Saturday, March 23, 2024

CNN: Embarrassing for Biden If ISIS Did Attack Russia

 NN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen is laying the responsibility of one of the deadliest terror attacks in Moscow at President Joe Biden’s feet. 

During a segment on CNN’s “AC360,” Bergen stated that it would be embarrassing for Biden if ISIS did attack a Russian concert hall that killed at least 113 civilians. 


“That would be very embarrassing for the Biden administration if it turned out that ISIS-K has sort of re-grouped to the extent that they can reach out to other countries [and] carry out major attacks,” he said, citing the Biden Administration’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

Bergen admitted that he was skeptical at first about ISIS carrying out the attack. However, he said that Americans and Russians must have had intelligence in their system about ISIS's presence in Moscow. 

More from Bergen’s comments: 

I was a little skeptical, because, typically, if you’re an ISIS fighter, you don’t care about getting killed at the scene of the crime. You don’t — you’re not looking for a getaway, you’re looking to martyr yourself. So, in this case, it looks like the people did get away, according to the Russians. And that isn’t sort of typical for an ISIS-type attack. So, — however, the fact that it’s not just the Americans who had intelligence in their system about ISIS presence in Moscow, it turns out that the Russians did, too. Otherwise, why would Russian state television report on March 7 about a plan to attack a Moscow synagogue by ISIS? So, I don’t know. It isn’t absolutely typical of their M.O. But, certainly, ISIS has attacked concert venues in the past. In, Paris, you recall in 2015, they killed 130 people, most — many of them were attending a concert. And, obviously, this work could well be — it could be just what it — as this group says. I’m still looking for evidence, and, hopefully, we’ll identify who these people are relatively quickly. Are they Tajiks? Are they Chechens? If they’re part of ISIS. Did they train in Afghanistan? That’s a very big question here. Obviously, that would be very embarrassing for the Biden administration if it turned out that ISIS-K has sort of re-grouped to the extent that they can reach out to other countries [and] carry out major attacks at a time when they’re responsible for the withdrawal from — of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The death toll has reached at least 113, with Russian officials announcing that they have apprehended 11 suspects, with four of them being directly involved in the attack.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the onslaught. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may have been involved. 

Zelensky has denied such allegations. 

On Saturday, Putin declared March 24 as a day of mourning, adding that additional security measures have been put into place.

House Oversight Committee Witnesses Makes Clear: The Bidens Lied

 

The House Oversight Committee Hearing on "Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden’s Abuse of Public Office" from Wednesday was dominated by key moments, especially when it comes to witness Tony Bobulinski. In his opening statement, Bobulinski testified that Hunter Biden perjured himself. He also mentioned repeatedly throughout the hearing how the Bidens lied. 

Advertisement

It wasn't just Hunter who perjured himself, Bobulinski said, but so did President Joe Biden's brother, Jim Biden, when it comes to involvement with Chinese-linked company CEFC. 

Bobulinski said he had "met with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Jim Biden at the Beverly Hilton in May 2017," which Hunter acknowledged but Jim denied took place. With passion, Bobulinski emphasized that "Hunter Biden, in his own transcribed interview, confirmed that that meeting took place," adding "Hunter confirmed his uncle perjured himself in front of this Committee."

"The Committee was so shocked by his perjury that they asked him the same question multiple times," Bobulinski also shared. "Each time he denied meeting with me and Joe Biden, after the Committee showed him text messages confirming that." Matt Margolis at our sister site of PJ Media highlighted how Bobulinski "has receipts."

Bobulinski also noted that James Biden "lied extensively throughout his transcribed interview on February 21, and perjured himself." The New York Post has put out an explainer of remarks made by the president's brother and Bobulinski. 

Jason Galanis, another one of Hunter's former business partners, who is serving prison time and was testifying via Zoom, also addressed such lies. 

Hunter could not address these claims in real time, as he was not there, despite how he had asked for such a public hearing. When announcing he intended to have a public hearing, not long after Hunter gave testimony, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) spoke of an interest in such a hearing because of "some contradictory statements" from other witnesses that the chairman said "I think need further review." 

