And then there’s that American citizen detained by ICE

The New Neo Posted on by

Another story championed by the left and anti-Trump forces turns out to be not what it seemed – although the propaganda has already probably made its mark.

Here’s how the original story went:

As the original reporting went, Jose Hermosillo was wrongfully arrested in Albuquerque, NM, and held for over a week despite telling ICE officials that he was an American. It wasn’t until his family showed up with a birth certificate and a Social Security card that he was released.

Seems like an obvious violation. But here’s the rest of the story:

Except it turns out that Hermosillo not only told immigration authorities he wasn’t an American citizen, but he even concocted an entire story about crossing the border illegally to find work in the United States. Why did he do that? I have no idea. Maybe he’s got mental issues. Maybe he was doing something he wasn’t supposed to be doing and thought posing as an illegal immigrant was the better option.

Whatever the reason, given what we’ve learned, it seems patently absurd to continue to blame ICE and the administration for this when this guy left them no choice by lying to them. Were they supposed to ascertain his real history through some sort of telepathy?

Or perhaps he’s a leftist who lied in order to make the government look bad.

I have no idea, but it’s very very strange.

More:

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary, DHS, wrote on X, “On “On April 8, Hermosillo approached Border Patrol in Tucson and stated he had entered the US illegally through Nogales. He said he wanted to turn himself in and completed a sworn statement identifying as a Mexican citizen who had entered unlawfully.

McLaughlin added, “He was processed and appeared in court on April 11. Afterward, he was held by the US marshals in Florence, Arizona. A few days later, his family presented documents showing US citizenship. The charges were dismissed, and he was released to his family.”

The teenager’s arrest, therefore, was as a result of “his own actions and statements,” she asserted.”

And yet how many people will end up having seen the original story and not the addition/correction?

J. D. Vance and family visit India

The New Neo Posted on by

With all the more pressing news it’s easy to miss the fact that VP Vance and his family are in India on an official visit. Usha Vance is of course of Indian ethnicity and so it was especially adorable (and not even “cultural appropriation”) when their three children wore Indian or Indian-inspired dress.

Funny bit with their eldest son trying to find his mom’s hand:

“Religious freedom” in China: an oxymoron

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “TR” today observed:

China’s Government has just outlawed foreigners, aka people who aren’t from China- from doing missionary works (inside China).

That includes missionaries of: the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, and the Hindu religion, + all other religions.

The Chinese government doesn’t trust [any religion], or [any group], that is not approved by, or controlled by, the Chinese govt..

If you aren’t a Chinese citizen, + maybe even if you are one, you CAN’T talk to people about: your religious beliefs, your church, your religious group, your religion, or how people can join a religion.

If you do any of those things, China’s govt. might arrest you for, in its mind, [being a danger to China, + the Chinese govt..]

I don’t use this term often, but- these are 100%: Nazi party tactics, [Nazi police tactics], Third Reich tactics, totally oppressive tactics, and bad tactics, that are being used by China’s government.

China’s government doesn’t trust anyone that it can’t control.

In my opinion, these things are human rights, and all people should be given + guaranteed these rights, because they are [their] rights …

TR is referring to this recent news:

China has officially outlawed foreign missionaries from sharing their faith in the country without pre-state approval.

It will come into effect from 1st May, marking a further tightening of restrictions by the ruling Chinese Communist Party on those who operate outside the state-controlled churches.

Christianity is not banned in China. It is estimated that there are between 70 to 100 million believers amongst the country’s 1.4bn people. …

Authorities now require all religious groups to register with the state and limit their activities to government-approved locations, making independent evangelism nearly impossible.

Under President Xi Jinping there has been a ‘sinicization of religion’ – a term which seeks to make religious faith adhere to Chinese socialist values and culture.

To me, the issue isn’t about missionaries from foreign countries practicing in China. Any country has the right to ban or regulate foreign visitors who come into that country. The issue is actually religious freedom in general in China, which is highly restricted even if no foreigners are involved. And that issue is a subset of another issue: liberty in China, which exists barely if at all.

