Archive for August 1, 2017

Congressional Investigation Into Wasserman Schultz IT Scandal Moves Forward

August 1, 2017

Congressional Investigation Into Wasserman Schultz IT Scandal Moves Forward, Washington Free Beacon, , August 1, 2017

SUNRISE, FL – MAY 11: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) speaks with the media after she held a meeting with immigration advocacy group leaders met on May 11, 2017 in Sunrise, Florida. The round table meeting was held to address the growing concern about President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders and the increase in detentions and deportations of immigrants. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The scandal is said to have rocked the halls of Congress, despite little mainstream media coverage, sources said.

*****************************

Congress is advancing an investigation into a growing scandal surrounding IT staffers working for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), who are accused of stealing sensitive computer equipment from House lawmakers’ offices, according to senior congressional sources who told the Washington Free Beacon the Democratic leader’s refusal to answer questions could “merit resignation.”

Congressional leaders have now requested a formal briefing by Capitol Police into its investigation of several Pakistani House IT staffers who are accused of stealing sensitive computer equipment and of illegally penetrating congressional networks.

Imran Awan, one of the staffers who worked for Wasserman Schultz and several other Democratic members of Congress, was arrested this week when trying to travel to Pakistan and charged with bank fraud after a months-long investigation that found he wired nearly $300,000 to that country. Several other staffers tied to Awan are the focus of an investigation into claims they stole sensitive equipment and illegally penetrated the House IT network.

Leading members of Congress are growing frustrated with the pace of the criminal investigation and have moved to conduct their own independent prove into the scandal, according to multiple sources who indicated that the relevant congressional committees are making moves to start an investigation, which could include compelling testimony from Wasserman Schultz, who has been accused of stonewalling on the issue.

As more information about the nature and scope of the IT staffers’ collection of privileged congressional information becomes public, lawmakers are seeking to immediately begin their own investigation into the situation.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Oversight Committee and chair of its National Security Subcommittee, formally requested a briefing from the Capitol Police on Tuesday, telling the Free Beacon that the situation amounts to “one of the all-time congressional scandals in the last 30 years.”

Other senior congressional sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation described Wasserman Schultz’s lack of cooperation in the investigation as unsettling, and said that her continued payments to these staffers even after evidence of their illegal activity became public may merit her resignation.

“I’m pushing very heard to get a full briefing from Capitol Police as soon as possible,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon. “There’s clearly criminal elements to this and I think there will be more going on. There’s probably going to be ethics issues on why these [taxpayer] funds were spent that [Wasserman Schultz] and others will have to deal with.”

“We have to know what happened now and we can’t wait for a criminal case to be done,” DeSantis added. “We need an immediate briefing from the Capitol Police.”

The congressional investigation into the matter is likely to be helmed by the House Committee on Administration, which has jurisdiction over these issues, in conjunction with House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) office, according to sources apprised of the situation.

The scandal is said to have rocked the halls of Congress, despite little mainstream media coverage, sources said.

“The extent of the potential breaches has been made more clear” in recent weeks, according to one senior congressional source who would only speak on background when discussing the sensitive matter. “The inexplicable nature of the conduct of Wassermann Schultz and others has broadened” congressional interest.

Lawmakers are confused as to why Wasserman Schultz continued paying Awan and other staffers implicated in the breach for several months after this information came to light.

“At best for her that is gross misapplication of public funds that could merit resignation alone,” the source said. “There’s got to be more to that story.”

The accused staffers are believed to have had access to sensitive intelligence information related to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as lawmaker’s personal information, prompting concerns the breach could be far deeper than initially suspected.

Lawmakers such as DeSantis and others have become increasingly interested in questioning Wasserman Schultz about the situation and her behavior.

“Yes, we could ask for her [Wasserman Schultz] to testify” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), told the Free Beacon late last week.

Gohmert described the situation as “incredible” and troubling given these staffers’ access to privileged information on the internal House computer network.

“You don’t have to be all that great at hacking to hack into almost anyone’s email and calendar,” Gohmert said. He noted this information is not classified or privileged because it pertains to official congressional business.

LISTEN Leaked intern AUDIO of Jared Kushner: We “got the Israelis to take down the different forms of surveillance” – Geller Report

August 1, 2017

By – on August 1, 2017

Source: LISTEN Leaked intern AUDIO of Jared Kushner: We “got the Israelis to take down the different forms of surveillance” – Geller Report

So now we know. The Trump administration forced Israel to remove security measures from the Temple Mount after the slaughter of Israeli police officers. Terrorism wins. Shame on Trump.

A couple of quick items: are senior members of the Trump administration so clueless that they allow phones or recording equipment into an off the record meeting? Worse still, the meeting was prefaced by a leak advisory. Concern was expressed at the outset of the meeting about leaking information from the very meeting the leaked audio came from.

Was it a White House intern who leaked it? Congressional? Which Congressman/woman?

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

So what precautions did these clowns take?

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

We now know it was Trump pressure that forced the Israelis to remove gun detectors from the Temple Mount after a jihadi opened fire and killed two Israeli policemen there.

Jared Kushner spoke to congressional interns during an off-the-record summer series on Monday, and may have shared some insider information on how he negotiates with the Middle East.

A recording of Kushner’s Q&A session with interns obtained by WIRED reveals answers the adviser gave relative to his handling peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians — including a moment where he offered the admission that “there may be no solution” regarding the Middle East conflict.

In his White House role, Kushner has been tasked with spearheading Middle East peace negotiations, revamping the government’s technology systems and looking at criminal justice reform and the opioid crisis as well. The Middle East, though, has been Kushner’s most publicly time-consuming duty — and has sent him to Iraq, Ramallah and Jerusalem since January.