Bobulinski's accusations about Hunter lying also came up when he was questioned by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI). When answering as to why he thought Hunter didn't show up despite saying he wanted a public hearing, Bobulinski offered "I don't think he wanted to sit next to me, because obviously I've emphatically stated he perjured himself in his transcribed interview with the committee as did his uncle, Jim Biden. And for every fact he claims or wants to say 'I was high on drugs' or obfuscate, I can show a document, a text message, a recording, that has cross confirmed that he's lying."

He and the congresswoman agreed it was "highly disappointing" that Hunter didn't show up. 

Another lie was brought up during Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) turn to ask questions, as the congresswoman reminded that Biden has continuously lied about his son's business dealings, including as a candidate on the debate stage in 2020 when he said his family didn't take money from China. 

"Not only was it a lie, he knew it was a lie. He knew it because he met with his son Hunter Biden's Chinese business associates," Greene reminded, which is when she discussed CEFC with Bobulinski.

Although WhatsApp messages showed that Hunter had tried to refer to Chinese businessmen as "chairman," Bobulinski was emphatic that that was not the case. Rather "the chairman" referred to Joe Biden. Another message did not refer to any of the Chinese businessmen as the "chairman;" it just said "the Chinese."

Advertisement

Greene also tellingly pointed out that it was 2016 when Biden said he was going to run for president in 2020, and that he went on to have such shady involvement in 2017, "when everybody knew he was planning to be President of the United States." Bobulinski responded that was indeed "a serious problem," and expressed he wished the Committee would investigate further.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) questioned Galanis and Bobulinski to confirm that Joe Biden indeed "participate[d] in phone conversations and meetings with Hunter Biden, his business associates, and foreign interests."

She also confirmed from Galanis that Biden was a "certain relation" that Hunter spoke of to other business members, with Galanis and Bobulinski also both confirming they were not to bring up Joe Biden's name in communications. 

The congresswoman reminded that during his deposition, Hunter said he did not involve his father in his business, receiving answers in the affirmative from Bobulinski that "Hunter Biden lie[d] under oath," as well as that "Joe Biden [is] lying when he says he did not interact with Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, their business partners or foreign interests."

Mace also brought up the same debate moment that Greene did, with Biden claiming his family did not make money from the Chinese, though Bobulinski and Galanis answered that he did. 

"Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed that he was not involved in Hunter Biden, Jim Biden or any other Biden family business deals," Mace summarized. "Today our witnesses have proved otherwise. Today we've established Joe Biden lied about interacting with Hunter Biden's business associates. It is my belief Joe Biden is the closer for Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, and their business associates in foreign interests. Good luck to the left proving otherwise," she said before yielding. 

Advertisement

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) also received some telling answers from Bobulinski and Galanis. 

When questioning Bobulinski, Boebert brought up the idea of Joe Biden being the chairman, with the witness offering that Biden played "a more active role," especially as "he acted sort of like a chairman" in that "he showed up and shook hands," with the congresswoman interjecting to remind "he's been called the chairman." Bobulinski pointed out "that's all the Chinese Ukrainians, Romanians, Russians" needed, which is not what "the Canadians, the Australians and Americans need, but in those parts of the world, that's what they need."

Galanis also reaffirmed to Boebert that Biden indeed lied while running for president when he said his family did not make any money from China.  

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) also highlighted Hunter and James Biden's lies, as he and Bobulinski fact-checked key points from each of the Biden family member's transcribed testimony.

Hunter couldn't even get correct when he worked for CEFC, Bobulinski explained, since he tried to "parse words" when referring to his "official" capacity. While Hunter gave the year 2017, Bobulinski offered that Hunter started working for CEFC in the fall of 2015 and worked for them throughout 2016 as well, which was confirmed by Hunter himself as well as other conversations with other former associates. 

Advertisement

Fry also brought up how Hunter was asked about his father never interacting with his business associates, which Bobulinski confirmed "was a lie."

"Hunter lied to the committee about important details concerning his money demands and threats and CEFC, based on this WhatsApp message," as Fry reminded, which Bobulinski confirmed, as well as how Joe Biden had no awareness of the business he was doing, as Hunter tried to claim. 

It wasn't just Hunter who lied, but Jim Biden as well, which Bobulinski was particularly passionate about when discussing. In response to Jim Biden claiming in his own testimony that he had "absolutely not" remembered a meeting with Hunter, Bobulinski, and Joe Biden, Bobulinski insisted "that is a lie." 

