers had targeted British government officials—civilians with decision-making authority—this may not have met the definition of terrorism because the colonists would be attacking the people in power to make decisions. The 9/11 terrorists, by contrast, were hoping to influence those who could make decisions by killing those who could not.

The October 7^th Hamas attack on Israel was terrorism because it almost exclusively targeted civilians and those civilians had no ability to change government policies.

There is another saying about terrorism which helps to define its goals and separate them from the goals of a freedom fighter: ‘Terrorism is a few people dying and a lot of people watching.’ In the American Revolution, the colonial army wanted to defeat the British army. Their goal was not to terrorize or wound soldiers in order to coerce the British government. The September 11th attacks in the US and the October 7th attacks in Israel were clearly intended to strike fear and were not intended to significantly cripple the army or to win a military victory.

While some may claim that Hamas are freedom fighters because they want Gaza to be independent of Israel, they qualify as terrorists because the methods they use match the definition of terrorism. They intentionally kill civilians. They also use rape and the taking of hostages. Furthermore, the Hamas Covenant calls for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews, which again, does not match the definition of a freedom fighter. The US colonists never had the elimination of Britain and the British as a goal.

The pro-Palestine protestors are supporting terrorism while also engaging in activities that qualify as terrorism. They have laid siege to universities, threatened and intimidated Jewish students and civilians while calling for death to all Jews. Calls to action are not protected under free speech, and if they are directed at a specific ethnic group, can be considered hate speech. In this case, the intent of these calls is to alter policy; therefore, they should be considered acts of terrorism. The protestors have also engaged in violent confrontations with the police, all in the name of bringing about a change in Israel’s domestic policy.

Under US law, it is illegal to provide material support to terrorists. Consequently, anyone funding these protests should be held accountable. The professors seen linking arms to prevent the police from entering the campus and arresting the protestors should be charged with obstruction of justice, RICO, and aiding terrorism.

The post Let’s Be Clear on What We Are Witnessing: Terrorists, Not Freedom Fighters appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Growing Trend of U.S. Politicians Co-opted by Foreign Governments

Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, was recently implicated for accepting a $600,000 bribe from an oil company in Azerbaijan. He is being charged with working as an agent for a foreign entity while a U.S. government official because he lobbied Congress on the company’s behalf. The bribe was tied to a money laundering scheme that cycled through a bank in Mexico. Cuellar is also being accused of attempting to weaken US money laundering rules, particularly those that would hurt Mexican banks. Frighteningly, Cuellar is the leading Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Cuellar being coopted by foreign forces is a serious national security concern. Sadly, this is just the most recent case of a foreign entity or foreign government buying influence with elected officials in the US.

Last year, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, along with his wife, was charged with accepting bribes from corporations in Egypt.

In 2013, the government-owned State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) provided $750,000 for 10 members of Congress and 32 staffers to go on a junket to Baku, the country’s capital. In addition to the all-expense-paid luxury trip, the invitees also received thousands of dollars in gifts. Among the beneficiaries of Baku’s largesse were three former top aides to President Obama.

Apart from the obvious violation of ethics and the public trust, there was a national security angle to this trip as well. At that time, SOCAR was partnered with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and they needed the US to provide exemptions from US sanctions against Iran.

In 2020-2023, Utah lawmakers became the targets of investigation when it was found that they had accepted paid trips to China and later pushed legislation that would benefit the PRC. Similar allegations were made against two Utah lawmakers who accepted trips to Qatar.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) poses the greatest and most persistent threat to US national security. Additionally, China has deep pockets, and the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is actively engaged in co-opting American officials. As far back as 1997, the FBI warned Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and five other members of Congress, that the PRC was targeting them for illegal campaign contributions funneled through foreign corporations.

The granddaddy of all foreign influence scandals involves the Biden family. In 2013, Hunter Biden traveled to China with his father, who was then vice president. On that trip, Hunter and a Chinese banker, Jonathan Li, formed a state-backed private equity fund, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR Partners). Chinese government shareholders controlled 80% of the company.

In the spring of 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. At that time, his father was leading US policy efforts toward Ukraine. Hunter Biden was paid $1 million per year, and there are allegations that his father received some of the money.

In 2015, BHR partnered with the Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to purchase an American technology company, Henniges, which manufactured dual-use components with military and civilian applications. Perhaps BHR’s most concerning investment was in China General Nuclear Power Company (CGN), a state-backed nuclear firm.