The inherently delicate nature of foreign policy discussions involving Palestine and Israel makes discussing this subject with anyone without proper security clearance a tricky task. Before he began speaking, Deputy staff director Member Services, Outreach & Communications Katie Patru offered a warning to the assembled audience.

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

Here are a few highlights from the transcript of Jared Kushner’s remarks WIRED provided:

“…I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.”

“So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”
breaking-news logo

Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.negotiates with the Middle East.

A recording of Kushner’s Q&A session with interns obtained by WIRED reveals answers the adviser gave relative to his handling peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians — including a moment where he offered the admission that “there may be no solution” regarding the Middle East conflict.

In his White House role, Kushner has been tasked with spearheading Middle East peace negotiations, revamping the government’s technology systems and looking at criminal justice reform and the opioid crisis as well. The Middle East, though, has been Kushner’s most publicly time-consuming duty — and has sent him to Iraq, Ramallah and Jerusalem since January.

The inherently delicate nature of foreign policy discussions involving Palestine and Israel makes discussing this subject with anyone without proper security clearance a tricky task. Before he began speaking, Deputy staff director Member Services, Outreach & Communications Katie Patru offered a warning to the assembled audience.

“This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them,” Patru said. “If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

Kushner discussed in detail the U.S.’s dealings in working with Israel and Palestine after two Israeli guards were killed at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Kushner noted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got “beaten up” in the press after metal detectors were placed at the entrance — which he referred to as “not an irrational thing to do.”
AdChoices

“So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with,” Kushner revealed. “And we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.”

Here are a few highlights from the transcript of Jared Kushner’s remarks WIRED provided:

“…I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.”

“So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”

Wired here:

On Monday, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner spoke to a group of congressional interns as part of an ongoing, off-the-record summer lecture series. During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Kushner may have inadvertently offered some insight into the negotiating tactics he is using in the Middle East.

Prior to Kushner’s talk, Katie Patru, the deputy staff director for member services, outreach, and communications, told the assembled interns, “To record today’s session would be such a breach of trust, from my opinion. This town is full of leakers and everyone knows who they are, and no one trusts them. In this business your reputation is everything. I’ve been on the Hill for 15 years. I’ve sat in countless meetings with members of congress where important decisions were being made. During all those years in all those meetings, I never once leaked to a reporter…. If someone in your office has asked you to break our protocol and give you a recording so they can leak it, as a manager, that bothers me at my core.”

WIRED has obtained a recording of Kushner’s talk, which lasted for just under an hour in total.

The speech—which was peppered with self-deprecating jokes, as reported by Foreign Policy—offered a rare insight into the man who President Trump has tasked with criminal justice reform, managing the opioid crisis, updating the government’s technological systems, and creating peace in the Middle East, among other tasks. It’s the latter, though, that’s both the most deeply personal for Kushner (a staunch supporter of Israel) and that prompted him to embark on his longest, most rambling answer during yesterday’s question-and-answer session.

While the recording doesn’t catch the entirety of the question, it appears to have centered on how Kushner plans to negotiate peace between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as why he believes he’ll be successful where every other administration has failed. He doesn’t directly answer either question, but he does reveal that, in his extensive research, he’s learned that “not a whole lot has been accomplished over the last 40 or 50 years.” He also notes that he’s spoken to “a lot of people,” which has taught him that “this is a very emotionally charged situation.”

Later in the clip, Kushner expresses frustration at others’ attempts to teach him about the delicate situation he’s been inserted into, saying, “Everyone finds an issue, that ‘you have to understand what they did then’ and ‘you have to understand that they did this.’ But how does that help us get peace? Let’s not focus on that. We don’t want a history lesson. We’ve read enough books. Let’s focus on: How do you come up with a conclusion to the situation?” He then goes on to lament the press’s treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a family friend who he’s known since childhood.

Kushner’s dismissal of the nuances of the conflict has already been an issue. Last month, when Kushner met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Palestinian official told Haaretz that Kushner “sounded like Netanyahu’s advisers and not like fair arbiters” and that they were “greatly disappointed” after the meeting. Abbas himself was “reportedly furious.”

Finally, Kushner closed with the following statement of reassurance: “So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.”

You can read and listen to Kushner’s answer in its entirety below. WIRED has reached out to the White House for comment, and will update if and when we receive a response.


So first of all, this is one of the ones I was asked to take on, and I did with this something that I do with every problem set you get. Which is you try to study the historical context to understand how something got to where it is, who was successful, and who wasn’t successful. And you try to [unintelligible] is research it and look at the conventional sources but also try to get some unconventional sources as well. And what I’ve determined from looking at it is that not a whole lot has been accomplished over the last 40 or 50 years we’ve been doing this.

And the other thing about it I’d say is that the variables haven’t been changed much, so at some point it’s just one of those things where you kind of have to just pick and choose where you draw conclusion. But that was the other observation I had.

The third one is that I have tried to look at why people haven’t been successful in the negotiations, so I looked and studied all the different negotiations. I spoke to a lot of people who have have been part of them, and I think the reason why is that this is a very emotionally charged situation. Look at what happened this past 10 days—a lot of seemingly logical measures taken on the different [unintelligible] part somehow became a little bit incendiary. But we were able to calm it down by having a lot of really great dialogue between Jordan and the Palestinian authority and the Israelis.