"I'm shocked that his lawyers sitting next to him, a former US Attorney allowed him to say that like three different times in that transcribed interview," he added, with Fry also reminding "when pressed, [James] continued to double down on" that point.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who serves as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which is also investigating the Bidens, was allowed to appear at the hearing and ask questions as well. 

The congressman read testimony from Hunter claiming that his business associates, including Galanis, had no expectation from him that his father would get involved in their business dealings. Hunter even claimed "there was never a single time" he could remember indicating as much.

Advertisement

In reaction, Galanis, in light of his explanations of what the "the Biden lift" was, during as well as before the hearing, called it "patently false" and "an untruthful statement."

Gaetz also spoke with Galanis about how he is a living example of how "the Biden Justice Department retaliates against people who speak out against the Bidens and their crimes." Galanis also added "there is unquestionably a pattern of two tiers of justice."

Such moments are just some takeaways from the nearly eight hour hearing, yet as NewsBusters' Tim Graham highlighted, the mainstream media hardly paid the hearing any mind.

As the hearing came to a close, Comer announced that he would be inviting the president himself, especially to square away the contradictions. 

The committees do not look to be done investigating the Biden crime family, though. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Comer are looking for more information as to how the CIA stonewalled an interview with Kevin Morris, an associate of Hunter Biden. Jordan has also subpoenaed Joe Biden's ghostwriter to appear before his Committee.

The Jury Didn't Buy a Wisconsin Election Official's Defense in Election Fraud Case

 

A Wisconsin election official tried to say she was a whistleblower pointing out flaws in our voting systems, but the jury felt otherwise. Kimberly Zapata, a former deputy director for the Milwaukee Election Commission, was found guilty on March 20 of misconduct in office and election fraud after ordering fake military ballots. However, she says it was never her intention for them to be processed. She was indicted last November. The trial lasted three days, where Zapata didn’t testify. The election cycle where Zapata pursued this fake military ballot scheme was during the 2022 midterms (via Milwaukee Journal Sentinel):

A former top Milwaukee election official was convicted at trial Wednesday in a case in which she was criminally charged for creating fake names to order three military absentee ballots ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and having them sent to a state legislator. 

The Milwaukee County jury took about five hours to deliver its verdict in the trial of former Milwaukee Election Commission deputy director Kimberly Zapata, 47, of Milwaukee.

 She was found guilty on a felony charge of misconduct in public office and guilty on three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement to obtain an absentee ballot. Zapata was charged in November 2022. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2. 

[…] 

In a recording of a police interview with Zapata that was played again for the jury before the verdict, she is heard saying she acted without a plan and in a high-stress moment. 

"I did not think it through," she said. "I didn't have some manipulative plan." 

She said she made up the three people so no individual would be harmed. 

Zapata said she sent the ballots to Republican state Rep. Janel Brandtjen because she knew she would not cast the ballots and because of her history with election fraud claims. 

"She is the most vocal election fraud politician that I know of, and I thought that maybe this would make her stop and think and redirect her focus away from these outrageous conspiracy theories to something that's actually real," Zapata said. 

Zapata said she originally had a "glimmer of hope" that one of the three clerks who received the ballot requests would raise questions and not issue it. That's not how it unfolded, however, and all three military absentee ballots were sent to Brandtjen's Menomonee Falls home.

Zapata did report her self-inflicted election wound, and the ballots were not counted. She faces up to five years in jail and a $13,000 fine.

Whatever the case, it shows that election integrity issues are alive. Every system needs maintenance and guardrails; Democrats assume everything is kosher with our election system. It’s not. The 2020 no doubt made it easier for shenanigans to occur with the tweaks to in-person voting that some secretaries of state enacted, changes that the courts retroactively ruled as illegal as some didn’t have the state legislature's approval.

It's peculiar that her party registration isn’t mentioned in most news reports, which is a tip-off that Zapata is likely a Democrat.

What if Totalitarianism Comes to America?