The “sinicization of religion” reminds me somewhat of something I learned in school – which is that the periodic conquerors of China in ancient eras found that, over time, it was they who became Chinese rather than the Chinese becoming more like them. At this point, although China is not exactly Communist (although it’s run by the Communist Party, it describes itself as socialist), it retains enormous elements of totalitarian control over its population, and that includes over religion.

If you want to learn more about China’s religious policies, see this from October of 2023. Here’s an excerpt:

Earlier this year, China issued new rules on religious activity that tighten oversight of clergy and congregations.

The rules are part of a long-standing strategy by the Chinese government to align religion with communism and ensure loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which espouses and promotes atheism.

So that’s the overview. A few details:

… [T]he government officially recognizes five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Daoism (also called Taoism). But authorities closely police religious activity. China has ranked among the world’s most restrictive governments every year since Pew Research Center began tracking restrictions on religion in 2007. …

China is pursuing a policy of “Sinicization” that requires religious groups to align their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture. …

China’s restrictive policies toward Muslims – particularly Uyghurs in Xinjiang province – have been documented widely over the past decade. Human rights groups accuse China of subjecting Uyghurs to mass internment, surveillance and torture. …

Christians are allowed to worship in “official churches” registered with supervisory government agencies responsible for Protestantism and Catholicism. However, many Christians refuse this oversight and worship in underground churches.

Since Xi came to power in 2013, the government has banned evangelization online, tightened control over Christian activities outside of registered venues, and shut down churches that refuse to register. Authorities have also arrested prominent church leaders and some Christians reportedly have been held in internment camps. …

China treats Buddhism – particularly Han Buddhism, the most widespread branch in the country – more leniently than Christianity or Islam. …

Religious activity that falls outside of the five officially recognized religions and does not meet the government’s approval as a form of cultural heritage is often categorized by authorities as “superstition” or “evil cult.” …

Children under 18 are constitutionally prohibited from having any formal religious affiliation in China. There is also a ban on religious education, including Sunday schools, religious summer camps and other forms of youth religious groups. Schools focus on promoting non-religion and atheism, and many children join CCP-affiliated youth groups, where they must pledge commitment to atheism.

I think it’s pretty clear that the Chinese leaders want to stamp out religion and/or make it conform strictly to their party line.

[NOTE: And what of Jews? Yes, there are indeed Jews in China, and although their numbers are minuscule they have a lengthy history there. Judaism – unlike Christianity and Islam – is a non-proselytizing religion. But it nevertheless is being suppressed by the Chinese authorities:

Kaifeng’s Jewish community has reported increasing suppression by the authorities since 2015, reversing the modest revival it experienced in the 1990s. The observance of public religious services and the celebration of religious festivals like Passover and Sukkot have been prohibited, and Jewish community groups have been shut down. Signs have been removed from the Kaifeng Synagogue, a historical site located on Teaching the Torah Lane that is now under strict surveillance.

A small number of Chinese Jews have succeeded in making aliyah and immigrating to Israel with the help of private organisations such as Shavei Israel.

Antisemitism in the People’s Republic of China is mostly a 21st-century phenomenon and it is complicated by the fact that there is little ground for antisemitism in China in historical sources. In the 2020s, antisemitic conspiracy theories in China began to spread and intensify. While there is not a large Jewish diaspora in China, much of the antisemitism come from Chinese nationalists and anti-Israel leftists, as part of a reaction against supposed foreign encirclement and influence. Some Chinese people believe in antisemitic tropes that Jews secretly rule the world. Academics have also noted the spread of philosemitism, which depicts Jews as naturally intelligent and financially savvy, also gained traction in light of the Chinese economic reform.