I’d say what makes me hopeful about it is the fact that, a) we’ve had two achievements so far that I think are actually quite noteworthy, which I’ll talk about in a second. The reason why we haven’t been able to do that is the trust that we have with all sides. So if you’ve noticed about this conflict, and [unintelligible] nothing’s leaked out. So nothing has leaked out which I think gives the parties more trust, and more ability to really express and share their viewpoints. And ultimately, if you do a deal that when somebody had to compromise somewhere—all right so there’s a stated set of positions on one side. There’s a stated set of positions on the other side. And there’s a lot of viewpoints all around that people have, which may or may not be conducive to a solution. So I think you need to be able to probe people in private for them to have the confidence that it’s not going to be used against them, and that it’s not going to leak out in the press, which would be very, very hurtful. That’s been a big advantage, which has allowed us to really have a lot of very interesting conversations.

So the two successes that we’ve had so far is—I don’t know if you’re familiar with the deal we’ve had on the water with the Jordanians and the Israelis and the Palestinians—so I was saying that they’ve talked about in concept for a lot of years where [unintelligible] and we were able to figure out how we were going to negotiate a solution which simply [unintelligible] talking for a very, very long time. But again, that happened just because we’re talking to all sides. We don’t let them get caught in the past.

You know everyone finds an issue, that, “You have to understand what they did then,” and “You have to understand that they did this.” But how does that help us get peace? Let’s not focus on that. We don’t want a history lesson. We’ve read enough books. Let’s focus on how do you come up with a conclusion to the situation. That was one thing that we achieved, which we were quite happy about—which is, you know, small thing, but it’s actually a pretty big thing over there. But something that we thought was a pretty big step.

The other thing was working through, in this past week, it really showed us how quickly things can ignite in our history, and you have some people who don’t want to see and achieve an outcome of peace. And other people sometimes thrive in the chaos, and they thrive [unintelligible] and that’s not new to politics and its not new to that conflict. It’s just the way it is, and you always have people on all sides [unintelligible] .

And again, all these people make arguments about why they feel the way they do. So as tensions were really mounting, I don’t know if everyone is familiar, but there were two people—two Israeli guards killed at the Temple Mount (and that’s the first time in many, many, many years that that happened, so Israelis [unintelligible] putting up metal detectors on the Temple Mount, which is not an irrational thing to do. You know when you have—police officers were just killed, and weapons that were used to [unintelligible] the weapons to check them—so then what happens is they start inciting it.

They say look, you know, this is a change to the status quo. The Temple Mount is a [unintelligible] occupation of Israel, and Israel was saying we don’t want anything to do with that, we just want to make sure people are safe. And that really incited a lot of tension in the streets.

So we’re going to work with them [unintelligible] to take down the metal detectors there, and then I think one of the Palestinians’ religious leaders was saying, “If you go through the metal detectors, then your prayers don’t count.” And that is not a very helpful thing to have said. And then there was a lot of rage. And there was an Israeli family that three people killed in their home, which was absolutely terrible. You know, so, “I’m going to do this to free the Temple Mount.” So ultimately we were able to work with them, and we were able to get the Israelis to take down to the different forms of surveillance that the Jordanians were okay with, and we talked with the Palestinians the whole time to try to get their viewpoint on it.

And then ultimately they said, “Okay, we took down the metal detectors but there’s still a bridge up somewhere.” And they said, “Okay, we’ll take that down, too.” And so Bibi was getting beaten up by the press in Israel, because that was very politically unpopular for him to do. At the same time we got a situation in Jordan where an Israeli security diplomat in Jordan was attacked by two Jordanian men, and in self-defense he killed the attackers. So then it worked out where the Jordanians got the Israelis to accept their people from the embassy back to Israel.

[Unintelligible]

My point is that these things are very, very combustible, and very, very delicate in terms of how you can do, but I think the fact that all these conversations were all done in quiet and nothing leaked out [unintelligible]. But I think we were able to keep things quiet. But I mean, any day something could happen.

So, what do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know… I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically. We’re thinking about what the right end state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.

Europe: The Censored Film They Do Not Want You to See

August 1, 2017

by Stefan Frank
August 1, 2017 at 4:00 am

Source: Europe: The Censored Film They Do Not Want You to See

  • The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film.
  • The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis; it is about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations.
  • “France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out. The filmmakers… exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.” — Jean Patrick Grumberg, a journalist at the French-language news website Dreuz.

A Franco-German film that no one in Europe is legally allowed to see has become the source of a major scandal, and its creators the targets of unprecedented smear and hate campaigns from Germany’s public broadcasters.

At the center of the scandal is one of Europe’s biggest media companies, the Westdeutsche Rundfunk (WDR) — with 4,500 employees and an annual budget of 1.4 billion euros — and the Franco-German culture channel, ARTE.

The television documentary, “Chosen and Excluded – the Hate for Jews in Europe”, will be shown in the United States for one night only, on August 9. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles announced that it would screen the film after the German and French networks tried “to bury the documentary, before it could contaminate the viewing public with the truth,” according to the Center’s Associate Dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, in an interview with Gatestone Institute. “It is a film that needs to be viewed by anyone concerned about anti-Semitism and anyone concerned about the democratic future of Europe. It is a truth-telling, and ‘PC’-busting documentary”, he said.

The truth is that in today’s Europe, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell the truth.

ARTE had commissioned the film with the support of the WDR, but is now seeking to hide it. The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis, but about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations. Initially, it was said that the film was “a provocation”, that it “fans the flames”, and that “because of the terror situation in France, it cannot be broadcast.”

Later, “technical journalistic shortcomings” were cited as the reason why the film could not be released from the hazardous materials closet.

Murderers of Jews as Honorary Citizens

ARTE, as part of its programming, broadcasts films such as “The Little Stone Thrower of Silwan” — a report sympathizing with sweet Arab children in Jerusalem who just want to make their neighborhood “Jew-free”.