 

We are all familiar with Lord Acton’s dictum “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It also eventually destroys.  It’s happening in China right now, and it will happen in America if the Democratic Party obtains the totalitarian power it craves.  And neither Xi Jinping nor the leaders of the Democratic Party could care less how much suffering and death they cause their people because power is their only object.  

I still keep in touch with people in China and study closely its internal affairs.  It isn’t easy because the CCP has such a tight grip on media and communications that getting accurate information can be difficult. But it dribbles out, bit by bit.   To the best of my analysis, here is what is going on in China, and what might happen there.  And, then, let me make the future comparison with the United States under a totalitarian Democratic Party.

Xi Jinping is a megalomaniac.  Make absolutely no mistake about that.  He is Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all rolled into one.  After the total disaster of Mao’s rule, China had to open up somewhat (which it did under Deng Xiaoping) to avert the collapse that happened in the Soviet Union.  China became wealthy borrowing from, stealing from, and deceiving stupid Western capitalists who think only in terms of money.  But to do that, China had to be a little more flexible (“two steps forward, one step back,” Lenin said).  Yet, a totalitarian regime can only abide that for a limited period of time.  Freedom is dangerous to totalitarianism.  And, in China, a new Mao has come to power.  

Governmental laws and policies are becoming increasingly strict under Xi. He wants total control.  For one example, there is a 60-year-old retirement age for men in China. Though not absolute (it obviously doesn’t apply to Xi), it is becoming progressively enforced, especially in Beijing and Shanghai where Xi’s power is dominant.  There is still some elasticity in the provinces, but bureaucrats are more and more wary of trying to be flexible because Xi’s tentacles are increasingly spreading throughout the country.  This policy, of course, robs China of its most experienced and qualified workers; it’s that country’s version of DEI, and obviously when less-qualified workers are in place, quality will suffer.

The policy also puts a horrible strain on the economy, especially after years of the “one child only policy.”  The young workers must support an ever-aging population, which they cannot do.  But it’s Xi’s policy.  Bureaucrats realize it’s a stupid, idiotic program that is hurting the country, but they risk their own positions if they oppose Xi.  Only Xi can make the decision, and giving greater freedom to his people is the one thing a totalitarian dictator will not do.   He’d rather destroy his country.  

One of three things will happen in China. One—and the most likely in the immediate future—Xi will remain in power until he dies, continually tightening his grip, and China will continue to suffer economically as Western companies depart and the Chinese people aren’t given the flexibility and freedom to develop their economy based upon market needs. Xi controls the military, so what can the people do?  Two, there could be a coup d’etat to overthrow Xi.  Many, many people in that country absolutely despise him, but it will take military leaders especially to oust him.  But masses of Chinese would be very happy to see him go.  Or three, China will eventually, and in the not-to-distant future, crumble like the Soviet Union did.  An overly rigid, state-controlled economy will not survive for long, and that is what Xi is returning China to.  Only a market-based economy can save any country, and Xi is progressively controlling everything.  He will destroy China if China doesn’t destroy him first.

What are the lessons for America?  The Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of China in the sense that it craves totalitarian power—all Leftists do.  And if it gets it, it will do the same thing to America that totalitarian power always does—eventually stifle necessary freedoms and crush the country.  

First of all, in order to secure that power, Democrats, if necessary, would cause a civil war.  There was a civil war in China before Mao Zedong came to power, as many Chinese did not want communist/totalitarian rule.  Those who opposed Mao lost that war and fled to Taiwan.  There was also a civil war in Russia during the communist takeover of 197-21.  American patriots will not tolerate a total takeover by Democratic Party totalitarian megalomaniacs, and Joe Biden has already threatened to use F16s against those who oppose him.  Democrats are currently doing all they can to drive out, or discourage, American patriots from joining the military, hoping to turn it into a Leftist entity that will obey any orders.  Obviously, freedom-loving Americans will fight to save their country.  Who would win such a war is a subject for interesting analysis.  I’ll leave it to readers to do that.

If the Democrats do conquer, they would attempt, as quickly as possible, to solidify as much power in their hands as they can get.  The courts and Congress would rubber stamp anything the party does. They might even abolish the Republican Party as one-party states always do, but it would take some time—as it is with Xi’s policies in Chinese provinces—for the Democrats’ policies the filter down to the local level.  Those who still oppose would end up in “re-education camps” (Hillary Clinton has already said we need to “deprogram” Trump supporters), or have their guts ripped out like China is doing.  But, like all freedom-denying totalitarian regimes, it won’t last for long.