RIP Pope Francis

The New Neo Posted on by

Pope Francis died early this morning, reportedly of a stroke and related heart problems. At 88 and in recent poor health, it nevertheless was a relatively sudden death. He was the first Jesuit pope, and was from Argentina and had held the position for twelve years. An excerpt:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, shared with Fox News Digital, “Catholics around the globe are mourning the death of Pope Francis. He touched millions of the faithful, including non-Catholics and non-believers. When Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio assumed the role of Pope Francis, his down-to-earth style captured the plaudits of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It was his unscripted, and often spontaneous, manner of speaking that made him so authentic and appealing.”

I suppose that’s one way to look at it. As a non-Catholic and non-Christian, I can’t say I followed his papacy with great care except to note that it was my distinct impression that he was a leftist. I’ll quote John Hinderaker of Powerline on the subject:

Francis seemed to me to be a slave to left-wing fashion. His views on gender were trendy but in no way Biblical. His hostility to free enterprise was retrograde, and damaging to the extent it had any influence. And his constant advocacy for unrestrained illegal immigration did harm, by shoring up regimes and policies that were horrifically destructive.

So, now what? Your guess is as good as mine. Actually, your guess may be better than mine. For what it’s worth, though, here’s mine: his successor will also lean left although not as heavily. If number of Catholics in the population is any guide (and it’s probably not), the next pope may be from Latin America as well. Africa and Europe are second in terms of numbers, although in Africa the group is growing and in Europe it’s shrinking.

Non-shaggy dog stories of the heartwarming variety

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a dog story to brighten your day. Let’s hear it for Buford the rancher’s dog:

A huge search operation was launched when the [2-year-old] boy disappeared from his home in Seligman, Arizona, about 100 miles south of Grand Canyon National Park …

The sheriff’s office said that more than 40 rescuers, including Department of Public Safety rangers, joined the search, and a DPS helicopter spotted two mountain lions in the area.

But 16 hours after he went missing, rancher Scotty Dunton found him on his land 7 miles away. The boy was safe and well and had apparently been led to his property by the rancher’s dog, Buford.

“I got in my truck to go to town and I see Buford walking down the side of the fence with a little blond kid with him,” Dunton told NBC affiliate KPNX of Phoenix. “I had heard about the missing child this morning, so I knew it was him.” …

“[The child] went through some rough country, it’s all mountains and canyons and boulder piles, and it’s rough for adults, let alone for 2-year-old kids,” Dunton said. “He did a remarkable job to go 7 miles like he did.” …

Dunton said of Buford, “He loves kids, and I imagine he wouldn’t leave him once he’d found him.”

And hat tip for commenter “sdferr” on this one:

A dog abducted from Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s October 7 onslaught was found in southern Gaza last week by Israeli ground forces.

Billy belongs to Rachel Dancyg, the divorcee of Alex Dancyg who was taken hostage and killed in captivity. Rachel’s brother Itzik Elgarat was also abducted from the kibbutz and murdered in Gaza.

Aviad Shapira, a reservist who has served more than 300 days in Gaza since the start of the war, told Channel 12 that Billy ran into his arms when his unit was operating in Rafah. He proceeded to take care of the dog for four days and insisted that he be allowed to take her back with him to Israel.

The dog – a real cutie; see photos at the link – had a microchip that allowed it to be traced to its owner. Not only is the story heartwarming, but interesting because the Hamas terrorists killed many Israeli dogs during October 7 but not this one (go to that link I just gave for some heartbreaking stories of the dogs who were killed on October 7).

I have long had a fondness for Cavalier King Charles spaniels.

And then there’s Mary Queen of Scots’ small dog – perhaps a spaniel or terrier – who accompanied her to the very end:

Mary was taken prisoner in England in 1568, and was held for 19 years. She was allowed to keep dogs throughout her captivity.