Would the station ever show a serious film about anti-Semitism?, Gatestone asked the journalist Jean Patrick Grumberg, of the French-language news site Dreuz. Grumberg replied:

“France is a country in which Communist mayors celebrate Palestinian murderers of Jews as honorary citizens. If the directors of ARTE France had even been suspected of harboring pro-Israel or conservative sentiments, they never would never have been hired. Being radical, though, is welcomed.”

According to Grumberg, journalists in France are “almost unanimously anti-Israel.” Anyone who is pro-Israel must conceal it, or deal with the threat of repercussions.

“In this incredible environment, the TV channels France Television and ARTE are the worst among the Islamo-liberals. Initially, the French program management team refused even to countenance the production of a documentary about anti-Semitism in Europe because they were well aware that Muslim antisemitism would come up — a subject that is taboo in France, especially among those on the Left and in the media.

“You have to bear in mind that France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out.”

ARTE Germany, however, was prepared to implement the project. But, says Grumberg, ARTE then learned that the filmmakers, Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner, “had taken this farther than merely condemning the hatred of Jews among European Muslims.”

“The filmmakers had conducted research on the anti-Israel agitation by NGOs financed by the European Union, and exposed the fictitious media narrative by investigating whether there were any grounds for the allegations against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. There were none. They exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.”

Censorship and Smear Campaign

As soon as the two broadcasters became aware of the film’s contents, they severed all contact with the filmmakers. Since then, they have been publicly maligning the work.

The responsible WDR editor, who had accepted the film as being in accordance with the contract, faced such an amount of hostility, harassment and mobbing by her colleagues that she chose”early retirement“. It was only in the face of great opposition that the film was publicly screened twice — and then only after enormous pressure. Historians and journalists who saw the film published newspaper articles calling for its release. The Central Council of Jews in Germany also backed that call. The premiere of the film, however, on June 13, was actually illegal. Germany’s largest and most popular tabloid, BILD, streamed the original version on its website for 24 hours, without the permission of WDR. (The film was posted by someone on YouTube, before being blocked.) Subsequently, the debate on censorship became so heated that the WDR felt it had to broadcast the film.

The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film. They were to read the “ostensibly necessary additions and explanations” on the WDR website — a “fact check” consisting of 30 texts. In one example, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas claimed, falsely, in a speech to the European Parliament:

“It was just a week ago that Israeli rabbis issued a clear statement: They demanded that their government poison the water in order to kill Palestinians.”

From this, according to WDR, one should not “deduce the assertion” that “Abbas’s speech was part of a tradition that since the Middle Ages has alleged that Jews were poisoning the wells,” since: “after all, Abbas is not talking about ‘wells’ here.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas receives a standing ovation at the European Parliament in Brussels, after falsely claiming in his speech that Israeli rabbis were calling to poison Palestinian water. Abbas later recanted and admitted that his claim had been false. (Image source: European Parliament)

The anti-Semitic NGO Business

The film also accurately shows that several church organizations support trying to destroy Israel through economic means, by boycotting people and products. The WDR claims that this assertion is wrong, and as evidence, cites statements put out by these organizations, rejecting any association with a boycott movement. However, it is WDR’s claim that is the lie. The organization NGO Monitor, which calls for transparency in the Israeli NGO sector, substantiated the lie in a comprehensive response to the “Fact Check”:

“The NGO farce is finally being unmasked,” according to Olga Deutsch, director of the Europe desk at NGO Monitor in a telephone interview.

“Civil society is necessary and crucial, but the NGOs are granted such huge sums of money and so much power to work in one of the most fragile and conflict-ridden regions of the world, with absolutely no requirement for transparency and accountability. Among other things, the film also demonstrates this.”

There had already been a similar debate in Germany in early 2015, when Tuvia Tenenbom’s book, Catch the Jew, was published in German. In this report on his trip to Israel, the author also described the anti-Semitism of many European-funded NGOs in Israel, and exposes, for instance, the chief investigator of the organization B’Tselem, which is financed by the European Union, among others, as a holocaust-denier. In an interview with Gatestone, Tenenbom said:

“The European ‘elites’ are far more antisemitic than the average Muslim. What the Europeans are doing in Israel is nothing but the continuation of the Nazi theology of the past — using the NGOs to finish the job that their grandparents did not get to complete in World War II.”

“Parisian Intifada”

Towards the end of the film, several Jews are interviewed in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles. A boy of about 13 years old says: “I dream of making aliyah [moving to Israel] and fighting in the Israeli army.” In an interview with Gatestone, one of the film’s authors, Joachim Schroeder, recounts:

“We asked the boy if he had any experience with the invading mob of hooligans, and how he feels in everyday life here in Sarcelles. If I had to deal with this day in and day out, I would also say: I want to get out of here.”

The original soundtrack from the film documents an attack in Sarcelles, complete with images of demolished cars and store windows, by “pro-Palestinian activists” in July 2014:

Until the summer of 2014, Sarcelles was considered to be a model of functioning multiculturalism. Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side and together in city districts with 60,000 inhabitants. Then came Sunday, July 20, 2014. “Palestine: Come armed with mortars, fire extinguishers and clubs, come in large numbers, we’re going to gang up on the Jewish district of Sarcelles,” is what it says in one of many exhortations. More than 3,000 demonstrators show up. Molotov cocktails fly against the synagogue. Policemen prevent the storming of the area. The crowd screams: “Death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right”. The violent mob plunders a pharmacy run by Jews and a kosher supermarket. Both are set on fire. The police talk about a “Parisian Intifada”.