Companies controlled by Hunter Biden entered into several deals with Chinese entities, including China’s state-owned banks and other companies that had ties to the CCP. He was paid at least $4.8 million, and once again there were allegations that Joe Biden benefited from these transactions. While proving definitively that money flowed to the president may prove difficult, Hunter’s activity — funding dual-use technology, aviation, and nuclear projects in cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — raises significant national security concerns.

Some US officials make trips to foreign countries that appear unnecessary, lacking clear justification or mandate from their roles. While not directly accused of corruption, these trips seem to stretch beyond their duties and may run counter to US foreign policy objectives. Additionally, these travels, funded by US taxpayers, raise concerns about potential corruption or undisclosed agreements. This was the case with California Governor Newsom, who recently visited China; New York Mayor Eric Adams, who went to Mexico, as well as Greece and Qatar; and New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, who had trips scheduled for Dubai and Kenya. San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed also visited China, as did Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kirsten Keith.

The post Growing Trend of U.S. Politicians Co-opted by Foreign Governments appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

ISIS-K: The New Variant

Court documents showed Kandic had multiple responsibilities, including recruiting foreign fighters (ISIS photo)

On January 4, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) called for worldwide targeting of Jews and Christians, which it later claimed resulted in 610 people wounded or killed in 110 attacks across 12 countries.

Avril D. Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate panel, “The threat from ISIS remains a significant counterterrorism concern,” while noting that the majority of its attacks have been carried out by “parts of ISIS that are outside of Afghanistan.”

The main body of ISIS is active in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, but it is also absorbing other groups. In the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf has been the primary terrorist organization.

However, in 2014, a faction of Abu Sayyaf pledged allegiance to ISIS, and in 2016, a new branch was formed called ISIS-East Asia or ISEA-Philippines. ISIS also has affiliations with groups in West Africa, including factions of the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram.

An ISIS faction, the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), has been rising in infamy and is believed to be responsible for the Moscow concert attack, as well as an attack in Iran that killed 100 people. Director Haines warns that ISIS-K may be ready to launch attacks in the U.S. and the West in as little as six months.

Established in 2015, ISIS-K comprises mainly fighters from Central Asia, along with members of the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Its prominence escalated into a global jihadist organization after the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government in 2021. Named after “the Khorasan” territory, encompassing Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Central Asia, and Iran, ISIS-K aims to establish a caliphate there. It receives funding from ISIS in Syria and anti-Taliban sources in Afghanistan.

The Taliban and ISIS-K are both Islamist groups, but they have significant ideological differences. ISIS-K follows a much stricter and more violent interpretation of Islam. They see the Taliban as insufficiently extreme and have clashed with them for control of territory and influence.

Both groups seek control of Afghanistan and its resources. ISIS-K considers the Taliban’s rule as illegitimate and aims to overthrow them. This competition for power prompts some Afghans to support ISIS-K in opposition to the Taliban.

Additionally, some former Taliban members, who either disagree with the group’s leadership or perceive them as not radical enough, join or support ISIS-K. The group also exploits local grievances against the Taliban, such as perceived corruption or heavy-handed rule, to garner support.

The Taliban has been fighting against ISIS-K in Afghanistan but has been unable to eradicate the group, which is also active in Pakistan and Iran. ISIS-K has been implicated in a number of thwarted terrorist plots in Europe. Members of ISIS-K networks have been arrested in Germany and the Netherlands.

ISIS-K claimed responsibility for an attack on a Roman Catholic Church in Istanbul, resulting in one fatality. The Turkey attack highlights the observations of some terrorism experts, indicating that ISIS-K has predominantly relied on inadequately trained individuals, with many of their attacks either failing or being thwarted.

However, the group is progressively gaining experience and augmenting its capabilities through the integration of other terrorist organizations. Conversely, if ISIS-K is indeed accountable for the Moscow and Iran attacks, it signifies them as one of the most lethal terrorist organizations currently active. Both of these attacks demonstrate a significant level of planning and competence.

ISIS-K’s recruitment strategies have proven notably successful, which is evident in its rapid growth. The group targets disenchanted Muslims across South and Central Asia, capitalizing on various local grievances such as poverty, government corruption, or ethnic tensions. These grievances are woven into a singular narrative, attributing blame to external forces or weak local governments while positioning ISIS-K as the sole solution.

They employ sophisticated online propaganda, often tailored to specific regions. ISIS-K emphasizes sectarian divisions, particularly targeting Shia Muslims, to stoke anger and fuel their narrative of oppression against Muslims.

This propaganda utilizes social media and messaging apps to disseminate their message and glorify violence. They also distribute publications in local languages to reach those who may not be active online. The group provides a sense of belonging and purpose to the marginalized or isolated. They exploit feelings of hopelessness and promise an opportunity to combat perceived injustices.