“It could never happen in America!” you say?  Why not?  Every sign in the Democratic Party now is pointing in that direction.  The only questions are, can it be stopped?  And how?

Biden's Border Blowup

 

Some 8 to 10 million illegal aliens from all over the world, as expected, have flooded across the border since President Joe Biden took office.

A demagogic candidate Biden, remember, in 2019 invited those massing at the southern border to "surge" into the United States without specifying that they first needed legal sanction: "We immediately surge to the border all those seeking asylum."

In contrast, we know legal immigration is America's great strength, but it has always depended on a few key prerequisites.

Immigration must be legal and measured.

Why? Because only the host nation can adjudicate how many immigrants it can successfully accept and assimilate. It has no desire to encourage Balkanized tribalism so common in nations abroad torn apart by ethnic conflict.

America must have some knowledge of the background of immigrants, especially whether they have criminal records, belong to gangs, are importing drugs, carry infectious diseases, or can be self-supporting.

By contrast, if the first thing immigrants do is illegally cross the American border, and the second is to reside illegally in America, and the third is to obtain fraudulent identification to mask that illegality, then they will establish long patterns of illegal behavior and disrespect for their hosts.

In addition, immigration should be diverse so that large ethnic groups do not form permanent tribal sects in the fashion of the Balkans, the Middle East, or Latin America.

Ideally, the host should prefer immigrants who have some knowledge of the language and customs of the United States. And they should have some ability to be self-supporting so as not to burden American taxpayers or overtax and deprive social services from poorer U.S. citizens.

As for the host?

America must be confident enough in and knowledgeable enough about its values, customs, and traditions to demand immigrants integrate rapidly into the body politic of the United States.

Both the host and immigrants must agree on the basic facts of immigration.

Immigrants, not the host, have chosen to leave their native land to risk a new life and identity in America.

Therefore, the relationship is, by nature, asymmetrical. The host has a perfect right, indeed a responsibility, to impose its own values upon newcomers -- not vice versa.

Otherwise, if immigrants do not absorb their newly adopted culture, why would they have left and, in some sense, rejected their homeland in the first place?

To replicate in the United States the very conditions and environment that they so eagerly fled from back home?

So the host must remind immigrants that they chose a completely different paradigm from their native country. And therefore, they must be helped to embrace an entirely new national identity.

Unfortunately, in the last four years, the Biden administration has violated every historical canon critical to ensuring legal immigration enriches the United States.

They have encouraged 8-10 million of the world's poorest to flood the border and to enter and reside in America without legal sanction.

Most have no prior experience with American traditions, and few speak English.

Host Americans have no idea whether hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of the millions entering illegally have committed crimes in their native countries, or have any record of employment, or are sick, or are here to foment gangs and to import lethal, foreign-made drugs that kill some 100,000 Americans a year.

Worse, we, the hosts, no longer believe in the melting pot that once made America the world's only successful multiracial democracy, united by the laws of the Constitution and the unique values that emanate from it.

The combination of mass illegal immigration, without audit, into a country beset with $35 trillion in national debt, an existing 50 million residents not born in the United States, and without confidence in rapid assimilation certainly explains the disaster of illegal immigration that now manifests daily.

Biden may think nullifying federal immigration law is a smart political trick that, in the past, may have flipped southwestern states from red to blue or warped the census to give blue states more congressional districts.

Or he may assume that with 70 percent of the electorate now voting through poorly audited mail-in balloting, there is no real way to prevent foreign nationals from voting for those who neutered the law to let them in.


But in truth, Biden is unfortunately undermining support for all immigration, legal or otherwise. He is guaranteeing that more imported drugs and gang members will kill more Americans.

Ironically, Biden is also alienating from the Democratic Party its once loyal Black and Latino voters. They, not the party elite, must deal concretely with the consequences of Biden's callous and cynical, ideologically driven policies.

Perhaps the Left will only cease destroying immigration law when it realizes that for each illegal alien it invites in, it will lose one or more once loyal Democratic voters.