For Jewish adolescents who had experienced “anti-Semitism from their very birth”, it was a form of “redemption to go to Israel“, says François Pupponi, the socialist mayor of Sarcelles in an interview in the film:

French Jews feel that they have no future in France, that they have to leave their country to be able to live safely and in peace. But to tell them that they are wrong is also not the right thing to do. I tell them that they are right. But then I appeal to them to stay. Because if they leave, France is dead. Why? Because if a Jew cannot live by his faith here, then this secular republic, with our world-famous idea of religious freedom, no longer exists.

Anti-Semitism as Mainstream

The scandal surrounding the film shows how things really are in terms of the culture and freedom of expression in Europe. “The WDR ranks among those whom we criticize in this film,” says Schroeder. “Up to that point, one could only speculate about this [anti-Semitism], but the way they dealt with this broadcast made it very clear.”

Anti-Semitism in Europe does not come from fringe groups. It is primarily left-wing liberals — “intellectuals” — who fuel the hatred. At the end of the film, retired Parisian police commissioner Sammy Ghozlan, a Jew who fled to France from Algeria, says:

“I am convinced that the Arabs in France would never have turned to violence against the Jews if they had not been convinced by others that it was their duty to demonstrate their solidarity with their coreligionists in Palestine. Otherwise, they would never have done that. They were persuaded that this was necessary. And since some of those who hold power, mayors or ministers, took the liberty of doing such a thing, for them, it justified the attacks so they supported them.”

“That is one of the key messages of our film,” Joachim Schroeder said to Gatestone. “Who was it that encouraged them to do this? It was not just their brothers and sisters; it was the French and German mainstream.”

Stefan Frank is a journalist and author based in Germany.

 

The Federal Program Funding Hamas Supporters on College Campuses

August 1, 2017

The Federal Program Funding Hamas Supporters on College Campuses, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 1, 2017

When President Trump presented his budget, he defunded Title VI from $72 million to zero. But it’s up to Congress to make it happen.

What’s Title VI?

Title VI of the Higher Education Act set out to fund international studies that would promote our national security. But on many campuses, Title VI centers undermine our national security by supporting Islamic terrorists.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act mandated that Title VI centers reflect a “wide range of views”. Instead when it comes to the Middle East, Title VI centers have only one point of view.

Title VI centers are the organizing points for Islamist and anti-Israel activities on college campuses.  The attacks on Jewish speakers and students, the BDS resolutions and terror support begin with Title VI. So do the pro-Hamas speakers who spew hatred on campuses across America.

Instead of a wide range of views, 6 Title VI Middle Eastern studies directors have backed an academic boycott of Israel. Not only do they not promote a range of views, but they suppress pro-Israel views.

Title VI faculty play a crucial role in supporting campus hate groups from SJP to JVP to MSA. And Title VI material then finds its way from colleges into school classrooms.

All of this hatred is funded by taxpayers. But it doesn’t have to be.

Rep. Grothman, joined by Rep. Allen, Rep. Garrett and Rep. Lamborn are trying to defund Title VI and move funding over to the National Security Education Program (NSEP).  But they face an uphill battle.

Defunding Title VI would do a great deal to neutralize the ugliness and hatred on campuses.

Take the Center for Near East Studies at UCLA. The Center is busy touting a faculty member’s attack on Trump. The faculty includes Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, a leading authority on Sharia Islamic law, whom Daniel Pipes named a “stealth Islamist.” El Fadl provided an “Affidavit of Support” for top Hamas terrorist Abu Marzook. He donated to and defended the Holy Land Foundation: a Hamas front group.

In more recent articles, Abou El Fadl has defended Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. He distinguished between “countries and movements adhering to ideologies of resistance” including “Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas” in contrast to the “moderate” appeasers of America and Israel.

“Why is Saudi Arabia so hostile to political Islam movements such as Hamas, Hizbullah, or the Muslim Brotherhood?” El Fadl asks. And the answer is that the Saudis have become “westernized and secular”.

El Fadl has been touted as a moderate because he criticizes the Wahhabis. But his criticism is not moderate, but Jihadist. He complains that Wahhabis care more about whether a Muslim woman wears a veil than “about the invasions of Iraq, Gaza, or the fate of Jerusalem.”

Should Title VI be in the business of funding centers that echo Osama bin Laden?

“Israel wants to destroy Hamas because Israel wants to continue controlling the fate of Palestinians, neutralizing their nationalism and ideological foundations, and breaking their will to resist,” El Fadl rants.

Should Title VI be in the business of funding Hamas propaganda?

But you don’t have to be an Islamist at the Center for Near East Studies to hate Israel and defend the terrorists.

Take Gabriel Piterberg, the Center’s former director. Piterberg has been at the center of a firestorm, not over his support for terrorists, but over allegations that UCLA officials had attempted to cover up accusations that he had tried to shove his tongue into the mouths of two female grad students.

Piterberg was forced to resign as director of the Center for Near East Studies, but is still on staff.

Gabriel Piterberg backs an academic boycott of Israel and associates with Students for Justice in Palestine. He appeared at a American Muslims for Palestine event. AMP has links to Hamas. He has described Islamic terrorist attacks on Israel as “a frightening piece of consciousness raising.”

Sexual harassment and contempt for the victims of terrorism are all part of the Title VI package.

Piterberg appeared at a Center for Near Eastern Studies event on a panel with Richard Falk. The Gaza and Human Rights symposium came complete with chants of “Zionism is Nazism” and F___ Israel”. Falk is a 9/11 Truther and a fan of the Ayatollah Khomeini who has supported domestic terrorism. His ugly behavior was so extreme that he was condemned by the UN Secretary General.