ISIS-K detests Jews, Christians, Shia Muslims, Iranians, and even terrorist organizations that it deems not extreme enough, like the Taliban. Essentially, if you exist and are not a member, ISIS-K hates you and wants to kill you. With wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and looming threats from Iran, China, and Russia, the resurgence of Islamic extremist terrorism and ISIS-K presents yet another threat for America to deal with.

The post ISIS-K: The New Variant appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

China’s Interest in Gaza: Trading Israel for the Rest

The Chinese interest in the Middle East boils down to a single word: oil. China has investments in the Middle East and encourages countries to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as well as the expanded BRICS grouping. However, all of these economic and diplomatic efforts stem from a single source: China is the world’s largest importer of oil, and Beijing wants to ensure an uninterrupted and cheap supply of energy.

China has become the world’s largest consumer and importer of oil. At the same time, Xi Jinping’s vision for the People’s Republic is to surpass the US economically, militarily, and diplomatically by the year 2049. To do this, China needs unfettered access to cheap energy.

Energy plays such an important role in China’s economic rise that oil and coal consumption, as well as emissions rates, are used by China analysts as proxy measures for the general health of the Chinese economy. When energy consumption or pollution increases, the factories are churning out products, exports are up, and Beijing is raking in the cash it needs to develop more advanced weapons.

The trajectory of both the Middle East region and global affairs underwent a significant shift in the 1970s when an agreement between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia effectively gave rise to the petrodollar.

Under this agreement, Saudi Arabia committed to pricing oil in dollars and persuading other OPEC members to follow suit. In return, the US not only became a major buyer of Saudi oil but also pledged military protection, including stationing US troops within Saudi territory, as well as selling the Kingdom advanced weaponry. This arrangement served the interests of both nations, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s hostile relations with many of the countries in the region, particularly Shia-led Iran.

A lesser-known advantage Saudi Arabia gains from its agreement with the US is the privilege of purchasing US debt before it is available to other global investors. This arrangement enables the Kingdom to invest its surplus petrodollar revenues in US Treasury securities preemptively, avoiding potential price increases that may occur when other buyers enter the market. The United States, for its part, benefits from a stable source of financing.

Now that the US is no longer the most important customer in the Middle East, China sees an opening to co-opt the region, displace the US, and become the prominent geopolitical force in the region.

The ability of the US to maintain its influence in the Middle East has always hinged on its relationships with key countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, two pivotal players have consistently shaped US policy in the region: Saudi Arabia, with its significant oil production, robust economy, and formidable military; and Israel, a non-Muslim, non-Arab nation boasting stable governance, economic strength, and military prowess. Iran, with its large population, powerful military, and capacity to sway regional politics, has also emerged as a major influencer, for good or for ill.

Beijing attempted to present itself to the Middle East and the world as a peacemaker by brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. If Beijing could convince Saudi Arabia that there was no threat from Iran, the Kingdom would no longer need US military protection. Additionally, since China is now the largest purchaser of oil, it would be easier for Beijing to convince Saudi Arabia to trade in yuan rather than dollars.

Additionally, as China inches up the scales of global power, it would be in a position to convince UN members to vote to remove sanctions on Iran. This would be welcomed news to Tehran and would provide China with a stronger, although subservient partner.

The real diplomatic hat trick in the Middle East would be for the US or China to get Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel on the same side. The successful alignment of the three would redefine power balances and alliances in the Middle East and beyond. The country that manages to broker such a historic agreement would ascend to a level of hegemony unparalleled in modern geopolitics.

And Trump was off to a good start with the Abraham Accords, getting two out of three. Unfortunately, his term came to an end, and the Biden Administration allowed the whole region to catch fire once again.

China and Saudi Arabia have steadily increased their level of cooperation, and now the Kingdom has become a BRICS member. Iran is economically dependent on China, as Beijing is one of the only countries willing to flout international sanctions, becoming the largest purchaser of Iranian oil. Over the past decade, Beijing has worked to build closer ties with Israel as well as attempting to broker peace between Israel and its neighbors.

Never missing an opportunity for propaganda, Beijing blamed its inability to implement a two-state solution on US meddling and warmongering.

The Israel-Hamas conflict appears to be a turning point in China’s strategy for its relations with the three key countries. Iran, because of its role in supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, is being further ostracized from the US-led order and pushed toward Beijing.

China has not given up on courting Saudi Arabia; however, so far, the Kingdom sees no benefit in dropping the US dollar, the currency to which the Saudi Riyal is pegged and in which the majority of its oil profits of the last fifty years are invested. And no country, not even the Philippines under Duterte, has ever become so disillusioned with the US that they would allow Chinese troops on their territory.