One eyewitness account tells of her tiny dog that had hidden within the folds of her skirt on the day of her execution. Of the event, Robert Wingfield wrote:

“Then one of the executioners, pulling off part of her dress, espied her little dog, which was under her clothes, which could not be gotten forth but by force, and afterwards would not depart from her dead corpse, but came and laid between her head and shoulders (a thing diligently noted:) the dog being imbrued with her blood, was carried away and washed, as all things else were that had any blood, except those things that were burned.”

Wingfield’s account does not clarify the color or type of dog that wouldn’t leave Mary’s side. And many tales have grown up around this little detail of Mary’s death. Some had said it was a white dog, others say it was black. Some say it was a Skye Terrier. Although some professional dog breeders claim that the Skye Terrier didn’t come into existence until the 19th century, leaving people to believe that perhaps it was a Scottish Terrier that was so devoted to her.

The left’s dubious heroes

The New Neo Posted on by

The left chooses some nifty heroes, doesn’t it?:

In a sane world, the Left’s fanatical support for Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an alleged illegal immigrant, domestic abuser, and likely MS-13 gang member—would be shocking. But given their equally obsessive solidarity with degenerates like Hamas sympathizer Mahmoud Khalil; Jordan Neely, a deranged, drug-addicted man who boarded a New York City subway and issued death threats to passengers; and Luigi Mangione, the prime suspect in the December murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO—it’s exactly what we’ve come to expect.

The Left’s admiration for these individuals and their eagerness to elevate them as heroes reveals not only their ideological extremism but also the glaring hypocrisy between the values they claim to uphold and the radical positions they continually embrace.

Depends on the values, though. Among the left’s values are the following: that criminals are that way because they’re oppressed, and that illegal aliens are merely “undocumented” and are – yes, you guessed it – oppressed. The left’s entire value system has to do with power and who is the oppressed and who the oppressor, and championing these people conforms with that.

Same for the leftists who love Hamas.

Nor is this new – although it has gotten worse in recent years. But remember Che Guevara. There was also Jack Henry Abbott – whom you may have forgotten. You can read about him here if your memory needs refreshing.

Then there are all those women who fall in love with imprisoned murderers, even psychopaths who have murdered women. That’s less of a political thing, but I’d wager that most of those women are not on the right.

I wrote a piece on this phenomenon – linking it to Romanticism – back in February of 2007 for PJ Media. Wonder of wonders, it still exists, although in somewhat mangled form: Please see this. An excerpt:

The lengthier excerpt includes Berlin’s assertion that the Romantics glorified those perceived as downtrodden: the failures and the minorities. Romantics didn’t just express empathy or sympathy for them, but actually elevated them to a place more worthy and more noble than the successes and the majorities.

So, who are the Romantics of today? From the foregoing discussion, it should be clear: Romanticism has found a cozy home on the Left. Romanticism (and Leftism) dictates not just sympathy for the Third World, but near-veneration of those there who combine a sense of victimhood (real or imagined) with what the poet Yeats called “passionate intensity,” which is the essence of Romanticism.

Anger is part of that passionate intensity, and it’s often a dominant part.

SCOTUS orders temporary halt of deportations of aliens under Alien Enemies act

The New Neo Posted on by

I’d like more clarity on this decision and what it means:

In a highly unusual early Saturday morning Order, the Supreme Court has halted all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

“There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).

“Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order.” …

What may have moved a majority of the court to act was the allegation that the current administration actions violated the prior Supreme Court order that removal under the AEA required some as yet unspecified due process to contest whether such persons were in fact gang members subject to the AEA Declaration …

More:

In the middle of the night, SCOTUS has paused Trump from deporting illegals under the Alien Enemies Act. Trump has been relying on this law to effectuate mass deportations of illegals who are also gang members. There are around 11 million illegals in the US. The US does not appear to have another tool by which to readily remove large numbers of illegals. Under our current laws, Trump could only mass deport gang members, and that’s the part being challenged. Relying on the court system to adjudicate each alien case individually would take over a century and would cost taxpayers a fortune. Our current justice system is not equipped to handle the reality of illegal immigration in this country. SCOTUS will need to balance the rights to the individuals against the need of our country to remain sovereign. From there, Congress will need to draft new laws to help the country remain sovereign.