Falk had described the Boston Marathon bombings as “blowback” to “American global domination.” He was on good terms with an anti-Israel activist had written a book in which he wondered whether “Hitler might have been right.”

A UCLA conference organized by Piterberg included Falk and the latter had been present at a number of CNES events. That is a truly notable accomplishment for a man who had been condemned by the United States government even while it kept on funding Title VI. But that is what Title VI gets you.

UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies is notorious, but it’s not unique.

“For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity,” explained Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

The Islamic Studies professor was justifying Islamic sex slavery.

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he had claimed in the past. And, he asserted, “It’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”

The School of Foreign Service has been a recipient of Title VI funding.

John Esposito, a professor at the School of Foreign Service, testified on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation’s money men for Hamas. Esposito has defended some terrorist attacks by Hamas. He complained that, “despite HAMAS’ victory in free and democratic elections, the United States and Europe failed to give the party full recognition and support.”

Georgetown’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies is Title VI supported. Elliot Colla, who is affiliated with the Center, signed on to a letter claiming that Hamas’ “missile assault was in direct response to Israel’s terrifying the entire population of the West Bank”. Fida Adely, of the Center, pushes BDS and has denounced Israel for raids on Hamas. At a Center event, George Mason University professor Noura Erakat complained that Israel was indiscriminately targeting Hamas people.

These are a few examples out of many. The Freedom Center, the Amcha Initiative, the Canary Mission, Stand With Us, and a great number of other groups have been battling campus anti-Semitism.

This is an opportunity to make a difference.

Defenders of Title VI claim that it will help us fight terrorism. But how can Title VI help us fight terrorism when it promotes terrorism?

While we fight terrorists abroad, Title VI spreads terror at home.

Title VI has become an outlet for anti-Semitism and for anti-American propaganda on campus. If we can change that, then we will send a message that the college campus is no place for terrorists and bigots.

“The Battle over Jerusalem Has Just Begun”

August 1, 2017

“The Battle over Jerusalem Has Just Begun” Gatestone Institute, Bassam Tawil, August 1, 2017

(Please see also, Israel’s public diplomacy challenge. — DM)

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

They admit that this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians have added it up just right. In their own words, they aim at an escalation of violence because they believe that what Israel did is the first step toward even more concessions and even further retreat.

The Palestinian “victory” celebrations that took place after Israel removed metal detectors and surveillance cameras from the entrances to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem bode badly for the future of stability and peace in the Middle East.

To the Palestinians and many Arabs and Muslims, the Israeli move is viewed as a sign of weakness. In their eyes, the removal of the security cameras and metal detectors is capitulation, pure and simple.

How do we know this? Easy: look at the Palestinian response. Rather than acknowledging the conciliatory nature of the Israeli government’s decision, aimed at easing tensions and preventing bloodshed and violence, the Palestinians are demanding more.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the controversy over the Israeli security measures at the Temple Mount, which came after three terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers at the holy site on July 14, is part of a larger battle with Israel.

We have reached a new level in this discourse: Palestinian Authority (PA) officials are now openly admitting that it is not the metal detectors or security cameras that are at issue.

Instead, they admit, this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

No one explained this Palestinian position better than the PA foreign minister, Riad Malki, who announced on July 27 that the Palestinians consider the Israeli decision to dismantle the metal detectors and security cameras as surrender. He also confirmed what many Israeli and Palestinian political analysts have been saying for the past few weeks — that the conflict over Israel’s security measures was merely an excuse used by the Palestinians to force Israel to make political and territorial concessions.

In a speech before the Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Malki explained: “The issue is not metal detectors or cameras, but who is in charge and who has sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Malki went on to explain that the Palestinians do not see the recent conflict as a security issue, but rather as a purely political matter. “The battle over Jerusalem has just begun,” he said, adding that the wave of Palestinian protests over the Israeli security measures had succeeded in “thwarting” Israel’s “conspiracy” to change the historical and legal status quo at the Temple Mount.

Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki (pictured above in 2009) said last week in a speech: “The issue is not metal detectors or cameras, but who is in charge and who has sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque… The battle over Jerusalem has just begun.” (Image source: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

We are witnessing a rare moment of truth from the PA foreign minister, in which, ironically, he refutes claims by many in the international community and media to the effect that the recent conflict was sparked by metal detectors and surveillance cameras.

The Palestinian protests that came in response to the security measures indicated that it was more about hating Israel and trying to force it to its knees than about the removal of metal detectors and cameras. During these protests, especially at the entrances to the Temple Mount, Palestinians chanted slogans that included threats to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

“We are marching toward Al-Aqsa (Mosque), and we will sacrifice millions of martyrs,” was one of the chants at the protests, which were led by top Palestinian religious and political leaders. Another chant: “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaish Mohammed sa yaoud” (“Khaybar Khaybar O’ Jews, the army of Mohammed will return”) — a reference to the Battle of Khaybar in the year 628 between Prophet Mohammed and his followers against the Jews living in the oasis of Khaybar. The Jews were forced to surrender after being slaughtered and were thereafter permitted to live in Khaybar on condition that they give half of their produce to Muslims. The protesters also chanted slogans calling on Hamas’s military wing, Ezaddin Al-Qassam, to launch terror attacks against Israel.

For the most part, the foreign journalists covering the protests did not perceive these chants as intimidating or anti-Semitic. The protests were largely reported in a positive sense as peaceful “civil disobedience.” This is precisely the rhetoric, however, that fuels the Palestinian fire to take to the streets and hurl stones and petrol bombs at Israeli police officers and civilians.