Xi Jinping probably recognizes that he cannot negotiate a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. It seems that he has decided, instead, to cut his losses with Israel. Beijing already has a “Strategic Partnership” Agreement with the Palestinian Authority and has hinted that it would be the first country to recognize and normalize relations with an independent Palestine. By no longer trying to include Israel in its list of friends, China hopes to gain the support of the entire Muslim world. He is letting go of one country in exchange for 49 others.

The post China’s Interest in Gaza: Trading Israel for the Rest appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Middle East Charities Funding Terrorism

Within weeks of the Hamas attack on Israel, charities aligned with Hamas had already received $260 million in donations.

Over the years, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Islamic extremist groups have relied on Iran, known as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, for financial support. They employ various illicit means, including kidnapping for ransom, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and extortion, to generate funds. Additionally, Hamas benefits significantly from funding through charitable organizations, some of which are led by Hamas members or supporters. Moreover, they receive financial backing from development grants offered by Western NGOs and governments.

Since the 1980s, Islamic extremist groups have exploited the charitable sector for funding, with registered charities and nonprofit organizations in the US and UK channeling funds to extremism in various countries. The UK’s Commission for Countering Extremism found that Islamist groups took advantage of COVID-19 lockdowns and aid to expand their networks, while Western countries redirected resources from counterterrorism efforts to COVID relief.

Support is sometimes indirect, with Western-based charities serving as conduits, redirecting aid money to terrorists. Another avenue for funding is through educational, health, or other organizations under Hamas control. These sources pose challenges for authorities as they often dissolve, change names, reopen, and resume funneling money. Additionally, funds are frequently transmitted through registered banks in masked transactions or via unregistered banks or cash.

Some of the charities accused of funding terrorism include Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), KinderUSA, and Human Appeal. IRW, which operates in 40 countries as a humanitarian organization, has been removed from the charities pages of numerous global media outlets, and banks like HSBC have closed its accounts. In 2020, the EU Parliament discovered links between IRW and Islamic terrorist organizations. Consequently, IRW has been banned in Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Bangladesh. Senior members of IRW have posted antisemitic content on Facebook, as well as support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite these allegations, the UN has continued to fund Islamic Relief.

Many charities currently supporting terrorists were originally established to fund the Mujahideen, who fought to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Afghanistan plunged into civil war, marked by clashes between various Mujahideen factions and the collapse of central authority. Amid this instability, some Mujahideen factions transformed into or aligned with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Notably, prominent Qataris have been identified by the US Treasury for aiding the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari charities have also raised tens of millions of dollars for Hamas over the past two decades.

Americans, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have also contributed funds to Al-Qaeda, with some of these transactions being processed through money service businesses (MSBs). Individuals in the United States have been arrested for providing financial support to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda, through charitable donations intended to aid widows and orphans. Additionally, Americans have faced indictments for transferring cryptocurrency to a terrorist group known as al-Nusra Front (ANF), which operated in Syria and Lebanon.

Terrorist financing has evolved from exploiting legitimate charities and establishing fraudulent ones to leveraging various online funding methods, including crowdfunding and online fundraisers. These groups also seek financial support from donors, whether knowingly or unknowingly, who contribute to their cause. Following a Hamas attack on Israel last October, supporters worldwide quickly established crowdfunding platforms to solicit charitable or humanitarian donations for Gaza. The US Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an independent inter-governmental body combating money laundering and terrorist financing, has found evidence of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaeda utilizing crowdfunding.

Terrorist organizations have increasingly turned to cryptocurrency and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) to transfer funds anonymously across international borders. The US Treasury Department has designated a Gaza-based VASP called Buy Cash Money and Money Transfer Company, which has been found to fund Hamas and other terrorist groups.

To counter terrorism funding, the Department of Justice and the FBI established the Financial Review Group (FRG), an inter-agency organization that includes the CIA, DEA, elements of the Treasury Department, and others. The FRG has frozen millions of dollars flowing to various terrorist-linked charities, including Al-Barakaat, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation. Additionally, numerous individuals associated with these organizations and their funding have been arrested.

In the United States, Canada, the UK, and the European Union, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization, making funding Hamas a criminal offense. Authorities have the power to shut down organizations that raise money for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. These regulations should apply to any organization supporting designated terrorist groups. By this reasoning, the UN could be implicated for its support of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). Similarly, one could argue that the Biden administration and other governments are also complicit for providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, which flows directly to Hamas.

The post Middle East Charities Funding Terrorism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.