It is a distressing prospect. But it also seems to me to be a temporary halt while the issue is adjudicated and will probably ultimately go back to SCOTUS either way the decision goes. I can’t say whether this present decision would indicate that some high hurdle will be placed on such deportations in any final SCOTUS decision; perhaps it will and perhaps it won’t. But if it does become that difficult to deport them, Congress will have to act, and act pretty soon while the GOP still controls it.

Which brings us to the subject of the filibuster/cloture rules. For this vote, perhaps the GOP would change the rules?

Also, could these particular people get some sort of expedited hearing, if a hearing is the issue?

But for other aliens, there’s this from the comments at LI:

They could all be deported under the normal deportation process. The problem is the ‘normal’ deportation process is WOEFULLY inadequate considering the enormity of the problem (thanks to Biden). This is why the illegals that were being paroled into the country and assigned first appearance dates (or whatever the technical term is), were given dates YEARS into the future. I think those allowed in in 2024 were given dates into the 2030s. For those people – which numbers probably 10M or more in just the last 4-years – the ‘normal’ deportation process will take years. For the so-called ‘gotaways,’ that time-table is shortened because they can’t credibly claim protections under the asylum process. But still, it’s likely going to take the better part of several months (or longer) to get them removed once they’re in FEDERAL custody. The Alien Enemy’s Act was a nifty way for the Administration to pare that time from months to weeks, even days.

On ranked-choice voting

The New Neo Posted on by

North Dakota’s governor recently signed a bill prohibiting ranked-choice voting in the state. That started a conversation and disagreement in this open thread on the subject of ranked-choice voting. In red or blue states, ranked-choice voting often pits people from the same party against each other in the final round, and because people from the opposing party have no candidate, they can vote for the candidate the members of the dominant party don’t want. It also causes confusion and delay in getting final results.

I don’t especially like it. It’s not that the two-party system – with a primary for each party and generally a single nominee for each party – is perfect. Certainly not. But I prefer it to a system where the final candidates sometimes end up being from the same party, and/or where second-choices can determine elections.

Take the example of the re-election of Lisa Murkowski to the Senate in 2022:

This was the first U.S. Senate election in Alaska to be held under a new election process provided for in Ballot Measure 2. All candidates ran in a nonpartisan blanket top-four primary on August 16, 2022, and the top four candidates advanced to the general election, where voters utilized ranked-choice voting.

Murkowski had been a vocal critic of Donald Trump during his presidency and opposed several of his initiatives. Murkowski was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial in 2021, and was the only one up for re-election in 2022. On March 16, 2021, the Alaska Republican Party voted to censure Murkowski and announced that it would recruit a Republican challenger in the 2022 election cycle. Kelly Tshibaka, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration, was endorsed by Trump and the Alaska Republican Party. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and the National Republican Senatorial Committee supported Murkowski.

In addition to Murkowski and Tshibaka, Democrat Pat Chesbro and Republican Buzz Kelley also advanced to the general election. On September 13, Kelley suspended his campaign and endorsed Tshibaka but remained on the ballot. Murkowski received a plurality of first-place votes; however, because no candidate received a majority of the votes in the first round, an instant runoff was triggered. Murkowski won reelection in the third and final round, winning most of the second-choice votes from Chesbro’s voters.

Perhaps Murkowski would have won anyway, even under the rules of a traditional election. But her majority vote came from Democrats who preferred her to the other Republican (see the chart at the link; rounds 2 and 3).

Another Alaska election that same year was the House race in 2022 in which Democrat Mary Peltola was elected in a Republican district. In the open primary dictated by the rules (rather than primaries to select a candidate from each party), sole Democrat Peltola had gotten about 36% of the vote and the two GOP candidates combined to get about 56% of the vote.