Eighteen-year-old Omar Al-Abed, however, is one Palestinian who paid careful attention to such rhetoric. On July 22, he stormed the home of a Jewish family in Halamish, in the West Bank, and stabbed to death a grandfather and his son and daughter during a dinner to celebrate the birth of a grandchild. Shortly before setting out on his murderous mission, Al-Abed posted a note on his Facebook page in which he echoed many of the slogans from the protests, and went further by describing Jews as “sons of pigs and monkeys.”

The carnage in Halamish was perpetrated by a single Palestinian. Perhaps he acted alone, without having been indoctrinated to murder Jews and without communal support for doing so? Well, let us check: how did the Palestinian street react to his murderous rampage? How did Al-Abed’s own mother respond? The terrorist’s mother was filmed handing out sweets to visitors in celebration of her son’s decision to take the lives of the three Jews. “I’m proud of my son because he has raised our heads high,” she declared.

Perhaps the pride in the terrorist was simply a local affair? No, even that hope is smashed: as many Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, took to the streets to celebrate the brutal murder, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh phoned the terrorist’s father to tell him, “Your son brought pride to the nation.”

The Halamish bloodshed brought intense pride to the terrorist’s mother, to those around her, and to the Palestinian world at large.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who never misses an opportunity to paint himself as a peacemaker par excellence, chose to remain quiet about the murder. Make no mistake: his loud silence over the Halamish terror attack is being interpreted by many Palestinians as an act of condoning the murder of three Jews. Whether condoning the atrocity or terrified of his own people, one thing is certain: Abbas and most Palestinian leaders have trained the Palestinians well. When they smell Jewish blood, they attack.

This is precisely what is going on in the Temple Mount mayhem.

Now that Israel has complied with their demands regarding the security measures, Palestinians feel more emboldened than ever. Murder and incitement, in their case, does indeed pay. They got away with the murder of the two police officers at the Temple Mount; they got away with the murder of the three family members in Halamish, and, in their view, they also got away with the recent violent protests and incitement against Israel.

Buoyed by the Israeli “capitulation,” the Palestinians are now talking about a “historic victory” over Israel. They are boasting that they have twisted Israel’s arm and forced it to “retreat.” Palestinian cartoonists and commentators have expressed similar sentiments, arguing that the removal of the metal detectors and security cameras is largely the result of their violence, terrorism and threats.

Once again, an Israeli gesture is being misinterpreted by the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims as weakness. This sort of deliberate misreading is far from new. Yet every time it occurs, it sets the stage for another cycle of violence. The result of Israeli conciliation is invariably Palestinian violence.

The Palestinians have added it up just right. In their own words, they aim at an escalation of violence because they believe that what Israel did is the first step toward even more concessions and even further retreat.

Bassam Tawil is an Arab Muslim based in the Middle East.

IT Intrigue at the DNC

August 1, 2017

IT Intrigue at the DNC, Front Page MagazineLloyd Billingsley, August 1, 2017

Awan’s lawyer, Christopher Gowen, explains that the accusations are “the product of an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job targeting his client and his client’s family.” 

Imagine a Russian-born IT man working for, say, House Speaker Paul Ryan. Imagine if this man smashed up computers, and purloined secret material from the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. Imagine if he was kept on the job despite financial misconduct, then attempted to flee to Russian with a wad of cash. The likely explanation would not be Russophobia, and even the old-line establishment media might think there was something to it.

******************************

Debbie Wasserman Schultz made a name for herself last year when the Democrats booted her as Democratic National Committee boss. Now she’s back with a vengeance in a tale centering on her top information technology man, Pakistani-born Imran Awan.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, not limited to issues related to Russia, had been investigating Awan for theft and abuses related to cybersecurity. Awan had been feeling the heat and attempted to flee to Pakistan last week but the FBI arrested him at Dulles airport on a charge of bank fraud.

According to Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman, there’s a bit more to the story, even though Awan and his family have indeed been involved in swindles. As McCarthy has it, “this appears to be a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.”

Awan started as an IT man for Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, then shifted to Wasserman Schultz. The Florida Democrat empowered him to add to the payroll his wife Alfi – she attempted to flee the country in March while a criminal suspect – brother Abid, Abid’s wife Natalia Sova, and Awan’s brother Jamal. As McCarthy notes:

“Awan and his family cabal of fraudsters had access for years to the e-mails and other electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. It turns out they were accessing members’ computers without their knowledge, transferring files to remote servers, and stealing computer equipment — including hard drives that Awan & Co. smashed to bits of bytes before making tracks.” The smashing tactic recalls the Clinton crew during the last election cycle.

McCarthy wonders how Awan and his family achieved access to highly sensitive government information, which requires a thorough security clearance. In his judgment, the Awan cabal could not possibly have qualified for such clearance.

As the IT intrigue unfolded, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been pushing back at investigators, and objecting strenuously to inspection of a laptop belonging to Awan. McCarthy doesn’t know what information Awan and company may have ripped off, or whether he sent it to Pakistan. But the former prosecutor is certain that “this is no run-of-the-mill bank-fraud case.”

The Daily Caller has been all over the story and according to investigative reporter Luke Rosiak Wasserman Schultz employed Awan and his wife and “refused to fire either of them even after U.S. Capitol Police said in February 2017 that they were targets of the criminal investigation.” Wasserman Schultz charged the Awans were victims of anti-Muslim profiling.

Other members of Congress had dumped Awan and Company but Wasserman kept him on board and was going to pay him, “even while he was living in Pakistan.” Rosiak also observes that Wasserman Schultz’s record on cybersecurity is shaky and the Hillary Clinton ally “was the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee when it was hacked.”