However, the two GOP candidates (Begich and Palin) stayed in the race and spent much of their money and time attacking each other. If one had been eliminated in single-party primaries, that would not have happened (unless one ran as an Independent). In the final vote, Peltola won in this manner:

Peltola won the election with 54.94% of the vote in the third round of ballot-counting, after two other candidates, Begich III and Bye, were eliminated and their supporters’ votes were reallocated to the remaining candidates, according to the Alaska Division of Elections. Peltola had won nearly 49% of the vote in the first round, putting her close to victory from the beginning. Even though only about 10% of the eliminated Republican candidates’ supporters ranked Peltola as their next choice, rather than Palin, it was enough to secure her win.

In this case, as far as we can tell it wasn’t Peltola’s being chosen as second choice by Democrats that put her over the top (she was the only Democrat in the race), it was being chosen as second-choice by a small number of voters who had supported the losing GOP candidate Begich and who placed her rather than the controversial Palin as their second choice. The fact that a ton of money had poured into the state to support Peltola didn’t hurt, either.

In 2024, however, Begich ousted Peltola. The Republicans were wiser that time, despite ranked-choice voting still being in operation in Alaska:

Peltola finished first in this summer’s top-four, nonpartisan primary, followed by Begich and Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (R). But Dahlstrom, backed by President-elect Trump, then bowed out of the race as the party sought to avoid fissures that were seen as paving the path for Peltola in the midterms.

House Republicans’ campaign arm had targeted the Alaska seat as an “offensive pickup” opportunity and named Dahlstrom to its “Young Guns” list, but its chair praised Dahlstrom for her exit. Begich then picked up Trump’s endorsement.

So although this was a ranked-choice race with an open primary, the GOP made sure that the general was like a conventional race rather than a ranked choice one; it featured a single candidate from each party. The results were that Begich won – this time despite Peltola’s candidacy being supported by about seven times more money than his (probably mostly from out-of-state), and despite the fact that she was endorsed by Murkowski and also had gotten more votes in the initial primary than the two GOP candidates combined.

Or, take the 2022 election of Oakland’s mayor Sheng Thao who won – barely – because of 2nd-place votes, giving her the victory over the person who actually got the most 1st-place votes. Thao ended up being recalled after a year in office, by the way.

I mention that ranked-choice often sows confusion; this article explains some of what I mean:

With a ranked-choice ballot, however, if there are five candidates running for each of those offices, then a voter is supposed to “vote” 30 times, ranking all five candidates for each of the six offices.

This requires a longer, more complicated ballot with more instructions, more pages and more ways to make mistakes. The process takes longer, which means more ballots are left incomplete. Many voters simply don’t have an opinion about who is their third, fourth or fifth choice in many elections. Yet leaving rankings blank creates the possibility of a ballot being excluded from the final results.

Counting ranked-choice ballots must be centralized and can only proceed after all ballots are returned and adjudicated. Initially, only first-preference votes are counted. If a candidate has a majority, he or she wins (and the whole ranked-choice process becomes irrelevant). If not, then the least popular candidate is eliminated, ballots with that candidate first are “adjusted” to move up the second preference to be counted as a first preference, and there is a new round of counting. Any of those ballots that have no second preference are eliminated.

This means that some ballots are counted for the same candidate in every round, while voters who prefer the least popular candidates may be counted for several different candidates as their choices are eliminated. If a voter’s preference is eliminated with no more rankings, then that voter’s ballot is considered “exhausted” and is not included in any further counting or in the final results.

Lastly, I believe it’s telling that it’s mainly the left pushing for ranked-choice voting:

Progressive groups and their donors spent more than $100 million last year pushing ranked-choice voting …

Mahdawi has supported terrorism and lied about the Palestinian deaths he’s witnessed

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “miguel cervantes.”]