Last Thursday, President Trump reposted a Townhall tweet charging “ABC, NBC, And CBS Pretty Much Bury IT Scandal Engulfing Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Office.” That prompted a New York Times piece by Nicholas Fandos headlined, “Trump Fuels Intrigue Surrounding a Former I.T. Worker’s Arrest.”

Fandos wonders if the ongoing intrigue is “the stuff of a spy novel, ripe for sleuthing,” but quickly shifts gears. Awan’s lawyer, Christopher Gowen, explains that the accusations are “the product of an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job targeting his client and his client’s family.”

DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, called the security charges “laughable,” claiming that Awan was never employed by the DNC and that “the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia was behind the DNC hack.” As for the attempt to flee, with bundles of cash, Gowen said Awan received threats online and traveled to Pakistan to stay with family and save money.

As Cheryl Chumley observed in the Washington Times, Awan’s first employer, Gregory Meeks, suggested the authorities are targeting Awan because he was born in Pakistan and ethnicity “is a factor” in the attention the family is receiving. And now Democrats are rushing to defend Awan, Chumley writes, “saying he’s the target of massive federal Islamophobia. What a crock.”

True to form, with smashed computers, cybersecurity lapses and such, the idea that Awan might be some kind of spy is entirely plausible. So is the concept that, as Sean Hannity has suggested, Awan was the source of Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.

Those who dismiss it all as Islamophobia, or a simple case of bank fraud, might consider this scenario.

Imagine a Russian-born IT man working for, say, House Speaker Paul Ryan. Imagine if this man smashed up computers, and purloined secret material from the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. Imagine if he was kept on the job despite financial misconduct, then attempted to flee to Russian with a wad of cash. The likely explanation would not be Russophobia, and even the old-line establishment media might think there was something to it.

In the style of Andrew McCarthy, some journalist might even flag “a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.” In the ensuing investigation, government investigators would doubtless leave no stone unturned.

Meanwhile, Awan has pleaded not guilty to one count of bank fraud, ordered to wear a GPS monitor, and surrender his passport. More details about his activities may emerge before his preliminary hearing on August 21.

The fraud [in Venezuela]

August 1, 2017

The Fraud, Venezuela News and Views, Daniel Duquenal, July 31, 2017

(Please see also, Treasury Sanctions the President of Venezuela. — DM)

Since I am writing late and you certainly read all major papers in the world and blogs and tweets…  I will be short and sweet and didactic if possible.

What happened in Venezuela was an historical electoral fraud of major proportions. So blatant, so nakedly obvious is the fraud that within hours more than a dozen countries have announced they would not recognize the result. And more to come.  Only outlaw regimes like Cuba, or commies disguised as lefties in Europe like Iglesias or Melanchon can recognize the result.

Let’s go by part.

The electoral fraud. It was openly visible. International journalists reported on it even before the voting centers closed. Pictures comparing centers of July 16th and yesterday were posted and the difference in attendance was obvious. Voting centers were empty to lightly attended, or outright closed. Only the one at the Poliedro had people that supposedly accounted from the all the “violence areas that did not allow people to vote”. And yet, the attendance there looked like the normal one at a regular major voting center, not the one that was supposed to welcome dozens of voting centers. Well, it seemed like that if you have a scientific and critical mind which is something that the lumpen chavismo does not have. Otherwise they would not be chavistas.

The electoral fraud was concrete. I have told you the experience of my S.O. and that by itself is enough for me. Simply put, there was NO control. Simply put, people could vote wherever they wanted. Simply put people could vote as often as they wanted. Simply put there were no witnesses so voting table attendants could activate voting stations and fill up the boxes with as many ballots as they wanted.

The electoral fraud started from the start. I have listed already all the parameters that made this vote a fraud. You just need to add what I have written above.

The results themselves were deliberately proclaiming the fraud. The results were simply unbelievable. So unbelievable that one cannot fathom the need of the regime for such an atrocious lie. With empty streets, empty voting centers, closed ones, the regime could not show true videos of massive attendance like the ones the opposition got without any trouble on July 16th. Never mind that it was forbidden for independent press to visit most voting centers. Since the fraud was so obvious the regime just played it to the full. That is what happens when you have no shame left. It announced a result bigger than what the opposition claimed on July 16th. Which incidentally is almost three times as the numbers announced in midafternoon though “leaks”. That is: the regime is claiming that at least twice as many people went to vote than what actually took part in the vote. Since this is a dictatorship there is no way to investigate this. And even if the leakers were to come forward proof in hand, to what court in Venezuela can we go to complain?

The results are meaningless and aim only at the chavista lumpen and brain washed. Think of it this way. Maduro claims that 8 million people voted for his fraud in the middle of the major economic crisis that we have experienced in our history. No food, no jobs, no medicine, violence from crime skyrocketing, etc, etc…  And he gets almost as many votes as Chavez was getting ten years ago at his prime of massive flux of dollars and cash payment to “el pueblo”.  Gimme a break! The other results that are meaningless are who won what. That is, when the injection of votes is so fragrant, so abusive that whoever won whatever seat somewhere it is because votes were allocated to that person according to the regime wishes. We will soon find out, I guess, what section of chavismo has come on top, not through votes but through counting the votes in the greatest Stalinist dictum. You know, the one where he says that elections do not depend on the votes but on who counts them.

 

I think this is enough. If you are not convinced by this then you are either dumb or of bad faith or cashing on, which is the same as bad faith. I am sorry, I live in a dictatorship, I cannot play nice anymore.

—————

And let’s not forget that an election run under repression and a violence that left more than a dozen people killed has NO validity.