The Trump administration’s push to deport anti-Israel Columbia student activist leader Mohsen Mahdawi (my previous post on him can be found here) has become a cause celebre. But as one might suspect, much of the story – the narrative, as it were – that Mahdawi tells about himself is either a lie or a misleading distortion.

For example, he describes the deaths of loved ones at Israeli hands without mentioning any of the following details (the link is to the “X” page of David Collier):

It took me two days to find holes in the story. …

Mohsen says he was 10 when his best friend was shot in front of him in the al-Fara refugee camp. I checked the fatalities database for the time period. When he was 10 years old NO CHILDREN AT ALL were killed at his camp.
Something is wrong. …

But we shouldn’t be surprised. Only four people died in total during those four years in his camp. If only four people died over the course of four years, how did Mohsen scrape seven bodies off the wall in one night?

Did nobody bother to check any of his stories?

The answer is “no.” The stories are too good to fact-check by the MSM. However, so many of these stories – just like race hoaxes such as the one perpetrated by Jussie Smollett – are lies that rigorous fact-checking should be the first thing the MSM does when writing a story. Of course, it’s not. In my previous post on Mahdawi I mention the extraordinary lack of curiosity and research on the part of the MSM in writing this story; their failings were quite obvious.

More:

Then there is Mohsen’s family. He posted an image of seven people to his social media, mourning all of their deaths. I identified four. All were terrorists killed while fighting the IDF. His entire family appears to be terrorists – or terrorist supporters. …

… Mohsen claimed in an IG post that his two cousins were ‘assassinated’ – saying “an Israeli sniper unjustly shot the two brothers in the head.” In fact they died because they shot at Israeli soldiers and the soldiers shot back. …

In his Facebook group [from 2012] Mohsen promotes a show that ‘highlights the sacrifices of our martyred heroes, prisoners, and wounded.’ The show basically involves Mohsen’s mother going to the homes of the worst terrorist prisoners. He posts loads of these videos glorifying terrorists. …

Mohsen Mahdawi posted and promoted this in his own Facebook group: The Khaybar chant – an explicit call for a massacre of Jews, Vermont US Senator Peter Welch defended Mohsen as standing up against antisemitism. Mohsen’s own behavior strongly suggests otherwise. …

There’s no excusing any of this. The man who can do no wrong lied and promoted deadly terrorists and genocidal antisemitic chants. The media is failing us. The politicians are failing us. The truth is staring at us in the face but nobody wants to see it.

Actually, quite a few people see it – and have seen it for many many decades. It became crystal clear at the turn of the century with the al Durah hoax, although that was not its beginning. I’ve been writing about this sort of thing for the entire time I’ve been blogging. But things have only gotten worse, especially with the Democrats and the universities.

The man whose “X” feed I took those quotes from, David Collier, has also published this article on the subject at his website. Please read it for more details. And here is David Collier’s background. His name rang a bell with me, and sure enough, he was the person who just a couple of weeks ago exposed the BBC as creating a pro-Palestinian propaganda film that was subsequently pulled:

The BBC was recently caught publishing a documentary that secretly relied upon, and paid, the family of a senior Hamas official.

In the public outrage that followed, BBC executives were forced to take the documentary offline.

The documentary, titled “Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone,” allegedly cost over half a million dollars to make, and yet the Hamas ties to the production were exposed in less than twelve hours of the show airing. …

The unique aspect of the “BBC-gate” documentary saga was that it exposed BBC anti-Israel bias across the entire news-delivery supply chain. Once it left the hands of Hamas propaganda agents in Gaza, across the fixers and journalists, all the way to the BBC executives who rubbed their hands with glee and dreamed of global awards, the failure was complete, catastrophic and inexcusable. Not one part of the system did its job properly.

The MSM and the Democrats have decided to defend the Palestinian side, and part of doing so is to not question the stories of those like Mahdawi. Another benefit of spreading his story is to make him seem like an innocent victim of a marauding and tyrannical Trump administration, and promoting that narrative about Trump is one of their main goals.